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
    The epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Truth & Knowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, but logical fallacies must also be explicable in terms of epistemic seriousness.

    Truth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The epistemic account holds that the function of arguments is epistemic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Anything that counts as a fallacy must be an epistemic fault — a breaking of a rule of epistemic justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Logical faults are also epistemic faults.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formal validity is a purely structural property of arguments, defined independently of any epistemic agent or justificatory context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A fallacy like affirming the consequent is erroneous even in cases where the conclusion happens to be epistemically well-supported by independent evidence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the wrongness of logical fallacies is fully explicable in syntactic terms without invoking epistemic seriousness as a necessary condition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin's 'Fallacies' (1970) demonstrated that attempts to unify fallacy theory under a single normative framework consistently fail to capture the heterogeneity of fallacious reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Epistemic justification norms are agent-relative and context-sensitive, while logical invalidity is agent-neutral and context-invariant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Reducing the wrongness of logical fallacies to epistemic fault conflates two distinct normative domains, obscuring rather than illuminating why formal errors constitute failures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Truth & Knowledge

    Related

    A fallacy like affirming the consequent is erroneous even in cases where the con...Anything that counts as a fallacy must be an epistemic fault — a breaking of a r...Epistemic justification norms are agent-relative and context-sensitive, while lo...Formal validity is a purely structural property of arguments, defined independen...
    +5 moreShow less
    Hamblin's 'Fallacies' (1970) demonstrated that attempts to unify fallacy theory ...Logical faults are also epistemic faults.Reducing the wrongness of logical fallacies to epistemic fault conflates two dis...The epistemic account holds that the function of arguments is epistemic.Therefore, the wrongness of logical fallacies is fully explicable in syntactic t...

    Similar

    On the epistemic approach to fallacies, an argument is non-serious and...88%Semi-logical fallacies are also logical fallacies, but their detection...86%The epistemic approach allows for fallacies (and good arguments) by no...85%The informal logic approach to fallacies is broader and more suitable ...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fallacies
    View source passageHide passage
    Biro and Siegel’s epistemic account of fallacies is distinguishable in at least three ways. First, it insists that the function of arguments is epistemic, and therefore anything that counts as a fallacy must be an epistemic fault, a breaking of a rule of epistemic justification. But since logical faults are also epistemic faults, the epistemic approach to fallacies will include logical fallacies, although these must also be explicable in terms of epistemic seriousness. Second, since the epistemo
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit