Argumentation

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 273–307 | Cite as

Poisoning the Well

Article

Abstract

In this paper it is shown is that although poisoning the well has generally been treated as a species of ad hominem fallacy, when you try to analyze the fallacy using ad hominem schemes, even by supplementing with related schemes like argument from position to know, the analysis ultimately fails. The main argument of the paper is taken up with proving this negative claim by applying these schemes to examples of arguments associated with the fallacy of poisoning the well. Although there is a positive finding in this quest, in that poisoning the well is shown to be based on and associated with these forms of argument in interesting ways, the paper in the end is led to the conclusion that the fallacy is irreducibly dialectical. Poisoning the well is thus analyzed as a tactic to silence an opponent violating her right to put forward arguments on an issue both parties have agreed to discuss at the confrontation stage of a critical discussion. It is concluded that it is a special form of strategic attack used by one party in the argumentation stage of a critical discussion to improperly shut down the capability of the other party for putting forward arguments of the kind needed to properly move the discussion forward.

Keywords

ad hominem argumentation schemes bias commitment fallacy personal attack position to know argument silencing an opponent strategic maneuvering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Copi I. M., Cohen C. (1998) Introduction to Logic. 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  2. Correspondence (no author given): Mr. Kingsley and Dr. Newman – A Correspondence on the Question Whether Dr. Newman Teaches that Truth is no Virtue, London, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts and Green, 1864. Available at: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/correspondence.html Google Scholar
  3. Damer E. D. (1980) Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Belmont, WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis W. A. (1986) An Introduction to Logic. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  5. Garver E. (1994) Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Hurley P. J. (2003) A Concise Introduction to Logic. 8th ed. Belmont, California, WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnstone H. W. Jr. (1959) Philosophy and Argument. University Park, Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnstone H. W. Jr. (1978) Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument. University Park, Pennsylvania, The Dialogue Press of Man and WorldGoogle Scholar
  9. Johnstone H. W. Jr. (1981) Toward an Ethics of Rhetoric. Communication 6:305–314Google Scholar
  10. Krabbe E. C. W., Walton D. N. (1993) It’s All Very Well for you to Talk: Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks. Informal Logic 15:79–91Google Scholar
  11. Layman S. C.. (2000) The Power of Logic. Mountain View California, Mayfield Publishing Co. Google Scholar
  12. Moore B. N., Parker R. (2001) Critical Thinking. 6th ed., Mountain View, California, Mayfield Publishing CoGoogle Scholar
  13. Newman J. H. (1864) Apologia Pro Vita Sua. London, Longman, GreenGoogle Scholar
  14. Reed, C. and G. Rowe: ‚Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML’, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, 2002. Available at: http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria/Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. (1984) Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions. Dordrecht, ForisGoogle Scholar
  16. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N. J., ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2002, ‚Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’, in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2002Google Scholar
  19. Walton D. (1987) Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Co. Google Scholar
  20. Walton D. (1995) A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Walton D. (1998) Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Walton D. (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  23. Walton, D. and Krabbe, E.C.W.: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue, State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations