Do the Fallacies Have a Place in the Teaching of Reasoning Skills or Critical Thinking?

  • David HitchcockEmail author
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 30)


The case for including fallacies in teaching critical thinking is weaker than it seems. Further, there are at least four arguments against using fallacies as a framework for teaching critical thinking. Empirical research is needed to determine what kinds of mistakes in reasoning occur most commonly in arguments and what effect teaching the fallacies has on critical thinking dispositions and skills.


Critical Thinking Good Argument Confirmation Bias Common Mistake Critical Thinker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cohen, L. Jonathan. 1982. Are people programmed to commit fallacies? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 12: 251–274.Google Scholar
  2. Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. 1990. Introduction to logic, 8th edition. New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  3. Ennis, Robert H. 1985. A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership 43: 44–48.Google Scholar
  4. Ennis, Robert H. 1991. Critical thinking: A streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy 14: 5–24.Google Scholar
  5. Finocchiaro, Maurice A.. 1981. Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning. American Philosophical Quarterly 18: 13–22.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, Alec. 1988. The logic of real arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. George, Rolf. 1983. A postscript on fallacies. Journal of Philosophical Logic 12: 319–325.Google Scholar
  8. Glaser, Edward M. 1941. An experiment in the development of critical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Govier, Trudy. 1987. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Govier, Trudy. 1992. A practical study of argument, 3rd edition. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. 1st edition 1985.Google Scholar
  11. Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  12. Hitchcock, David. 1983. Critical thinking: A guide to evaluating information. Toronto: Methuen.Google Scholar
  13. Huff, Darrell. 1954. How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair, 1993. Logical self-defense, 3rd edition. Toronto: McGraw Hill-Ryerson. 1st edition 1977.Google Scholar
  15. Kahane, Howard. 1992. Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reason in everyday life, 6th edition. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. 1st edition 1971.Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Massey, Gerald J. 1975. Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad? Philosophy in Context 4: 61–77.Google Scholar
  18. Massey, Gerald J. 1980. The fallacy behind fallacies. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 489–500.Google Scholar
  19. Nisbett, Richard E., and Lee Ross. 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Paul, Richard W. 1982. Teaching critical thinking in the strong sense: A focus on self-deception, world views and a dialectical mode of analysis. Informal Logic Newsletter 4(2): 2–7.Google Scholar
  21. Scriven, Michael. 1976. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Siegel, Harvey. 1988. Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations