DOCSLIB.ORG

Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY [Adams, 1954] E. M. Adams. The Fundamentals ofGeneral Logic. Longmans , Green & Co., New York, 1954. [Allport, 1958] Gordon W. Allport. The Nature ofPrejudice. Doubleday An­ chor Books, Garden City, New York" 1958. [Atherton, 1993] Catherine Atherton. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. [Atlas, 1989] Jay David Atlas. Philosophy Without Ambiguity: A Logico­ Linguistic Essay. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. [Barth and Krabbe, 1982] E. M. Barth and E. C. W. Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue. De Gruyter, New York, 1982. [Barth and Martens, 1977] E. M. Barth and J. L. Martens. Argumentum Ad Hominem : From chaos to formal dialectic. Logique et Analyse, 77-78:76­ 96, 1977. [Beardsley, 1950] Monroe C. Beardsley. Practical Logic. Prentice-Hall, New York,1950. [Beardsley, 1956] Monroe C. Beardsley. Thinking Straight. Prentice-Hall, En­ glewood Cliffs, 1956. [Bentham, 1969] Jeremy Bentham. The book of fallacies (1824) . In Mary P. Mack, editor, A Bentham Reader, pages 331-358. Pegasus, New York, 1969. [Bertin, 1995] Oliver Bertin . Poor communication cited in ship mishaps . The Globe and Mail, B2, 18 October 1995. [Black, 1946] Max Black. Critical Thinking . Prentice-Hall, New York, 1946. [Blair, 1988] J. Anthony Blair. What is bias? In Trudy Govier, editor, Selected Issues in Logic and Communication, pages 93-103. Wadsworth , Belmont, 1988. [Brinton, 1986] Alan Brinton. Ethotic argument. History ofPhilosophy Quar­ terly, 3:245-257, 1986. [Broad and Wade, 1982] William Broad and Nicholas Wade. Betrayers ofthe Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls ofScience. Simon & Schuster, New York,1982. 281 282 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY [Burtt, 1931] Edwin Arthur Burtt. Principles and Problems ofRight Thinking,. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1931. [Campbell, 1974] Stephen K. Campbell. Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1974. [Castell, 1935] Alburey Castell. A College Logic. The Macmillan Co., New York,1935. [Cederblom and Paulsen, 1982] Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen. Crit­ ical Reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1982. [Copi and Burgess-Jackson, 1992] Irving M. Copi and Keith Burgess-Jackson. Informal Logic. Macmillan, New York, 2nd edition, 1992. [Copi and Cohen, 1990] Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. Macmillan, New York, 8th edition, 1990. [Creighton,1904] James E. Creighton. An Introductory Logic. Macmillan, London, 1904. [Cresswell, 1973] M.1. Cresswell. Logics and Languages. Methuen, London, 1973. [Cushing, 1994] Steven Cushing. Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1994. [Darner, 1980] T. Edward Darner. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1980. Second edition, 1987. [Delvlorgan, 1847] Augustus DeMorgan. Formal Logic. Taylor and Walton, London , 1847. [Donohue, 1978] William A. Donohue. An empirical framework for exam­ ining negotiation processes and outcomes. Communication Monographs, 45:247-257,1978. [Donohue, 1981] William A. Donohue. Development of a model of rule use in negotiation interaction. Communication Monographs, 48: 106-120, 1981. [Edlow, 1977] Robert Blair Edlow. Galen on Language and Ambiguity. E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1977. [Eisenberg, 1984] Eric M. Eisenberg. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51:227-242,1984. [Engel, 1982] S. Morris Engel. With Good Reason: An Introduction to Infor­ mal Fallacies. St. Martin's Press, New York, 2nd edition, 1982. [Engel,1989] S. Morris Engel. The many faces of amphiboly. Metaphiloso­ phy, 20:347-355, 1989. [Fearnside and Holther, 1959] W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther. Fallacy: The Counterfeit ofArgument. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1959. BIBLIOGRAPHY 283 [Fischer, 1970] David Hackett Fischer. Historians ' Fallacies. Harper & Row, New York, 1970. [Flowers et al., 1982] Margot Flowers, Rod McGuire, and Lawrence Birn­ baum. Adversary arguments and the logic of personal attacks, pages 275­ 294. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982. [Fraunce, 1588] Abraham Fraunce. The Lawier'sLogike. William Howe, Lon­ don, 1588. [Freeman, 1988] James B. Freeman . Thinking Logically. Prentice-Hall, En­ glewood Cliffs, 1988. [Gair, 1992] Bain Gair. Pizza promotions often pie-in-the-sky: Two-for-one offers not what they seem. Winnipeg Free Press, pages 1-2, 1992. [Gibson , 1908J W. R. Boyce Gibson. The Problem of Logic. Adam Black, London, 1908. [Gillon, 1990] Brendan S. Gillon . Ambiguity, generality and indeterminacy: Tests and definitions. Synthese , 85:391--416, 1990. [Glare, 1982] P. G. W. Glare, editor. Oxford Latin Dictionary. