Dialectical Shifts Underlying Arguments from Consequences

Douglas Walton

Abstract


Eight structural criteria are developed as part of a dialogical method by
testing them against seven examples of arguments from negative consequences. The aim is to provide a method for evaluating the
arguments in the examples as fallacious or not. It is shown that any method that can be satisfactorily used to evaluate such examples
needs to be based on two techniques. The first is careful application of argumentation underlying shifts from one type of dialog to another schemes. The second is consideration of contextual factors concerning.

Keywords


ad consequentiam fallacy; ad baculum fallacy; types of dialog; practical reasoning; value-based reasoning; dialog relevance; persuasion dialog; deliberation

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i1.684

ISSN: 0824-2577