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
    What unifies Aristotle's fallacies is their dependence on... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    What unifies Aristotle's fallacies is their dependence on the concepts of deduction and proof, not dialogue structure

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & 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.Aristotle's fallacies appear across non-dialectical works such as the Prior Analytics
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Apparent deductions underlie apparent refutations as a structural matter
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Sophistici Elenchi is explicitly framed as a treatise on dialectical refutation, where the interlocutor's concessions constitute the normative standard for validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Aristotle defines a genuine refutation (elenchos) structurally via the questioner-answerer exchange, making dialogue roles constitutive, not incidental, to what counts as a fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A fallacy that deceives no dialectical participant fails Aristotle's own criterion of appearing to refute, which presupposes a dialogical context of appearance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Robin Smith and Jaakko Hintikka have documented that Aristotle's syllogistic in Prior Analytics was itself developed out of interrogative, game-theoretic dialogue procedures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If deduction in Aristotle is genealogically and structurally derivative of dialogue, then grounding fallacies in deduction does not escape grounding them in dialogue structure.
      ?

      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 fallacy that deceives no dialectical participant fails Aristotle's own criteri...Apparent deductions underlie apparent refutations as a structural matterAristotle defines a genuine refutation (elenchos) structurally via the questione...Aristotle's fallacies appear across non-dialectical works such as the Prior Anal...
    +3 moreShow less
    If deduction in Aristotle is genealogically and structurally derivative of dialo...Robin Smith and Jaakko Hintikka have documented that Aristotle's syllogistic in ...The Sophistici Elenchi is explicitly framed as a treatise on dialectical refutat...

    Similar

    Aristotle's fallacies are primarily a catalogue of bad deductions that...83%All fallacies are ultimately attributable to the rhetorical dimension ...82%SDF defines fallacies in terms of deductive invalidity.82%The standard definition of fallacies (SDF) is inadequate as a complete...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: fallacies
    View source passageHide passage
    I have given only the briefest possible explanation of Aristotle’s fallacies. To really understand them a much longer engagement with the original text and the secondary sources is necessary. The second chapter of Hamblin’s (1970) book is a useful introduction to the Sophistical Refutations, and a defence of the dialectical nature of the fallacies. Hamblin thinks that a dialectical framework is indispensable for an understanding of Aristotle’s fallacies and that part of the poverty of contempora
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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