Page 104 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 104
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 3–4
c) Argumentum ad Hitlerum
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
“Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin
for “reduction to Hitler” or “argument to Hitler,” respectively) is an ad
hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It
is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on
something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typi-
cally transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
Example: Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong.
As already mentioned in the ‘definition’ this is an ad Hominem ar-
gument (or an Ad Misericordiam one), so why create a new one? Maybe
because it could also be interpreted as Ignoratio Elenchi and Secundum
Quid, even as Ad Populum or/and Ad Baculum. And in order to avoid
ambiguity, another fallacy is created? Which actually increases the (possi-
bility of) ambiguity as far as criteria and definitions are concerned. But on
the other hand, new and separate labels (new fallacies) can facilitate the
choice of consumers of fallacies and fallacy enthusiasts.
Back to Austin and Hamblin
(via pragma-dialectics and Douglas Walton)
There is much more theoretical rigour as to what fallacies are and how to
detect them in academic circles, among argumentation scholars. We will
briefly mention two perspectives on fallacies: pragma-dialectics (probably
the most influential school of argumentation), and Douglas Walton’s ap-
proach to fallacies.
Pragma-dialectics: violation of rules for critical discussion
From the very start, from the very first book by van Eemeren and
Grootendorst (1984: p. 177), fallacies would be defined as “violations of
the code of conduct for rational discussants”. What does that mean? Here
is a quote from Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies (Eemeren
and Grootendorst, 1992: p. 104):
We present an ideal model in which the rules for reasonable argumenta-
tive discourse are specified as rules for the performance of speech acts in
a critical discussion aimed at resolving a dispute. For each stage of the dis-
cussion, the rules indicate when participants intending to resolve a dis-
pute are entitled, or indeed obliged, to carry out a particular move. They
102
c) Argumentum ad Hitlerum
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
“Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin
for “reduction to Hitler” or “argument to Hitler,” respectively) is an ad
hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It
is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on
something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typi-
cally transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.
Example: Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong.
As already mentioned in the ‘definition’ this is an ad Hominem ar-
gument (or an Ad Misericordiam one), so why create a new one? Maybe
because it could also be interpreted as Ignoratio Elenchi and Secundum
Quid, even as Ad Populum or/and Ad Baculum. And in order to avoid
ambiguity, another fallacy is created? Which actually increases the (possi-
bility of) ambiguity as far as criteria and definitions are concerned. But on
the other hand, new and separate labels (new fallacies) can facilitate the
choice of consumers of fallacies and fallacy enthusiasts.
Back to Austin and Hamblin
(via pragma-dialectics and Douglas Walton)
There is much more theoretical rigour as to what fallacies are and how to
detect them in academic circles, among argumentation scholars. We will
briefly mention two perspectives on fallacies: pragma-dialectics (probably
the most influential school of argumentation), and Douglas Walton’s ap-
proach to fallacies.
Pragma-dialectics: violation of rules for critical discussion
From the very start, from the very first book by van Eemeren and
Grootendorst (1984: p. 177), fallacies would be defined as “violations of
the code of conduct for rational discussants”. What does that mean? Here
is a quote from Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies (Eemeren
and Grootendorst, 1992: p. 104):
We present an ideal model in which the rules for reasonable argumenta-
tive discourse are specified as rules for the performance of speech acts in
a critical discussion aimed at resolving a dispute. For each stage of the dis-
cussion, the rules indicate when participants intending to resolve a dis-
pute are entitled, or indeed obliged, to carry out a particular move. They
102
