Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies

30 Pages Posted: 6 Mar 2011

Date Written: March 3, 2011

Abstract

This paper argues that some traditional fallacies should be considered as reasonable arguments when used as part of a properly conducted dialog. It is shown that argumentation schemes, formal dialog models, and profiles of dialog are useful tools for studying properties of defeasible reasoning and fallacies. It is explained how defeasible reasoning of the most common sort can deteriorate into fallacious argumentation in some instances. Conditions are formulated that can be used as normative tools to judge whether a given defeasible argument is fallacious or not. It is shown that three leading violations of proper dialog standards for defeasible reasoning necessary to see how fallacies work are: (a) improper failure to retract a commitment, (b) failure of openness to defeat, and (c) illicit reversal of burden of proof.

Keywords: argumentation, informal fallacies, argumentation schemes, heuristics, errors

Suggested Citation

Walton, Douglas, Defeasible Reasoning and Informal Fallacies (March 3, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1775825 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1775825

Douglas Walton (Contact Author)

University of Windsor ( email )

401 Sunset Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4
Canada

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
243
Abstract Views
1,675
Rank
228,791
PlumX Metrics