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982. [Graham, 19771 Michael H. Graham. Impeaching the professional expert wit­ ness by a showing of financial interest. Indiana Law Journal, 53:35-53, 1977. [Grice, 1975] H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, editors, The Logic ofGrammar, pages 64-75. Dickenson Publishing Co., Encino, California, 1975. [Hamblin , 1970] Charles L. Hamblin . Fallacies. Methuen, London, 1970. Reprinted by Vale Press, Newport News, Virginia, 1986. [Hamblin, 1971] Charles L. Hamblin . Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37:130-155,1971. [Hansen, 1990] Hans V. Hansen. An informal logic bibliography,. Informal Logic , 12:155-184, 1990. [Hastings, 1962] Arthur Hastings. A Reformulation ofthe Modes ofReason ing in Argumentation. PhD thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1962. [Henry W. Johnstone, 1981l Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. Towards an ethics of rhetoric. Communication, 6:305-314, 1981. [Hibben, 1906] John Grier Hibben . Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906. [Hinman, 1982J Lawrence M. Hinman . The case for ad hominem arguments . Australasian Journal ofPhilosophy, 60:338-345, 1982. 284 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY [Hintikka, 1959] Jaakko Hintikka. Aristotle and the ambiguity of ambiguity. Inquiry, 2:137-151,1959. [Hintikka, 1971] Jaakko Hintikka. Different kinds of equivocation in aristotle. Journal ofthe History ofPhilosophy, 9:368-372, 1971. [Hintikka, 1981] Jaakko Hintikka. The logic of information-seeking dia­ logues : A model. In Werner Becker and Wilhelm K. Essler, editors, Konzepte der Dialektik, pages 212-231. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1981. [Huby, 1994] Pamela Huby. Aristotle. In Douglas Walton and Alan Brinton, editors, Historical Foundations ofInformal Logic. To appear, 1994. [Hughes and Cresswell, 1968] G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. An Introduc­ tion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London, 1968. [Hurley, 1991] Patrick J. Hurley. Logic. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 4th edition, 1991. [Jacobs and Jackson, 1983] Scott Jacobs and Sally Jackson. Speech act struc­ ture in conversation. In Robert T.Craig and Karen Tracy, editors , Conversa­ tional Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy, pages 47-66. Sage, Bev­ erly Hills, 1983. [James, 1907] William James. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways ofThinking . Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1907. [Jevons, 1883] W. Stanley Jevons. The Elements ofLogic. Sheldon and Co., New York, 1883. [Johnson and Blair, 1983] Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. Logical Self-Defense. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, 1983. [Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988] Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin. The Abuse ofCausistry. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988. [Joseph, 1916] H. W. B. Joseph . An Introduction to Logic. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd edition, 1916. [Keynes, 1887] John Neville Keynes. Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic. Macmillan and Co., London, 1887. [Kilgore, 1968] William J. Kilgore. An Introductory Logic. Holt, Rinehart and Winston , New York, 1968. [Knapp, 1981] Mark L. Knapp. Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5:270-285, 1981. [Krabbe and Walton, 1993] Erik C. W. Krabbe and Douglas Walton. It's all very well for you to talk! Informal Logic, 15:79-91,1993. [Krabbe, 1990] Erik C. W. Krabbe. Inconsistent commitment and commitment to inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 12:33-42, 1990. BIBLIOGRAPHY 285 [Kreyche, 196 I] Robert1. Kreyche . Logicfor Undergraduates. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961. [Latta and MacBeath, 1956] Robert Latta and Alexander MacBeath. The Ele­ ments ofLogic. Macmillan & Co., London, 1956. [Lepenies, 1992] Wolf Lepenies. Sombre mood of france 's darkest years. The Times Higher, page 14, 1992. [Little et al., 1955] Winston W.Little, W. Harold Wilson, and W. Edgar Moore. Applied Logic. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1955. [Lutz, 1989] William Lutz. Doublespeak. Harper & Row, New York, 1989. [Mackenzie, 1981] 1. D. Mackenzie. The dialectics of logic . Logique et Anal­ yse, 94:159-177, 1981. [Mackenzie, 1988] 1. D. Mackenzie. Distinguo: The response to equivocation. Argumentation, 2:465-482, 1988. [Mackie, 1967] J. L. Mackie. Fallacies. In Paul Edwards, editor, Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. 1967. [Manicas and Kruger, 1968] Peter T. Manicas and Arthur N. Kruger. Essen­ tials ofLogic. American Book Co., New York, 1968. [Mellone, 1913] Sydney Herbert Mellone.An Introductory Text-Book ofLogic. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1913. [Michalos, 1970] Alex C. Michalos. Improving Your Reasoning. Prentice­ Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970. [Mill, 1970] John Stuart Mill . A System ofLogic. Longmans, London, 1970. First published in 1843. [Moore, 1965] G. E. Moore. Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. [Parker and Veatch, 1959] Francis H.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Logic Formal & Informal Fallacy Types of 6 Fallacies
