谬论：从密涅瓦的猫头鹰到阿雷特的云雀

IF 1 2区文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Argumentation Pub Date : 2023-02-12 DOI:10.1007/s10503-023-09595-9

Andrew Aberdein

{"title":"谬论：从密涅瓦的猫头鹰到阿雷特的云雀","authors":"Andrew Aberdein","doi":"10.1007/s10503-023-09595-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The fallacy fallacy is either the misdiagnosis of fallacy or the supposition that the conclusion of a fallacy must be a falsehood. This paper explores the relevance of these and related errors of reasoning for the appraisal of arguments, especially within virtue theories of argumentation. In particular, the fallacy fallacy exemplifies the Owl of Minerva problem, whereby tools devised to understand a norm make possible new ways of violating the norm. Fallacies are such tools and so are vices. Hence a similar problem arises with argumentative vices. Fortunately, both instances of the problem have a common remedy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fallacy Fallacy: From the Owl of Minerva to the Lark of Arete\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Aberdein\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10503-023-09595-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The fallacy fallacy is either the misdiagnosis of fallacy or the supposition that the conclusion of a fallacy must be a falsehood. This paper explores the relevance of these and related errors of reasoning for the appraisal of arguments, especially within virtue theories of argumentation. In particular, the fallacy fallacy exemplifies the Owl of Minerva problem, whereby tools devised to understand a norm make possible new ways of violating the norm. Fallacies are such tools and so are vices. Hence a similar problem arises with argumentative vices. Fortunately, both instances of the problem have a common remedy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-023-09595-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-023-09595-9","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

摘要

谬误谬误要么是对谬误的误解，要么是认为谬误的结论一定是谬误的假设。本文探讨了这些推理错误和相关推理错误对论证评价的相关性，特别是在论证的美德理论中。特别是，谬论是Minerva猫头鹰问题的例证，通过该问题，为理解规范而设计的工具使违反规范的新方法成为可能。谬论就是这样的工具，罪恶也是如此。因此，爱争论的恶习也出现了类似的问题。幸运的是，这两个问题都有共同的解决方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

The Fallacy Fallacy: From the Owl of Minerva to the Lark of Arete

The fallacy fallacy is either the misdiagnosis of fallacy or the supposition that the conclusion of a fallacy must be a falsehood. This paper explores the relevance of these and related errors of reasoning for the appraisal of arguments, especially within virtue theories of argumentation. In particular, the fallacy fallacy exemplifies the Owl of Minerva problem, whereby tools devised to understand a norm make possible new ways of violating the norm. Fallacies are such tools and so are vices. Hence a similar problem arises with argumentative vices. Fortunately, both instances of the problem have a common remedy.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Argumentation Multiple-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

16.70%

发文量

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

Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue Cambridge University Press, 263 pp The Making of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-dialectical View Negotiation as Practical Argumentation A Particularist Approach to Arguments by Analogy The Dialectical Principle of Charity: A Procedure for a Critical Discussion