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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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