Advanced

The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter

Zenker, Frank LU (2016) 11th Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 18-21 May, 2016) In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference 11.
Abstract
Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature (Sect. 3). Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of ‘fallacy’ can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to “carve out” a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian (Sect. 4). Seeking to make these conditions available for scholarly discussion, this analysis-sketch should not be viewed as final or... (More)
Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature (Sect. 3). Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of ‘fallacy’ can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to “carve out” a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian (Sect. 4). Seeking to make these conditions available for scholarly discussion, this analysis-sketch should not be viewed as final or exhaustive. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding
publication status
published
subject
keywords
bias, fallacy, meaning analysis
in
Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference
editor
Bondy, Pat; Benaquista, Laura; and
volume
11
pages
14 pages
conference name
11th Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 18-21 May, 2016)
ISSN
2371-8323
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
21c86929-c8d3-4bf6-9cee-81f92b739285
alternative location
http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2221&context=ossaarchive
date added to LUP
2017-01-27 13:08:52
date last changed
2017-01-30 16:59:06
@inproceedings{21c86929-c8d3-4bf6-9cee-81f92b739285,
  abstract     = {Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of ‘fallacy’, listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature (Sect. 3). Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of ‘fallacy’ can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to “carve out” a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian (Sect. 4). Seeking to make these conditions available for scholarly discussion, this analysis-sketch should not be viewed as final or exhaustive.},
  author       = {Zenker, Frank},
  booktitle    = {Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference},
  editor       = {Bondy, Pat and Benaquista, Laura},
  issn         = {2371-8323},
  keyword      = {bias,fallacy,meaning analysis},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {14},
  title        = {The polysemy of ‘fallacy’—or ‘bias’, for that matter},
  volume       = {11},
  year         = {2016},
}