Something Called the ‘False Dilemma Fallacy’ (FDF): A Return to Formalization Just This Time

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Informal Logic Pub Date : 2023-06-15 DOI:10.22329/il.v43i2.7171

Rory J. Conces, Matthias J. Walters

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This work is a revision of the False Dilemma Fallacy (FDF). The formalized model (FM)of this fallacy has as its centerpiece a valid disjunctive syllogism, but the disjunctive premise is presumed to be false, thus making the argument unsound. Our revised model (FM2.0) focuses on the formal structure by comparing the given vs. the real argument, which is unsound because of its invalidity. This approach we believe is more pedagogically useful and a better explanation of the fallacious nature of the FDF. It extends the identity of “formal fallacy” to the FDF. The abstract is formatted in two columns. The English abstract goes on this side.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

所谓的“虚假两难谬误”(FDF):只是这次回归形式化

这项工作是对错误困境谬误（FDF）的修订。这种谬论的形式化模型（FM）以有效的析取三段论为核心，但析取前提被认为是错误的，因此使论点不合理。我们的修订模型（FM2.0）通过比较给定论点与实际论点来关注形式结构，由于其无效性，这是不健全的。我们认为这种方法在教学上更有用，更好地解释了FDF的谬误本质。它将“形式谬误”的身份扩展到FDF。摘要的格式分为两列。英文摘要就在这一边。

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