, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 277–292 | Cite as

Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies

  • Harvey Siegel
  • John Biro


In Biro and Siegel (1992) we argued that a theory of argumentation mustfully engage the normativity of judgments about arguments, and we developedsuch a theory. In this paper we further develop and defend our theory.

Argumentation epistemology epistemic normativity normativity fallacies methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, J. E.: 1993, ‘Critique of An Epistemic Account of Fallacies’, Argumentation 7, 263–272.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, H.: 1987, ‘The Problem of the Elenchus Reconsidered’, Ancient Philosophy 7, 67–85.Google Scholar
  3. Biro, J.: 1977, ‘Rescuing “Begging the Question”’, Metaphilosophy 8(4), 257–271.Google Scholar
  4. Biro, J. and H. Siegel: 1992, ‘Normativity, Argumentation, and An Epistemic Theory of Fallacies’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, J. A. and R. H. Johnson: 1993, ‘Dissent in Fallacyland, Part 1: Problems with van Eemeren and Grootendorst’, in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 188–190.Google Scholar
  6. Brickhouse, T. C. and N. D. Smith: 1994, Plato's Socrates, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. Feldman, R.: 1994, ‘Good Arguments’, in F. F. Schmitt (ed.), Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, Roman and Littlefield, pp. 159–188.Google Scholar
  9. Fogelin, R. J. and T. J. Duggan: 1987, ‘Fallacies’, Argumentation 1, 255–262.Google Scholar
  10. Hamblin, C. H.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  11. Lumer, C.: 1990, Praktische Argumentationstheorie: Theoretische Grundlagen, Praktische Begrundung und Regeln Wichtiger Argumentationsarten, Vieweg, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
  12. Lumer, C.: 1991, ‘Structure and Function of Argumentations — An Epistemological Approach to Determining Criteria for the Validity and Adequacy of Argumentations’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, vol. 1A, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar
  13. Széll, G. Á.: 1995, ‘Levels of Argumentative Rationality’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 300–307.Google Scholar
  14. Vlastos, G.: 1971, The Philosophy of Socrates, Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Vlastos, G.: 1983, ‘The Socratic Elenchus’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1, 27–58.Google Scholar
  16. Walton, D. N.: 1985, Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation and Fallacy, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harvey Siegel
    • 1
  • John Biro
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations