On Sophistical Refutations¶
Aristotle. (1984). On Sophistical Refutations. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Fallacy of Accident
- Later logic textbooks file this pattern under the fallacy of accident (Latin fallacia accidentis), reading it as an inference that carries a general rule mechanically onto a case whose incidental feature — here the owner's madness — defeats the background conditions that justified the rule; Aristotle's own fallacy of accident (Sophistical Refutations 5) concerned ascribing to a thing what belongs to its accident, and he did not tie it to this example
This sourceGives Aristotle's own account of the fallacy dependent on accident, which ascribes to a thing what belongs only to its accident, listed separately from the fallacy of taking a qualified expression absolutely (secundum quid).
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Later logic textbooks file this pattern under the fallacy of accident (Latin fallacia accidentis), reading it as an inference that carries a general rule mechanically onto a case whose incidental feature — here the owner's madness — defeats the background conditions that justified the rule; Aristotle's own fallacy of accident (Sophistical Refutations 5) concerned ascribing to a thing what belongs to its accident, and he did not tie it to this example
- Irrelevant conclusion
- Aristotle identified ignoratio elenchi in the Sophistical Refutations as arguing to the wrong conclusion — establishing something other than the point that needed refuting
This sourceAristotle's account of the misconception of refutation, an apparent refutation that fails to contradict the very thesis at issue in the same respect, relation and time.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Aristotle identified ignoratio elenchi in the Sophistical Refutations as arguing to the wrong conclusion — establishing something other than the point that needed refuting
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 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:fe16a0352316 · see in the full table