A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy¶
Walton, D. N. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. University of Alabama Press.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Appeal to novelty
- Informal Fallacy
- In informal logic and argumentation theory, its home discipline, it is the organizing category of the entire field: the standard catalogues of fallacies of relevance (ad hominem, appeal to force, red herring), of ambiguity (equivocation, amphiboly), of presumption (begging the question, false dilemma, complex question), and of weak induction (hasty generalization, slippery slope, false cause) are all enumerations of informal-fallacy species.
This sourceArgumentation-theoretic account organizing fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, presumption, and weak induction, with each species carrying a context-sensitive diagnostic and a legitimate look-alike.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Supplies the argumentation-theoretic framing of fallacy as the object of study, but not the four-fold catalogue of relevance, ambiguity, presumption and weak induction.
“Douglas Walton takes a new analytical look at the concept of fallacy and presents an up-to-date analysis of its usefulness for argumentation studies.”
- In informal logic and argumentation theory, its home discipline, it is the organizing category of the entire field: the standard catalogues of fallacies of relevance (ad hominem, appeal to force, red herring), of ambiguity (equivocation, amphiboly), of presumption (begging the question, false dilemma, complex question), and of weak induction (hasty generalization, slippery slope, false cause) are all enumerations of informal-fallacy species.
Domain-specific¶
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:06ff5cff33af · see in the full table