The fallacy of fallacies

Several of the so-called fallacies in Aristotle are not in fact mistaken inference-types, but mistakes or breaches of rules in the questioning games which were practiced in the Academy and in the Lyceum. Hence the entire Aristotelian theory of fallacies ought to be studied by reference to the author's interrogative model of inquiry, based on his theory of questions and answers, rather than as a part of the theory of inference. Most of the fallacies mentioned by Aristotle can in fact be diagnosed by means of the interrogative model, including petitio principii, multiple questions, babbling, etc., and so can Aristotle's alleged anticipation of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The entire Aristotelian conception of inquiry is an interrogative one. Deductive conclusions caught Aristotle's attention in the form of answers that every rational interlocutor must give, assuming only his own earlier answers. Several features of Aristotle's methodology can be understood by means of the interrogative model, including the role of endoxa in it. Theoretically, there is also considerable leeway as to whether fallacies are conceived of as mistakes in questioning or as breaches of the rules that govern questioning games.     

A deflationary theory of reference

The article first rehearses three deflationary theories of reference, (1) disquotationalism, (2) propositionalism (Horwich), and (3) the anaphoric theory (Brandom), and raises a number of objections against them. It turns out that each corresponds to a closely related theory of truth, and that these are subject to analogous criticisms to a surprisingly high extent. I then present a theory of my own, according to which the schema “That S(t) is about t” and the biconditional “S refers to x iff S says something about x” are exhaustive of the notions of aboutness and reference. An account of the usefulness of “about” is then given, which, I argue, is superior to that of Horwich. I close with a few considerations about how the advertised theory relates to well-known issues of reference, the conclusions of which is (1) that the issues concern reference and aboutness only insofar as the words “about” and “refer” serve to generalise over the claims that are really at issue, (2) that the theory of reference will not settle the issues, and (3) that it follows from (2) that the issues do not concern the nature of aboutness or reference.     

The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies

Informal reasoning fallacies are arguments that are psychologically persuasive but not valid. In order to judge the validity of these arguments one has to be sensitive to the context in which they appear. However, there is no empirical study that examines students' sensitivity to contextual factors and whether contextual factors actually influence their ability to identify informal reasoning fallacies. We hypothesized that when explicitly presented with different argumentative contexts, students' performance would reflect their sensitivity to the contextual nature of informal reasoning fallacies. The two experiments that we conducted support this hypothesis and emphasize the mediating role of perspective taking in students' ability to identify fallacious arguments.     

The effect of contextual factors on the judgement of informal reasoning fallacies

Informal reasoning fallacies are arguments that are psychologically persuasive but not valid. In order to judge the validity of these arguments one has to be sensitive to the context in which they appear. However, there is no empirical study that examines students' sensitivity to contextual factors and whether contextual factors actually influence their ability to identify informal reasoning fallacies. We hypothesized that when explicitly presented with different argumentative contexts, students' performance would reflect their sensitivity to the contextual nature of informal reasoning fallacies. The two experiments that we conducted support this hypothesis and emphasize the mediating role of perspective taking in students' ability to identify fallacious arguments.     

A static theory of reference in science

This paper was written under DFG project Ba 678/3-1.     

Regression fallacies in the matched groups experiment

This paper is concerned particularly with certain regression effects which appear whenever matched groups are drawn from populations which differ with regard to the characteristics being studied. It is shown that regression will produce systematic differences between specifically matched. The size and direction of these differences depends upon the differences between the parent populations both in the matching and in the experimental variables and upon the correlation between the matching and experimental variables. Formulas are presented for estimating the expected regression effect. Several alternative procedures are suggested for avoiding the erroneous conclusions which the regression effect is likely to suggest.     

Representativeness and fallacies of probability judgment

Representativeness is the name given to the heuristic people often employ when they judge the probability of a sample by how well it represents certain salient features of the population from which it was drawn. The representativeness heuristic has also been used to account for how people judge the probability that a given population is the source of some sample. The latter probability, however, depends on other factors (e.g., the population's prior probability) as well as on the sample characteristics. A review of existing evidence suggests that the ignoring of such factors, a central finding of the heuristics approach to judgment under uncertainty, is a phenomenon which is conceptually distinct from the representativeness heuristic. These factors (base rates, sample size, and predictability) do not always exert the proper influence on people's first-order probability judgments, but they are not ignored when people make second-order (i.e., confidence) judgments. Other fallacies and biases in subjective evaluations of probability are, however, direct causal results of the employment of representativeness. For example, representativeness may be applied to the wrong features. Most devastating, perhaps, is that subjective probability judgments obey a logic of representativeness judgments, even though probability ought to obey an altogether different logic. Yet although the role of representativeness judgments in probability estimation leaves a lot to be desired, it is hard to envision prediction and inference completely unaided by representativeness.     

Being unreasonable: Perelman and the problem of fallacies

Most work on fallacies continues to conceptualize fallacious reasoning as involving a breach of a formal or quasi-formal rule. Chaim Perelman's theory of argumentation provides a way to conceptualize fallacies in a completely different way. His approach depends on an understanding of standards of rationality as essentially connected with conceptions of universality. Such an approach allows one to get beyond some of the basic problems of fallacy theory, and turns informal logic toward substantive philosophical questions. I show this by reinterpreting three so-called fallacies - theargumentum ad baculum, equivocation and composition/division - in the light of Perelman's account.