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
    The Standard Definition of Fallacies (SDF) is inadequate ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The Standard Definition of Fallacies (SDF) is inadequate to cover the variety of core fallacies.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hamblin (1970) showed that SDF fails to classify many informal fallacies like ad hominem, which involve no inference at all and thus cannot be evaluated by validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Walton's dialectical theory demonstrates that fallacies are violations of procedural dialogue rules, not logical form, making deductive invalidity the wrong diagnostic criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A definition adequate to 'core' fallacies must account for argumentative context, but SDF abstracts away from context entirely, rendering it structurally incapable of covering the full set.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Woods and Walton established that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is neither deductively invalid in form nor merely appearing valid, yet is paradigmatically a core fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a proposed definition systematically misclassifies paradigm cases that anchor the concept, the definition is inadequate by the standard criterion of reflective equilibrium used in conceptual analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.SDF defines fallacies in terms of deductive invalidity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.SDF is too narrow because it excludes begging the question, which is deductively valid yet still a fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.SDF is too wide because it condemns good non-deductive arguments as fallacies merely because they are deductively invalid and satisfy the appearance condition.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A definition adequate to 'core' fallacies must account for argumentative context...Hamblin (1970) showed that SDF fails to classify many informal fallacies like ad...If a proposed definition systematically misclassifies paradigm cases that anchor...SDF defines fallacies in terms of deductive invalidity.
    +4 moreShow less
    SDF is too narrow because it excludes begging the question, which is deductively...SDF is too wide because it condemns good non-deductive arguments as fallacies me...Walton's dialectical theory demonstrates that fallacies are violations of proced...Woods and Walton established that the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is neith...

    Similar

    The standard definition of fallacies (SDF) is inadequate as a complete...86%The standard definition of fallacies (SDF) is not as widely accepted a...85%Aristotle treated fallacies in the Prior Analytics and the Rhetoric (I...81%The Pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies rejects all three necessa...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fallacies
    View source passageHide passage
    SDF may be seen as closely tied to the logical approach to fallacies—the fault in arguments it singles out is their deductive invalidity. But this conception of fallacies turns out to be inadequate to cover the variety of the core fallacies in two ways: it is too narrow because it excludes begging the question which is not invalid, and it is too wide because it condemns good but non-deductive arguments as fallacies (given that they also satisfy the appearance condition) because they are invalid.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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