Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 12:3 (2023) ► pp.253–277
Tweeting fallacies
An exploratory study on fallacy accusations on Twitter
Published online: 15 December 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22023.gas
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22023.gas
Abstract
The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methodology
- Criterion 1: Is the kind of fallacy identified?
- Criterion 2: Is the fallacy misidentified?
- Criterion 3: Is the accusation substantiated?
- Criterion 4: Does the substantiation make reference to the context?
- Criterion 5: Does the accusation rely on the taxonomic technique?
- Criterion 6: Does the accusation rely on a problematic theory?
- Criterion 7: Is the accuser open to discuss the accusation?
- 3.Results and discussion
- 3.1Characteristics of the accusations
- 3.2Kinds of fallacies
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (18)
Blair, J. Anthony. 1995. “The place of teaching informal fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking.” In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 328–338. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Boudry, Maarten, Fabio Paglieri, and Massimo Pigliucci. 2015. “The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: Demarcating arguments in real life.” Argumentation 291: 431–456.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer.
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 1981. “Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning.” American Philosophical Quarterly 181: 13–22.
1987. “Six types of fallaciousness: Toward a realistic theory of logical criticism.” Argumentation 11: 263–282.
2007. “Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods.” Argumentation 211: 253–268.
Hitchcock, David. 1995. “Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking?” In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 319–327. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hundleby, Catherine. 2010. “The authority of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation.” Informal Logic 301: 279–308.
Massey, Gerald J. 1975. “Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad?” Philosophy in Context 41: 61–77.
Tindale, Christopher W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press.