Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that All fallacies are ultimately attributable to the rhetorical dimension of argumentation

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal fallacies like affirming the consequent are invalid regardless of rhetorical context or persuasive intent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.John Stuart Mill and medieval logicians identified purely structural errors in inference that precede any rhetorical act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If some fallacies are constituted entirely by logical form, rhetoric cannot be the ultimate explanatory ground of all fallacies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pragma-dialectics conflates the normative violation of a fallacy with its causal origin in strategic speech acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A fallacy can occur in solitary reasoning with no audience, as Descartes demonstrated in his Meditations when cataloguing self-directed errors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What makes an error a fallacy is its epistemic defect, not its rhetorical deployment, so rhetoric is sufficient but not necessary for fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.All derailments of strategic maneuvering are fallacies in the sense that they violate one or more rules for critical discussion
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All fallacies can be viewed as derailments of strategic maneuvering
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Strategic maneuvering is the entry of rhetoric into argumentation discussions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.