Evidentiary Convincing and Evidentiary Fallacies

IF 1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Argumentation Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1007/s10503-024-09630-3
Eugen Octav Popa, Alexandru I. Cârlan
{"title":"Evidentiary Convincing and Evidentiary Fallacies","authors":"Eugen Octav Popa,&nbsp;Alexandru I. Cârlan","doi":"10.1007/s10503-024-09630-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A convincing argument can change a discussant’s commitment regarding the acceptability of a claim, but the same effect can be achieved by examining evidence. Observing objects or events that count as evidence for or against the acceptability of a statement can change one’s commitment regarding that statement. If we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through argumentation, can we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through evidence? In this paper, we defend an affirmative answer. We introduce and discuss the conceptual implications of <i>evidentiary fallacies</i> as fallacies committed when evidence is fabricated or suppressed during an attempt to resolve disagreement using proof. We then apply the notion of evidentiary fallacy to two real-life examples of mis-executed evidentiary procedures. We conclude that the notion of evidentiary fallacy can contribute to a more comprehensive fallacy theory and can foster new and broadly applicable critical skills.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"38 3","pages":"349 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-024-09630-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-024-09630-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A convincing argument can change a discussant’s commitment regarding the acceptability of a claim, but the same effect can be achieved by examining evidence. Observing objects or events that count as evidence for or against the acceptability of a statement can change one’s commitment regarding that statement. If we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through argumentation, can we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through evidence? In this paper, we defend an affirmative answer. We introduce and discuss the conceptual implications of evidentiary fallacies as fallacies committed when evidence is fabricated or suppressed during an attempt to resolve disagreement using proof. We then apply the notion of evidentiary fallacy to two real-life examples of mis-executed evidentiary procedures. We conclude that the notion of evidentiary fallacy can contribute to a more comprehensive fallacy theory and can foster new and broadly applicable critical skills.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
证据说服力和证据谬误
令人信服的论证可以改变讨论者对某一主张的可接受性的承诺,但审查证据也可以达到同样的效果。观察作为支持或反对某一说法的证据的物体或事件,可以改变一个人对该说法的承诺。如果说在通过论证说服人的领域存在谬误,那么在通过证据说服人的领域是否也存在谬误呢?在本文中,我们将给出肯定的答案。我们介绍并讨论了证据谬误的概念含义,即在试图用证明来解决分歧的过程中捏造或压制证据所犯的谬误。然后,我们将证据谬误的概念应用到两个错误执行证据程序的真实案例中。我们的结论是,证据谬误的概念有助于形成更全面的谬误理论,并能培养新的、广泛适用的批判性技能。
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
Argumentation
Argumentation Multiple-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1.     Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2.     Pose a clear and relevant research question 3.     Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4.     Be sound in methodology and analysis 5.     Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6.     Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English
期刊最新文献
Going Around in Circles Multimodal Argument as Dialogue Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Sara Greco, Ton Van Haaften, Nanon Labrie, Fernando Leal, and Peng Wu. Argumentative Style. A pragma-Dialectical Study of Functional Variety in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2022. 9789027211354 ‘Argumentative Disobedience’ as a Strategy to Confront Hate Speech Wittgenstein and Toulmin’s Model of Argument: The Riddle Explained Away
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1