Abstract
AbstractA convincing argument can change a discussant’s commitment regarding the acceptability of a claim, but the same effect can be achieved by examining evidence. Observing objects or events that count as evidence for or against the acceptability of a statement can change one’s commitment regarding that statement. If we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through argumentation, can we speak of fallacies in the realm of convincing through evidence? In this paper, we defend an affirmative answer. We introduce and discuss the conceptual implications of evidentiary fallacies as fallacies committed when evidence is fabricated or suppressed during an attempt to resolve disagreement using proof. We then apply the notion of evidentiary fallacy to two real-life examples of mis-executed evidentiary procedures. We conclude that the notion of evidentiary fallacy can contribute to a more comprehensive fallacy theory and can foster new and broadly applicable critical skills.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference41 articles.
1. Aristotle. 2007. On Rhetoric. A theory of Civic Discourse. Translated with introduction, notes and appendices by G. A. Kennedy. 2nd ed. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bateman, J. A. 2018. Position paper on argument and multimodality: untangling the connections. International Review of Pragmatics 10(2): 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01002008.
3. Carson, T. L. 2010. Lying and deception: theory and practice. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Collins, H. M., and T. Pinch. 1998. The Golem: what you should know about Science. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. de Oliveira Fernandes, D., and S. Oswald. 2022. On the rhetorical effectiveness of implicit Meaning—A pragmatic Approach. Languages 8(1): 6–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010006.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献