Abstract
This paper looks around among the major traditional fallacies — centering mainly around the so-called “gang of eighteen” — to discuss which of them should properly be classified as fallacies of relevance. The paper argues that four of these fallacies are fallacies primarily because they are failures of relevance in argumentation, while others are fallacies in a way that is more peripherally related to failures of relevance. Still others have an even more tangential relation to failures of relevance. This paper is part of a larger research project on dialecical relevance in argumentative discourse, currently underway in collaboration with Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen: 1990, Introduction to Logic, 8th ed., Collier Macmillan.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.
Epstein, Richard L.: 1990: The Semantic Foundations of Logic, Vol. 1, Propositional Logics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Hamblin, Charles L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Pollock, John L.: 1991, ‘A Theory of Defeasible Reasoning’, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6, 33–54.
Reiter, Raymond: 1987, ‘Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Annual Review of Computer Science 2, 147–186.
Walton, Douglas N.: 1982, Topical Relevance in Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Walton, Douglas N.: 1989, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Walton, Douglas N.: 1990, Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, knowledge-Based, Action-Guiding Argumentation, Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, Maryland.
Walton, Douglas N.: 1991, Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation, Greenwood Press, New York.
Woods, John: 1987, ‘Ad Baculum, Self-Interest and Pascal's Wager’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 343–349.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Walton, D.N. Which of the fallacies are fallacies of relevance?. Argumentation 6, 237–250 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154328
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154328