Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are

93Citations
Citations of this article
97Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This paper explains how a fallacious argument can be deceptive by appearing to be a better argument of its kind than it really is. The explanation combines heuristics and argumentation schemes. Heuristics are fast and frugal shortcuts to a solution to a problem. They are reasonable to use, but sometimes jump to a conclusion that is not justified. In fallacious instances, according to the theory proposed, such a jump overlooks prerequisites of the defeasible argumentation scheme for the type of argument in question. Three informal fallacies, argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad ignorantiam and fear appeal argument, are used to illustrate and explain the theory. © Douglas Walton.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Walton, D. (2010). Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic, 30(2), 159–184. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i2.2868

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free