Argumentation

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 431–456 | Cite as

The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life

  • Maarten Boudry
  • Fabio Paglieri
  • Massimo Pigliucci
Article

Abstract

Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which one can identify bad or invalid types of reasoning, abstracting away from the specific content and dialectical context. Such shortcuts for debunking arguments are tempting, but alas, the promise is hardly if ever fulfilled. Different strands of research on the pragmatics of argumentation, probabilistic reasoning and ecological rationality have shown that almost every known type of fallacy is a close neighbor to sound inferences or acceptable moves in a debate. Nonetheless, the kernel idea of a fallacy as an erroneous type of argument is still retained by most authors. We outline a destructive dilemma we refer to as the Fallacy Fork: on the one hand, if fallacies are construed as demonstrably invalid form of reasoning, then they have very limited applicability in real life (few actual instances). On the other hand, if our definitions of fallacies are sophisticated enough to capture real-life complexities, they can no longer be held up as an effective tool for discriminating good and bad forms of reasoning. As we bring our schematic “fallacies” in touch with reality, we seem to lose grip on normative questions. Even approaches that do not rely on argumentation schemes to identify fallacies (e.g., pragma-dialectics) fail to escape the Fallacy Fork, and run up against their own version of it.

Keywords

Fallacies Demarcation Fallacy Fork Pseudoscience Argumentum ad ignorantiam Genetic fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc Ad hominem Ecological rationality Probabilistic reasoning Pragma-dialetics Destructive dilemma Irrationality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research of the first author was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO). The second author’s work was supported by the project PRISMA—Interoperable Cloud Platforms for Smart-Government, funded by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR-PON). The third author was supported by the K.D. Irani fund for Philosophy of Science at the City College of New York. We would like to thank Jan Verplaetse, Danny Praet and John Teehan for useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Aikin, S.F., and John Casey. 2011. Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25(1): 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcock, J. 2011. Back from the future: Parapsychology and the Bem affair. Skeptical Enquirer 35(2): 31–39.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, J.L. 2007. Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it? Religious Compass 1(6): 768–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bering, J. 2012. The belief instinct: The psychology of souls, destiny, and the meaning of life. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  6. Boone, D.N. 2002. The cogent reasoning model of informal fallacies revisited. Informal Logic 22(2): 93–111.Google Scholar
  7. Boudry, M., and J. De Smedt. 2011. In mysterious ways: On the modus operandi of supernatural beings. Religion 41(3): 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boudry, M., S. Blancke, and J. Braeckman. 2010. How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science 15(3): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boudry, M., and J. Braeckman. 2011. Immunizing strategies & epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia 39(1): 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boudry, M., M. Vlerick, and R.T. McKay. 2015. Can evolution get us off the hook? Evaluating the ecological defence of human rationality. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 524–535. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2014.08.025.
  11. Brinton, A. 1995. The ad hominem. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 213–222. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, R.T. 2000. Becoming a critical thinker: A guide for the new millennium. Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Copi, I.M., and C. Cohen. 1998. Introduction to logic. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Cummings, L. 2002. Reasoning under uncertainty: The role of two informal fallacies in an emerging scientific inquiry. Informal Logic 22(2): 113–136.Google Scholar
  15. DiCarlo, C. 2011. How to become a really good pain in the ass: A critical thinker’s guide to asking the right questions. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  16. Dennett, D.C. 1996. Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  17. Finocchiaro, M.A. 1981. Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly 18(1): 13–22.Google Scholar
  18. Fishman, Y. 2009. Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education 18(6): 813–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galperin, A., and M.G. Haselton. 2012. Error management and the evolution of cognitive bias. In Social thinking and interpersonal behavior, ed. J.P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, and C. Sedikedes, 45–64. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, M. 1957. Fads and fallacies in the name of science. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer, G., R. Hertwig, and T. Pachur. 2011. Heuristics: The foundations of adaptive behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grünbaum, A. 1979. Is Freudian psychoanalytic theory pseudo-scientific by Karl Popper’s criterion of demarcation? American Philosophical Quarterly 16(2): 131–141.Google Scholar
  24. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2006. A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies. Synthese 152(2): 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford. 2007. The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review 114(3): 704–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, H.V., and R.C. Pinto. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hart, D.B. 2013. The experience of god: Being, consciousness, bliss. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hertwig, R., and G. Gigerenzer. 1999. The conjunction fallacy revisited: How intelligent inferences look like reasoning errors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12: 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobs, D.M. 1998. The threat: The secret agenda—What the aliens really want … and how they plan to get it. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  31. James, W. 2008. The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Rockville: ARC Manor.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, P.E. 1997. Defeating Darwinism by opening minds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, R.H. 1987. The blaze of her splendors: Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory. Argumentation 1(3): 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jong, J., and A. Visala. 2014. Evolutionary debunking arguments against theism, reconsidered. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 76(3): 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahane, G. 2010. Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs 45(1): 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kennedy, J.E. 2003. The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: A summary and hypotheses. The Journal of Parapsychology 67(1): 53–75.Google Scholar
