The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life

Argumentation

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 431-456

  Boudry, Maarten ^a   Paglieri, Fabio ^b   Pigliucci, Massimo ^c  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b INSTITUTE OF COGNITIVE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES   (Italy)

^c CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Ad hominem; Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Demarcation; Destructive dilemma; Ecological rationality; Fallacies; Fallacy Fork; Genetic fallacy; Irrationality; Post hoc ergo propter hoc; Pragma dialetics; Probabilistic reasoning; Pseudoscience

Indexed keywords

EID: 84945476933     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-015-9359-1     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Aikin, S.F., and John Casey. 2011. Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25(1): 87–105.
2. Alcock, J. 2011. Back from the future: Parapsychology and the Bem affair. Skeptical Enquirer 35(2): 31–39.
3. Barrett, J.L. 2007. Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it? Religious Compass 1(6): 768–786.
4. Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
5. Bering, J. 2012. The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. New York: WW Norton & Company.
6. Boone, D.N. 2002. The cogent reasoning model of informal fallacies revisited. Informal Logic 22(2): 93–111.
7. Boudry, M., and J. De Smedt. 2011. In mysterious ways: On the modus operandi of supernatural beings. Religion 41(3): 517–535.
8. Boudry, M., S. Blancke, and J. Braeckman. 2010. How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science 15(3): 227–244.
9. Boudry, M., and J. Braeckman. 2011. Immunizing strategies & epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia 39(1): 145–161.
10. Boudry, M., M. Vlerick, and R.T. McKay. 2015. Can evolution get us off the hook? Evaluating the ecological defence of human rationality. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 524–535. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.025.
11. Brinton, A. 1995. The ad hominem. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
12. Carroll, R.T. 2000. Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
13. Copi, I.M., and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to logic. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.
14. Cummings, L. 2002. Reasoning under uncertainty: The role of two informal fallacies in an emerging scientific inquiry. Informal Logic 22(2): 113–136.
15. DiCarlo, C. 2011. How to become a really good pain in the ass: A critical thinker’s guide to asking the right questions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
16. Dennett, D.C. 1996. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
17. Finocchiaro, M.A. 1981. Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly 18(1): 13–22.
18. Fishman, Y. 2009. Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education 18(6): 813–837.
19. Galperin, A., and M.G. Haselton. 2012. Error management and the evolution of cognitive bias. In Social thinking and interpersonal behavior, ed. J.P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, and C. Sedikedes, 45–64. New York: Psychology Press.
20. Gardner, M. 1957. Fads and fallacies in the name of science. New York: Dover Publications.
21. Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Gigerenzer, G., R. Hertwig, and T. Pachur. 2011. Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Grünbaum, A. 1979. Is Freudian psychoanalytic theory pseudo-scientific by Karl Popper’s criterion of demarcation? American Philosophical Quarterly 16(2): 131–141.
24. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006. A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese 152(2): 207–236.
25. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114(3): 704–732.
26. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.
27. Hansen, H.V., and R.C. Pinto. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
28. Hart, D.B. 2013. The experience of god: Being, consciousness, bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press.
29. Hertwig, R., and G. Gigerenzer. 1999. The conjunction fallacy revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 275–306.
30. Jacobs, D.M. 1998. The threat: The secret agenda—What the aliens really want … and how they plan to get it. New York: Simon & Schuster.
31. James, W. 2008. The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Rockville: ARC Manor.
32. Johnson, P.E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
33. Johnson, R.H. 1987. The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory. Argumentation 1(3): 239–253.
34. Jong, J., and A. Visala. 2014. Evolutionary debunking arguments against theism, reconsidered. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76(3): 243–258.
35. Kahane, G. 2010. Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs 45(1): 103–125.
36. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37. Kennedy, J.E. 2003. The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: A summary and hypotheses. The Journal of Parapsychology 67(1): 53–75.
38. Krabbe, Erik C.W. 2009. Book review of Christopher W Tindale, ‘Fallacies and argument appraisal’. Argumentation 23(1): 127–131.
39. Laudan, L. 1982. Commentary: Science at the bar-causes for concern. Science, Technology and Human Values 7(41): 16–19.
40. Lewiński, M. 2011. Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation 25(4): 469–497.
41. Macagno, F. 2013. Strategies of character attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1.
42. Mack, J.E. 1995. Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. London: Simon and Schuster.
43. Massey, G.J. 1981. The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6(1): 489–500.
44. Menuge, A. 2004. Who’s afraid of ID? A survey of the intelligent design movement. In Debating design, ed. W. Dembski, and M. Ruse, 32–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.
46. Mill, J.S.S. 2009. System of logic ratiocinative and inductive. New York: Cosimo.
47. Nieminen, P., and A. Mustonen. 2014. Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach 7(1): 11.
48. Paglieri, F. 2014. Trust, argumentation and technology. Argument and Computation 5(2–3): 119–122.
49. Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry. 2013a. Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia 42(2): 487–502.
50. Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry (eds.). 2013b. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51. Pinto, R.C. 1995. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 302–311. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
52. Ritchie, S.J., W. Richard, and C.C. French. 2012. Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33423.
53. Sagan, C. 1996. The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.
54. Salmon, W.C. 1984. Logic, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
55. Shermer, M. 1997. Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York, NY: Freeman.
56. Sterelny, K. 2006. Escaping illusion? American Scientist 94(5): 461–463.
57. Tindale, C.W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58. Tomic, T. 2013. False dilemma: A systematic exposition. Argumentation 27(4): 347–368. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0.
59. Van Bendegem, J. 2013. Argumentation and pseudoscience. The case for an ethics of argumentation. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem, ed. M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 287–304. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. van Eemeren, F.H. 2001. Fallacies. In Critical concepts in argumentation theory, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 135–164. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
61. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
62. van Eemeren, F.H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20(4): 381–392.
63. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: de Gruyter/Foris.
64. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1987. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.
65. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
66. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 130–144. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
67. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. van Eemeren, F.H., Bart Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F.Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Berlin: Springer.
69. Wagemans, J.H.M. 2011. The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation 25(3): 329–339.
70. Wagenmakers, E.-J., R. Wetzels, D. Borsboom, and H.L.J. Van Der Maas. 2011. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(3): 426–432.
71. Walton, D.N. 1988. Burden of proof. Argumentation 2(2): 233–254.
72. Walton, D.N. 1989. Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 3: 169–184.
73. Walton, D.N. 1992. Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 29(4): 381–387.
74. Walton, D.N. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
75. Walton, D.N. 1999. The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation 13(4): 367–377.
76. Walton, D.N. 2010a. Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme. Journal of Applied Logic 8(1): 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2008.07.002.
77. Walton, D.N. 2010b. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30(2): 159–184.
78. Ward, Andrew C. 2010. The value of genetic fallacies. Informal Logic 30(1): 1–33.
79. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1977. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The Review of Metaphysics 30(4): 569–593.
80. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1982. Argument: The logic of the fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
81. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1989. Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin-Dordrecht-Providence: de Gruyter/Foris.
82. Woods, J. 2004. The death of argument. Fallacies in agent based reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
83. Woods, J. 2013. Errors of reasoning. Naturalizing the logic of inference. London: College Publications.
84. Yap, A. 2012. Ad hominem fallacies, bias, and testimony. Argumentation 27(2): 97–109.
85. Zarefky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22(3): 317–330.