Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach

by Douglas Walton

• ISBN13: 9780521713801
• ISBN10: 0521713803
• Edition: 2nd
• Format: Paperback
• Copyright: 2008-06-02
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Summary

Second edition of the introductory guidebook to the basic principles of constructing sound arguments and criticising bad ones. Non-technical in approach, it is based on 186 examples, which Douglas Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, discusses and evaluates in clear, illustrative detail. Walton explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses. This new edition takes into account many new developments in the field of argumentation study that have occurred since 1989, many created by the author. Drawing on these developments, Walton includes and analyzes 36 new topical examples and also brings in recent work on argumentation schemes. Ideally suited for use in courses in informal logic and introduction to philosophy, this book will also be valuable to students of pragmatics, rhetoric, and speech communication.

Author Biography

Douglas Walton is Distinguished Research Fellow of CRRAR (Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation and Rhetoric) at the University of Windsor, and Assumption University Chair in Argumentation Studies (University of Windsor).

Table of Contents

Preface	p. xi
Acknowledgments	p. xv
Argument as reasoned dialogue	p. 1
Types of argumentative dialogue	p. 3
Components of argumentative dialogue	p. 8
Persuasion dialogue (critical discussion)	p. 10
Negative rules of persuasion dialogue	p. 15
Some major informal fallacies	p. 18
The straw man fallacy	p. 22
Argument from consequences	p. 24
The critical perspective	p. 34
Questions and answers in dialogue	p. 38
Presuppositions of questions	p. 39
Complex questions	p. 42
Have you stopped abusing your spouse?	p. 46
Disjunctive questions	p. 50
Arguments from ignorance	p. 56
Replying to a question with a question	p. 61
Begging the question	p. 64
Questions in polls	p. 67
Advocacy and push polling	p. 71
Question-answer rules in dialogue	p. 73
Criticisms of irrelevance	p. 78
Allegations of irrelevance	p. 79
Global irrelevance	p. 82
Question-answer relevance	p. 85
Setting an agenda for a discussion	p. 88
Red herring versus wrong conclusion	p. 92
Varieties of criticisms of irrelevance	p. 99
Summary	p. 102
Appeals to emotion	p. 106
Argumentum ad populum	p. 107
The argument from popularity	p. 111
Problems with appeals to popularity	p. 114
Threatening appeals to force	p. 117
Further ad baculum problems	p. 124
Appeals to pity	p. 128
Overt, pictorial appeals to pity	p. 130
Summary	p. 133
Valid arguments	p. 136
Deductive validity	p. 137
Identifying arguments	p. 138
Validity as a semantic concept	p. 142
Valid forms of argument	p. 144
Invalid arguments	p. 149
Inconsistency	p. 152
Composition and division	p. 156
Defeasible reasoning	p. 159
Jumping to a conclusion	p. 162
Summary	p. 166
Personal attack in argumentation	p. 170
The abusive ad hominem argument	p. 171
The circumstantial ad hominem argument	p. 177
The attack on an arguer's impartiality	p. 185
Non-fallacious ad hominem arguments	p. 190
Replying to a personal attack	p. 194
Critical questions for an ad hominem argument	p. 198
Important types of error to check	p. 201
Some cases for further discussion	p. 203
Appeals to authority	p. 209
Reasonable appeals to authority	p. 211
Argumentation scheme for appeal to expert opinion	p. 215
Critical questions for the appeal to expert opinion	p. 217
Three common errors in citing expert opinions	p. 223
Evaluating appeals to expert opinion in written sources	p. 225
Expert testimony in legal argumentation	p. 229
How expert is the authority?	p. 232
Interpreting what the expert said	p. 237
A balanced view of argument from expert opinion	p. 241
Inductive errors, bias, and fallacies	p. 246
Meaningless and unknowable statistics	p. 247
Sampling procedures	p. 251
Insufficient and biased statistics	p. 254
Questionable questions and definitions	p. 256
The post hoc argument	p. 259
Six kinds of post hoc errors	p. 263
Bias due to defining variables	p. 270
Post hoc criticisms as raising critical questions in an inquiry	p. 272
Strengthening causal arguments by answering critical questions	p. 275
Examples of drawing causal conclusions from scientific studies	p. 279
Summary	p. 285
Natural language argumentation	p. 289
Ambiguity and vagueness	p. 290
Loaded terms and question-begging language	p. 294
Equivocation and amphiboly	p. 300
Arguments based on analogy	p. 305
Argumentative use of analogy	p. 308
Criticizing arguments from analogy	p. 312
Slippery slope arguments	p. 315
Subtle equivocations	p. 321
Variability of strictness of standards	p. 325
Conclusions	p. 328
Bibliography	p. 333
Index	p. 339
Table of Contents provided by Ingram. All Rights Reserved.