Abstract
This paper aims to resolve the following question: how should a reasonable arguer respond to a fallacy? To answer it, I take a dialectical approach to fallacies and consider their dialectical and rhetorical effects. Then, I review the current literature on the proper answer to fallacies to conclude that, under certain circumstances, all the answers provided in the literature can be helpful for the parties. Later, I attempt to provide some heuristic guidance to understand which response to a fallacy is better under which circumstance. To do that, I introduce two criteria for evaluating dialogues: the level of adversariality and the relevance of the epistemic goal. I will conclude that these criteria can help us understand which is the adequate response to fallacies and could also be important for addressing other problems in argumentation theory.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 5-28 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Cogency |
Volume | 14 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2022 |
Keywords
- adversariality
- counter-fallacies
- disagreement
- epistemic goals
- fallacies
- heuristics
- meta-dialogues
- strategic manoeuvring
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Language and Linguistics
- Communication
- Linguistics and Language