Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Arts and Humanities Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities

Commentary On: Frank Zenkers’S “The Polysemy Of ‘Fallacy’– Or ‘Bias’, For That Matter”, Michel Dufour May 2016

Commentary On: Frank Zenkers’S “The Polysemy Of ‘Fallacy’– Or ‘Bias’, For That Matter”, Michel Dufour

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


Commentary On Enthymemes And Fallacy Gaps: Commentary On Paglieri, Scott F. Aikin May 2016

Commentary On Enthymemes And Fallacy Gaps: Commentary On Paglieri, Scott F. Aikin

OSSA Conference Archive

No abstract provided.


On The Difference Between Fallacy And Sophism, Michel Dufour May 2016

On The Difference Between Fallacy And Sophism, Michel Dufour

OSSA Conference Archive

The translation into French of the English word “fallacy” opens a discussion on the difference between fallacy and sophism in English. The two words are sometimes synonyms, but a difference is sometimes made on the ground that a sophism is deliberate and a fallacy is non-deliberate. In a second part of the paper this distinctive criterion is taken seriously to discuss the relative frequency of sophisms and of fallacies for a typical kind of fallacious argument. I claim that this aspect should be taken into account by a theory of fallacious argument.


The Polysemy Of ‘Fallacy’—Or ‘Bias’, For That Matter, Frank Zenker May 2016

The Polysemy Of ‘Fallacy’—Or ‘Bias’, For That Matter, Frank Zenker

OSSA Conference Archive

Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature (Sect. 3). Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of ‘fallacy’ can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to “carve out” a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian (Sect. 4). Seeking to make these …