    9/17/2021 Western Logic Formal & Informal Fallacy Types of 6 Fallacies- Examrace Examrace Western Logic Formal & Informal Fallacy Types of 6 Fallacies Get unlimited access to the best preparation resource for competitive exams : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of your exam. Western Logic - Formal & Informal Fallacy: Types of 6 Fallacies (Philosophy) Fallacy When an argument fails to support its conclusion, that argument is termed as fallacious in nature. A fallacious argument is hence an erroneous argument. In other words, any error or mistake in an argument leads to a fallacy. So, the definition of fallacy is any argument which although seems correct but has an error committed in its reasoning. Hence, a fallacy is an error; a fallacious argument is an argument which has erroneous reasoning. In the words of Frege, the analytical philosopher, “it is a logician՚s task to identify the pitfalls in language.” Hence, logicians are concerned with the task of identifying fallacious arguments in logic which are also called as incorrect or invalid arguments. There are numerous fallacies but they are classified under two main heads; Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies Formal Fallacies Formal fallacies are those mistakes or errors which occur in the form of the argument. In other words, formal fallacies concern themselves with the form or the structure of the argument. Formal fallacies are present when there is a structural error in a deductive argument. It is important to note that formal fallacies always occur in a deductive argument. There are of six types; Fallacy of four terms: A valid syllogism must contain three terms, each of which should be used in the same sense throughout; else it is a fallacy of four terms.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER XXX. of Fallacies. Section 827. After Examining the Conditions on Which Correct Thoughts Depend, It Is Expedient to Clas
    CHAPTER XXX. Of Fallacies. Section 827. After examining the conditions on which correct thoughts depend, it is expedient to classify some of the most familiar forms of error. It is by the treatment of the Fallacies that logic chiefly vindicates its claim to be considered a practical rather than a speculative science. To explain and give a name to fallacies is like setting up so many sign-posts on the various turns which it is possible to take off the road of truth. Section 828. By a fallacy is meant a piece of reasoning which appears to establish a conclusion without really doing so. The term applies both to the legitimate deduction of a conclusion from false premisses and to the illegitimate deduction of a conclusion from any premisses. There are errors incidental to conception and judgement, which might well be brought under the name; but the fallacies with which we shall concern ourselves are confined to errors connected with inference. Section 829. When any inference leads to a false conclusion, the error may have arisen either in the thought itself or in the signs by which the thought is conveyed. The main sources of fallacy then are confined to two-- (1) thought, (2) language. Section 830. This is the basis of Aristotle's division of fallacies, which has not yet been superseded. Fallacies, according to him, are either in the language or outside of it. Outside of language there is no source of error but thought. For things themselves do not deceive us, but error arises owing to a misinterpretation of things by the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Proving Propositional Tautologies in a Natural Dialogue
    Fundamenta Informaticae xxx (2013) 1–16 1 DOI 10.3233/FI-2013-xx IOS Press Proving Propositional Tautologies in a Natural Dialogue Olena Yaskorska Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Katarzyna Budzynska Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland Magdalena Kacprzak Department of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Bialystok, Poland Abstract. The paper proposes a dialogue system LND which brings together and unifies two tradi- tions in studying dialogue as a game: the dialogical logic introduced by Lorenzen; and persuasion dialogue games as specified by Prakken. The first approach allows the representation of formal di- alogues in which the validity of argument is the topic discussed. The second tradition has focused on natural dialogues examining, e.g., informal fallacies typical in real-life communication. Our goal is to unite these two approaches in order to allow communicating agents to benefit from the advan- tages of both, i.e., to equip them with the ability not only to persuade each other about facts, but also to prove that a formula used in an argument is a classical propositional tautology. To this end, we propose a new description of the dialogical logic which meets the requirements of Prakken’s generic specification for natural dialogues, and we introduce rules allowing to embed a formal dialogue in a natural one. We also show the correspondence result between the original and the new version of the dialogical logic, i.e., we show that a winning strategy for a proponent in the original version of the dialogical logic means a winning strategy for a proponent in the new version, and conversely.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies by Stephen Downes Is Licensed Under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License
    Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies Stephen Downes This site is licensed under Creative Commons By-NC-SA Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies by Stephen Downes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. Based on a work at www.fallacies.ca. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.fallacies.ca/copyrite.htm. This license also applies to full-text downloads from the site. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 How To Use This Guide ............................................................................................................................ 4 Fallacies of Distraction ........................................................................................................................... 44 Logical Operators............................................................................................................................... 45 Proposition ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Truth ................................................................................................................................................. 47 Conjunction ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Truth Table .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 334 CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES a Deductive Fallacy Is
    CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES A deductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact that conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. An inductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument is made more probable by its relationship with the premises of the argument, when in fact it is not. We will cover two kinds of fallacies: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. An argument commits a formal fallacy if it has an invalid argument form. An argument commits an informal fallacy when it has a valid argument form but derives from unacceptable premises. A. Fallacies with Invalid Argument Forms Consider the following arguments: (1) All Europeans are racist because most Europeans believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans and all people who believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans are racist. (2) Since no dogs are cats and no cats are rats, it follows that no dogs are rats. (3) If today is Thursday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. But, today is not Thursday. Therefore, I'm not a monkey's uncle. (4) Some rich people are not elitist because some elitists are not rich. 334 These arguments have the following argument forms: (1) Some X are Y All Y are Z All X are Z. (2) No X are Y No Y are Z No X are Z (3) If P then Q not-P not-Q (4) Some E are not R Some R are not E Each of these argument forms is deductively invalid, and any actual argument with such a form would be fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
    Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • Better Thinking and Reasoning Chapter 11 Test Answer
    Name ________________________________ Better Thinking and Reasoning Chapter 11 Test Page 1 Answer each question. 1. Define formal fallacy. an error in the form of reasoning (caught by using a truth table) 2. Define informal fallacy. an error in the relationship of the premises (caught by examining context) 3. When is a valid argument unsound? when it has a false premise 4. What should you always do after you have completed your essay? rewrite it and check it for logical fallacies Classify the informal fallacy in each deductive argument as accident, begging the question, composition, division, or equivocation. 5. Anyone who thrusts a knife into another person should be arrested on the grounds of attempted murder. Since surgeons regularly put knives into their victims, they should be arrested for attempted murder. accident 6. Every atom in this chair is invisible. Therefore, the chair is invisible. composition 7. Please be quiet. You are making far too much noise. begging the question 8. A watermelon is a fruit. Therefore, a small watermelon is a small fruit. equivocation 9. The average American family has 2.4 children. The Smiths are an average American family. Therefore the Smiths have 2.4 children. division Classify each deductive argument as displaying a false dichotomy or having one of these three formal fallacies: affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or improper negation. 10. If your pet is a whale or a dolphin, then your pet is a mammal. Judy is not a mammal. Therefore, Judy is not a whale or not a dolphin. improper negation 11. If Probst won the election, then we would have a Democrat for mayor.
