Search

This paper aims to further explore the potentiality of integrating key insights from virtue argumentation theory into pragma-dialectics to establish a virtuous pragma-dialectics. Drawing methodological inspiration from Gascón's work, this paper introduces the "conditions-implications framework." Firstly, it argues that virtues offer novel perspectives on the second-order conditions of critical discussion. Specifically, it illustrates that excessive emotional attachment and identity prejudice hinder the reasonable engagement of arguers at both individual and socio-cultural levels, and virtues play a pivotal role in overcoming these irrational factors. Furthermore, integrating virtue insights into pragma-dialectics leads to two important theoretical implications: (1) an expanded fallacy theory—revealing the connection between argumentative vices and fallacies, expanding fallacies from a unilateral to a bilateral issue; (2) an expanded strategic maneuvering theory—virtue contributes to maintaining the delicate balance between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness. The virtue approach is anticipated to act as a facilitator rather than an obstruction to the future advancement of pragma-dialectics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to study argumentation in political debates by figuring out the logical fallacies employed in the debates of Clinton and Trump, the presidential nominees of the 2016 elections, and Biden and Trump, the leading contenders in the 2020 United States presidential election. The study attempts to answer the questions: (1) What relevance fallacies are adopted in the debate between Trump and Clinton? (2) What rhetorical devices are used to influence the audience and gain voters besides fallacies in the debates selected? The study analyses two texts from two arguments using Damer's (2009) taxonomy of relevance fallacy and rhetorical devices based on Perrine’s (1969) model of communication and interpersonal rhetoric to answer the two research questions. The significance of the pragma-rhetorical study of political debates resides in the role of investigating the pragmatic and rhetorical structure of political debates selected to encourage critical thinking, promote informed decision-making, and build a more effective and substantive political conversation. The analysis revealed that unlike Hillary, Trump uses the wrong reason, conclusion, and genetic fallacy and appeals to irrelevant authority and common opinion. Biden uses rationalisation, appealing to outside authority, and using the wrong reason. In terms of rhetoric, Trump, Clinton, and Biden all employ overstatement rather than other rhetorical devices to boost the shortcomings of their competitors and show them as unreliable in leading America in crisis. Other devices are absent except ‘understatement’, which appears for once, referring to the government's weak response to the crisis of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Towards the end of his sociology of law, Max Weber says about the legal layman, whose legal thinking is ‘word-bound’: ‘He tends above all to become a word-rabulist when he believes he is arguing “juristically”. In addition, it is natural for him to draw conclusions from the individual to the individual: the legal abstraction of the ‘expert’ is far removed from him." Such patronising legal arrogance seems to spring only from the pen of a habilitated lawyer. In fact, the lay approach described in this way appears approach described above all appears to be a manifestation of a deep-rooted mistrust of specialised legal argumentation and a defiant reaction against it. The understandable defence reaction to what is perceived as a hair-splitting interpretation can easily lead to a lay imitation of a supposedly legal approach. Added to this is a technical jargon that is only seemingly accessible, which resembles everyday language in the absence of a meta-language of jurisprudence, without necessarily being synonymous with it. Weber's observation, especially from the lawyer's point of view, is not without a certain plausibility in terms of everyday theory. Speaking of the logic of law, it would be useful to list the traps of ‘fallacy’ into which jurists frequently fall, together with examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Babylon Center for Humanities Studies is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Evidence scholars have observed probabilistic fallacies in legal fact-finding and given them names since the 1980s (for example 'Prosecutor's Fallacy' and 'Defense Attorney's Fallacy'). This has produced a rather un-organised list of over a dozen different probabilistic fallacies. In this article, the author proposes a systematic account where the observed probabilistic fallacies are organised in categories. Hierarchical relations between probabilistic fallacies are highlighted, and some fallacies are re-named to reflect the category they belong to and their relation to other fallacies in that category. All fallacies are precisely defined and illustrated with examples from real cases where they are committed by fact-finders. The result is a list of 12 probabilistic fallacies organised into 7 categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The subject of the present research is the nature of the five arts from the perspective of Al-Farabi, which has been investigated through a descriptive-analytical method. The five arts of logic are based on education and Al-Farabi's attention to the social dimension of human beings. Al-Farabi divides each of the conception and assertion sciences into two categories: perfect and imperfect. Each of these sciences includes rational and demonstrative, and imaginative and persuasive methods. Imperfect conceptions and assertions, according to the quantity and quality of contradictions, have degrees. Al-Farabi considers the reason for choosing persuasive and imaginative methods for educating the public to be the weakness of their perceptual faculties. This weakness arises from the nature and sensory foundation of humans, their inclination towards matter, and their engagement with sensory and imaginary knowledge. The art of demonstration is recognized as the ultimate goal of all logical arts and the true object of the theory of epistemological realism. Demonstration is considered the noblest of arts because it makes impossible the human retreat from their belief or from their recent convictions, and because of the inherent truth of its resulted propositions. Philosophy, as a demonstrative way to achieve beauty, is considered the highest rank of true knowledge. The commonality of the materials of persuasive arts lies in the possibility of contradiction of belief with external factors and their differences lies in the quantity and quality of contradictions discovered by them. Al-Farabi's attribution of the terms ‘way’ and ‘possession’ to dialectic indicates his conception of it as a differentia in the practice of debates. The speculative knowledge of rhetoric has more oppositions than dialectical knowledge. Fallacy, as an art with speculative premises from dialectic and doubtful premises from philosophy, is recognized as an art of seduction of the audience and also as a warning against fallacies. The common ground of fallacy definition with the ultimate aim of imitating truth with falsehood indicates the extensive domain of imitation and its role as the most important tool for fallacious reasoning. The class of imaginations, with its motivating role from the power of perception, takes precedence in performing actions.

