Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry

  • Cummings L
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

lt is now commonplace in fallacy inquiry for many of the traditional informal fallacies to be viewed as reasonable or nonfallacious modes of argument. Central to this evaluative shift has been the attempt to examine traditional fallacies within their wider contexts of use. However, this pragmatic turn in fallacy evaluation is still in its infancy. The true potential of a contextual approach in the evaluation of the fallacies is yet to be explored. I examine how, in the context of scientific inquiry, certain traditional fallacies function by conferring epistemic gains upon inquiry. Specifically, I argue that these fallacies facilitate the progression of inquiry, particularly in the initial stages ofinquiry when the epistemic context is one of uncertainty. The conception of these fallacies that emerges is that of heuristics of reasoning in contexts of epistemic uncertainty.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cummings, L. (2002). Reasoning Under Uncertainty: The Role of Two Informal Fallacies in an Emerging Scientific Inquiry. Informal Logic, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v22i2.2578

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