The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Informal Logic Pub Date : 2021-12-07 DOI:10.22329/il.v41i4.6233

Taeda Tomic

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since a clear account of the fallacy of false disjunctive syllogism is missing in the literature, the fallacy is defined and its three types are differentiated after some preliminaries. Section 4 further elaborates the differentia specifica for each of the three types by analyzing relevant argument criticism of each, as well as the related profiles of dialogue. After defining false disjunctive syllogisms, it becomes possible to distinguish between a false dilemma and a false disjunctive syllogism: section 5 analyzes their similarities (which explains why the fallacies are often confused with one another) and section 6 explains their differences.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

假困境与假析取三段论的区别

由于文献中对假析取三段论谬误缺乏明确的论述，本文对假析取三段论谬误进行了界定，并对其三种类型进行了初步的区分。第4节通过分析每种类型的相关论点批评以及对话的相关概况，进一步阐述了每种类型的具体区别。在定义了假析取三段论之后，就可以区分假两难和假析取三段论了:第5节分析了它们的相似之处(这解释了为什么谬误经常相互混淆)，第6节解释了它们的不同之处。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.

期刊最新文献

Do We Really Not Know What Toulmin’s Analytic Arguments Are? Fact and Opinion Case Study of Contextual and Emotional Modulation of Source-case Selection in Analogical Arguments Are Fallacies Frequent ? Notice of Books Received