Pragmatic Theory Of Fallacy

Although fallacies have been common since Aristotle,

until recently little attention has been devoted to identifying and defining

them. Furthermore, the concept of fallacy itself has lacked a sufficiently

clear meaning to make it a useful tool for evaluating arguments. 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. Walton

uses case studies illustrating familiar arguments and tricky deceptions

in everyday conversation where the charge of fallaciousness is at issue.

The numerous case studies show in concrete terms many practical aspects

of how to use textual evidence to identify and analyze fallacies and to

evaluate arguments as fallacious. Walton looks at how an argument is used

in the context of conversation. He defines a fallacy as a conversational

move, or sequence of moves, that is supposed to be an argument that contributes

to the purpose of the conversation but in reality interferes with it. The

view is a pragmatic one, based on the assumption that when people argue,

they do so in a context of dialogue, a conventionalized normative framework

that is goal-directed. Such a contextual framework is shown to be crucial

in determining whether an argument has been used correctly. Walton also

shows how examples of fallacies given in the logic textbooks characteristically

turn out to be variants of reasonable, even if defeasible or questionable

arguments, based on presumptive reasoning. This is the essence of the evaluation

problem. A key thesis of the book, which must not be taken for granted

as previous textbooks have so often done, is that you can spot a fallacy

from how it was used in a context of dialogue. This is an innovative and

even, as Walton notes, "a radical and controversial" theory

of fallacy.