Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Commentary
Keywords
Fallacy Theory
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
Fallacy theory has not been my particular concern until now – even if I spoke here and there about fallacies; mainly about the two specimens which I consider to be of the highest importance for argumentation theory. I mean “Ad baculum” and “Begging the question”. In fact I was not aware that a defense of fallacy theory was necessary because I had taken the criticisms of late to be mainly relying on a lack of clarity, confusion and exaggeration. Despite this estimation I will begin with stating that I agree with most of Aikin’s well minded proposals and solutions. Nevertheless I will provide some comments which hopefully can contribute to a fruitful discussion. They follow the sections of the paper.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
Scott F. Aikin, A (Modest) Defense of Fallacy Theory
Included in
Commentary on Scott Aikin, “A Modest Defense of Fallacy Theory”
University of Windsor
Fallacy theory has not been my particular concern until now – even if I spoke here and there about fallacies; mainly about the two specimens which I consider to be of the highest importance for argumentation theory. I mean “Ad baculum” and “Begging the question”. In fact I was not aware that a defense of fallacy theory was necessary because I had taken the criticisms of late to be mainly relying on a lack of clarity, confusion and exaggeration. Despite this estimation I will begin with stating that I agree with most of Aikin’s well minded proposals and solutions. Nevertheless I will provide some comments which hopefully can contribute to a fruitful discussion. They follow the sections of the paper.