    [Show full text]
  • Tel Aviv University the Lester & Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities the Shirley & Leslie Porter School of Cultural Studies
    Tel Aviv University The Lester & Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities The Shirley & Leslie Porter School of Cultural Studies "Mischief … none knows … but herself": Intrigue and its Relation to the Drive in Late Seventeenth-Century Intrigue Drama Thesis Submitted for the Degree of "Doctor of Philosophy" by Zafra Dan Submitted to the Senate of Tel Aviv University October 2011 This work was carried out under the supervision of Professor Shirley Sharon-Zisser, Tel Aviv University and Professor Karen Alkalay-Gut, Tel Aviv University This thesis, this labor of love, would not have come into the world without the rigorous guidance, the faith and encouragement of my supervisors, Prof. Karen Alkalay-Gut and Prof. Shirley Sharon-Zisser. I am grateful to Prof. Sharon-Zisser for her Virgilian guidance into and through the less known, never to be taken for granted, labyrinths of Freudian and Lacanian thought and theory, as well as for her own ground-breaking contribution to the field of psychoanalysis through psycho-rhetoric. I am grateful to Prof. Alkalay-Gut for her insightful, inspiring yet challenging comments and questions, time and again forcing me to pause and rethink the relationship between the literary aspects of my research and psychoanalysis. I am grateful to both my supervisors for enabling me to explore a unique, newly blazed path to literary form, and rediscover thus late seventeenth-century drama. I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Ruth Ronen for allowing me the use of the manuscript of her book Aesthetics of Anxiety before it was published. Her instructive work has been a source of enlightenment and inspiration in its own right.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacy and Argumentational Vice
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM Fallacy and argumentational vice Andrew Aberdein Florida Institute of Technology, Department of Humanities and Communication Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Aberdein, Andrew, "Fallacy and argumentational vice" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 3. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/3 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fallacy and argumentational vice ANDREW ABERDEIN Department of Humanities and Communication Florida Institute of Technology 150 West University Boulevard, Melbourne Florida 32901-6975, U.S.A. [email protected] ABSTRACT: If good argument is virtuous, then fallacies are vicious. Yet fallacies cannot just be identified with vices, since vices are dispositional properties of agents whereas fallacies are types of argument. Rather, if the normativity of good argumentation is explicable in terms of virtues, we should expect the wrongness of fallacies to be explicable in terms of vices. This approach is defended through case studies of several fallacies, with particular emphasis on the ad hominem. KEYWORDS: ad hominem, argumentational vice, argumentational virtue, fallacy, virtue argumentation 1. A VIRTUE THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION Several authors have recently begun to apply virtue theory to argumentation (for example, Cohen, 2009; Aberdein, 2010; Correia, 2012). This paper explores how this approach copes with the analysis and appraisal of fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument
    Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument • In an inductive argument, the conclusion follows from its premises with some likelihood. • Inductive arguments can be strong, weak, or somewhere between. • Ways to attack an inductive argument: • Introduce additional (contradictory) premises that weaken the argument. • Question the accuracy of the supporting premises. • Identify one (or more) logical fallacies in the argument. What is a Fallacy? • A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument. • Formal fallacy • A ‘formal fallacy’ is an error in the structure of an argument. • Formal fallacies are used to analyze deductive arguments for validity by means of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy • An ‘informal fallacy’ is an error in the content of an argument. • This is the type of fallacy that will be discussed in this presentation. • An argument with a fallacy is said to be ‘fallacious’. Formal and Informal Fallacies • Formal fallacy example: • All humans are mammals. All dogs are mammals. So, all humans are dogs. • This argument has a structural flaw. The premises are true, but they do not logically lead to the conclusion. This would be uncovered by the use of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy example: • All feathers are light. Light is not dark. So, all feathers are not dark. • The structure of this argument is actually correct. The error is in the content (different meanings of the word ‘light’.) It uses a fallacy called ‘Equivocation’. Lists of Fallacies • There are a great number of identified fallacies of the informal type. Following are some good websites that list them and provide definitions and examples.
    [Show full text]