  38. Krabbe, Erik C.W. 2009. Book review of Christopher W Tindale, ‘Fallacies and argument appraisal’. Argumentation 23(1): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laudan, L. 1982. Commentary: Science at the bar-causes for concern. Science, Technology and Human Values 7(41): 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewiński, M. 2011. Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation 25(4): 469–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Macagno, F. 2013. Strategies of character attack. Argumentation 27(4): 369–401. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9291-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mack, J.E. 1995. Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  43. Massey, G.J. 1981. The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6(1): 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Menuge, A. 2004. Who’s afraid of ID? A survey of the intelligent design movement. In Debating design, ed. W. Dembski, and M. Ruse, 32–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mill, J.S.S. 2009. System of logic ratiocinative and inductive. New York: Cosimo.Google Scholar
  47. Nieminen, P., and A. Mustonen. 2014. Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach 7(1): 11.Google Scholar
  48. Paglieri, F. 2014. Trust, argumentation and technology. Argument and Computation 5(2–3): 119–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry. 2013a. Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia 42(2): 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pigliucci, M., and M. Boudry (eds.). 2013b. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pinto, R.C. 1995. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 302–311. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Ritchie, S.J., W. Richard, and C.C. French. 2012. Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLoS ONE 7(3): e33423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sagan, C. 1996. The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  54. Salmon, W.C. 1984. Logic, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  55. Shermer, M. 1997. Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York, NY: Freeman.Google Scholar
  56. Sterelny, K. 2006. Escaping illusion? American Scientist 94(5): 461–463.Google Scholar
  57. Tindale, C.W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tomic, T. 2013. False dilemma: A systematic exposition. Argumentation 27(4): 347–368. doi:10.1007/s10503-013-9292-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Bendegem, J. 2013. Argumentation and pseudoscience. The case for an ethics of argumentation. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem, ed. M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 287–304. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Eemeren, F.H. 2001. Fallacies. In Critical concepts in argumentation theory, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren, 135–164. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. van Eemeren, F.H., and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20(4): 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: de Gruyter/Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1987. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1(3): 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. H.V. Hansen, and R.C. Pinto, 130–144. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  67. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. van Eemeren, F.H., Bart Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F.Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wagemans, J.H.M. 2011. The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation 25(3): 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wagenmakers, E.-J., R. Wetzels, D. Borsboom, and H.L.J. Van Der Maas. 2011. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(3): 426–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Walton, D.N. 1988. Burden of proof. Argumentation 2(2): 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walton, D.N. 1989. Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation 3: 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Walton, D.N. 1992. Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly 29(4): 381–387.Google Scholar
  74. Walton, D.N. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  75. Walton, D.N. 1999. The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation 13(4): 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Walton, D.N. 2010a. Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme. Journal of Applied Logic 8(1): 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.jal.2008.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Walton, D.N. 2010b. Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal Logic 30(2): 159–184.Google Scholar
  78. Ward, Andrew C. 2010. The value of genetic fallacies. Informal Logic 30(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  79. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1977. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The Review of Metaphysics 30(4): 569–593.Google Scholar
  80. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1982. Argument: The logic of the fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar
  81. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1989. Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin-Dordrecht-Providence: de Gruyter/Foris.Google Scholar
  82. Woods, J. 2004. The death of argument. Fallacies in agent based reasoning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Woods, J. 2013. Errors of reasoning. Naturalizing the logic of inference. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  84. Yap, A. 2012. Ad hominem fallacies, bias, and testimony. Argumentation 27(2): 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zarefky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22(3): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maarten Boudry
    • 1
  • Fabio Paglieri
    • 2
  • Massimo Pigliucci
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Istituto di Scienze e Tecnologie della CognizioneConsiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyCity College of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations