Location
McMaster University
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
1-6-2005 9:00 AM
End Date
1-6-2005 5:00 PM
Abstract
In a series of experimental studies we tried to answer the question whether and to what extent the different types of fallacies that theoretically speaking are a violation of the argument scheme rule, are seen as unreasonable by ordinary language users. Of each of the three main types of argument schemes (i.e. symptomatic argumentation, causal argumentation and comparison argumentation) one or more misuses were investigated. In this paper the experimental results pertaining to the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argumentum ad populum, the slippery slope and the fallacy of the false analogy are discussed.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Included in
Ordinary Language Users' Assessments of Misuse of Argument Schemes
McMaster University
In a series of experimental studies we tried to answer the question whether and to what extent the different types of fallacies that theoretically speaking are a violation of the argument scheme rule, are seen as unreasonable by ordinary language users. Of each of the three main types of argument schemes (i.e. symptomatic argumentation, causal argumentation and comparison argumentation) one or more misuses were investigated. In this paper the experimental results pertaining to the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argumentum ad populum, the slippery slope and the fallacy of the false analogy are discussed.
