Hamblin held that the conception of 'fallacy' as an argument that seems valid but is not really so was the dominant conception of fallacy in the history of fallacy studies. The present paper explores the extent of support that there is for this view. After presenting a brief analysis of 'the standard definition of fallacy,' a number of the definitions of 'fallacy' in texts from the middle of this century – from the standard treatment – are considered. This is followed by a review of the definitions of 'fallacy' in the earlier history of logic books, including those of Aristotle, Whately, Mill and De Morgan. The essay concludes that there is scarcely any support for Hamblin's view that this particular definition of 'fallacy' was widely held.

Logic: The Art of Defining and Reasoning

The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of 'Fallacy'

In this paper, we present an historical and systematic overview of the study of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. We discuss the main pre-Hamblin approaches (Locke, Whately, Schopenhauer, Perelman, Johnstone), the Standard Treatment (Hamblin, Copi, Rescher, Kahane), and recent post-Hamblin developments (formal dialectics, pragma-dialectics, Woods and Walton).

background

The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century

Author of "Does Marketing Ethics Really Have Anything to Say? – A Critical Inventory of the Literature," responds to Smith's comment. Content is mostly of a reply orientation, targeting Smith's general and specific objections sequentially and in appropriate detail. Because Smith also introduces material not directly derived from the original Gaski article, subject matter here eventually ranges into a corresponding breadth of issues.

Normative Marketing Ethics Redux, Incorporating a Reply to Smith

Critical thinking deserves both imaginative teaching and serious theoretical attention. Studies in Critical Thinking assembles an all-star cast to serve both.EDITOR: J. Anthony Blair (Windsor) 
INTRO:  On What Critical Thinking Is (Alec Fisher, East Anglia) 
PART II On Teaching CT (Blair & Scriven)  5 Exercises: Validity (Derek Allen, Toronto), Teaching Argument Construction (Kingsbury, Waikato), C.T About Students’ Own Beliefs (Tracy Bowell, Waikato & Justine Kingsbury), Settling Conflict by Compromise (Jan Albert van Laar, Groningen), Using Arguments to Inquire (Sharon Bailin, Simon Fraser & Mark Battersby, Capilano) 
PART III 7 Chapters on Argument: Arguments and CT (J. Anthony Blair), The Concept of an Argument (David Hitchcock, McMaster), Using Computer Aided Argument Mapping to Teach CT (Martin Davies, Ashley Barnett, Tim van Gelder, Melbourne), Argument Schemes and Argument Mining (Douglas Walton, Windsor), Constructing Effective Arguments (Beth Innocenti, Kansas), Judging Arguments (Blair), Introduction to Fallaciousness (Christopher Tindale, Windsor). 
PART IV 7 Chapters on Useful Background for CT: How a Critical Thinkeer Uses the Web (Sally Jackson, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Definition (Robert Ennis, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Generalizing (Dale Hample & Yiwen Dai, Maryland), Appeals to Authorit8y: Sources & Experts (Mark Battersby), Logic and CT, (G.C. Goddu, Richmond), Abduction and Inference to the Best Explanation (John Woods, British Columbia). The Unruly Logic of Evaluation (Michael Scriven, Claremont)

Logic: The Art of Defining and Reasoning

Citations

The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of 'Fallacy'

The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century

Normative Marketing Ethics Redux, Incorporating a Reply to Smith

Studies in Critical Thinking

The History of the Argumentum Ad Hominem Since the Seventeenth Century.

Related Papers (5)

Logic: The Art of Defining and Reasoning

Reasoning and logic

Reasoning, Logic, and Development

Logic, Language and Reasoning

Logic For Reasoning About Knowledge