Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem

This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in which the concept of relevance is differentiated along three co-ordinate dimensions: object, domain and aspect. With the help of this taxonomy, it can be shown that the problems of evaluative relevance with which the standard approach to fallacies cannot satisfactory deal can be more systematically approached within a pragma-dialectical framework. This is demonstrated for the argumentum and hominem, which is erroneously treated as a homogenous type of relevance fallacy in logico-centric analyses, so that cases where this is not justified must be treated as ad hoc exceptions.     

Fallacies

Fallacies are things people commit, and when they commit them they do something wrong. What kind of activities are people engaged in when they commit fallacies, and in what way are they doing something wrong? Many different things are called fallacies. The diversity of the use of the concept of a fallacy suggests that we are dealing with a family of cases not related by a common essence. However, we suggest a simple account of the nature of fallacies which encompasses them all, viz., the term “fallacy” is our most general term for criticizing any general procedure used for the fixation of beliefs that has an unacceptably high tendency to generate false or unfounded beliefs, relative to that method of fixing beliefs. Very different sorts of things called fallacies are examined in the light of this account, e.g., denying the antecedent, circular arguments, so-called informal fallacies, and propositions said to be fallacies. We do not provide a theory of fallacies. Still, on our account pretty much all of those things that have been called fallacies are fallacies, and they have been called fallacies for pretty much the same reasons.     

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.     

Ad hominem arguments in practical argumentation

This paper is ultimately about the nature of argumentation in general and about the nature of practical argumentation in particular. (Practical argumentation is the form of argumentation which aims at answering the question: ‘What is to be done?’) The approach adopted here is an indirect one. I analyze one traditional form of argumentive fallacyargumentum ad hominem and try to show that in some argumentative situations it is an intuitively legitimate move. These intuitions can be explained if we accept that practical argumentation is also governed by the general rules of practical rationality.     

DC:0–5: DIAGNOSTIC CLASSIFICATION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS OF INFANCY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD

The significant growth in the clinical literature on early childhood psychopathologysince the publication of the Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood: Zero to Three–Revised (DC:0–3R; ZERO TO THREE) in 2005 necessitated substantial revisions to the manual, which resulted in the publication of the DC:0–5: Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood: Zero to Five (ZERO TO THREE) in 2016. In addition to the decision to extend the early childhood diagnoses to include children through age 5 years, significant revisions were made to many diagnoses, and new diagnostic categories were added such as the Relationship Specific Disorder of Infancy/Early Childhood. Other additions, such as guidance for the development of a Cultural Formulation for the young child and his or her family and the inclusion of functional impairment criteria also contribute to making the DC: 0–5a substantially more comprehensive and robust diagnostic framework than its predecessor.     

From Fathers to Sons: The Intergenerational Transmission of Parenting Behavior among African American Young Men

This study examined the intergenerational transmission of fathering among young, African American fathers in rural communities. A sample of 132 African American young men living in the rural South reported on the quality of their relationship with their biological and social fathers in the family of origin, their own involvement with their young children, and relational schemas of close, intimate relationships. Results of path analyses supported the hypothesized mediational model, such that a better relationship with one's biological (but not social) father predicted increased father involvement in the next generation, and this association was partially mediated through positive relational schema after controlling for a range of covariates. Tests of moderated mediation indicated that the link between relational schema and father involvement was significantly stronger among fathers of girls than fathers of boys. Findings highlight the unique influence of close, nurturing father–child relationships for downstream father involvement, and the role of relational schemas as a mechanism for intergenerational transmission among young, rural, African American fathers of girls.     

Other‐Centric Reasoning

This article considers question‐begging's opposite fallacy. Instead of relying on my beliefs for my premises when I should be using my adversary's beliefs, I rely on my adversary's beliefs when I should rely on my own. Just as question‐begging emerges from egocentrism, its opposite emerges from other‐centrism. Stepping into the other person's shoes is an effective strategy for understanding him. But you must return to your own shoes when forming your beliefs. Evidence is agent centered. Other‐centric reasoning is most striking when both parties partake simultaneously. We are then treated to the spectacle of each side using the other's premises to establish its conclusion. These remarkable debates arise regularly when there is open disagreement about whether a right‐conferring relationship has ended. Those who contend the relationship is abrogated will be tempted to stand on the rights persistently credited to them by their adversary.     

Description of Relational Processes: Recent Changes in DSM‐5 and Proposals for ICD‐11

Epidemiologic, prospective, and retrospective research confirms that family relational variables are significant risk factors for the development of mental and physical health problems in children as well as adults. In addition, relationships also play a moderating role in the maintenance, exacerbation, or amelioration of chronic health problems. Although acknowledgment of the importance of these variables in the pathophysiology of a number of health conditions is reaching more prominence, the integration of assessments of family factors as part of standard health care has made little progress. With the arrival of the Affordable Care Act in the United States, there is a desire for earlier identification of these risk factors, and the ability to implement prevention programs that reduce risk, and enhance protective factors. On a global level, there is increased awareness of the health impact of relational problems, for example, many countries have attempted to implement programs to decrease domestic violence. More reliable and standardized assessments of key relational processes will enhance both of these missions, and allow comparison of a variety of prevention and intervention programs. This article discusses progress over the last decade in constructing more reliable definitions of relationship processes, how these have been integrated into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition (DSM‐5), and progress toward implementation into the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11).