IntroductionEliot Cohen is one of the contemporary pioneers of philosophical counseling. He considers philosophical counseling as one of the branches of applied philosophy. His logic-based therapy (LBT) or his logic-based counseling and therapy is also a subcategory of this claim. His reason is that a philosophical counselor, especially a counselor with Logic-Base Therapy (LBT), empowers the skill of applying philosophy in everyday life, and this method provides his audience with a coherent, clear, and most importantly, methodical framework for applying philosophical ideas and methods in solving psychological problems (Cohen, 2015, p. 34). Cohen has always sought to develop logic-based therapy as an independent and reliable branch among philosophical counseling approaches. We can see this specific trajectory in his works from the very beginning of using philosophy in treatment.On the one hand, we know that Aristotle, as a systematic philosopher, in the practical dimensions of his philosophy, not only asked what happiness is in life, but also sought to realize it. Cohen was inspired by this issue and generally believes that applying Aristotle's philosophy in philosophical counseling leads to the "self-care" of clients (Cohen, 2003, p. 18). In his treatment system, he has used not only Aristotle's logic and especially his approach to fallacies and his theory of practical analogies, but also Aristotle's moral philosophy and the concept of virtue and its practical application.The main field of this research is philosophical counseling with a focus on Cohen's logic-based therapy (LBT method). Our main goal is to see how Cohen was able to use Aristotle's philosophy, especially his logic and moral philosophy, in philosophical counseling in his logic-based therapy system.Research Question(s)The main issue of this research is, in what sense Cohen's logic-based therapy should be considered Aristotelian. Answering this question requires answering at least two other questions: first, what is the contribution of Aristotle's moral and logical teachings in the establishment of logic-based therapy; secondly, how Cohen used the classical concepts and themes of Aristotle's philosophy during the establishment and development of this contemporary treatment method. Literature ReviewFollowing the development of philosophical counseling in recent years, and specifically about Cohen's method as one of the contemporary counseling and treatment methods, numerous articles and books have been written. Some of these researches have generally developed and described Cohen's LBT method, but none of them have directly addressed the influence and role of foundations and themes derived from philosophy and especially Aristotle's logic and methodology in the establishment and development of this method. However, the past valuable research about the LBT method will certainly help us in advancing the goals of this research.The article Metaphysics of logic-based therapy (LBT) in Cohen's view (Nazarnejad, 2021) is a research that overlaps with part of our research goal and explains Cohen's method and its theoretical foundations. But this article does not focus specifically on the Aristotelian foundations and Aristotelian methodology of logic-based therapy. Perhaps Cohen himself made the most review of the background of our research. In 2000, he published a book called Philosophers at Work, and in its seventh chapter, he discussed the role of Aristotelian logic in professions such as law and medicine. He also wrote a book titled What would Aristotle do? in 2003, where he discussed the role of Aristotle's philosophy in philosophical counseling. In fact, this book may have emphasized the importance of Aristotle in philosophical counseling among other important works of Cohen in his logic-oriented method, but so far, no independent or critical research has been published - especially by commentators - that simultaneously analyzes the effect of Aristotle's moral and logical foundations in logic-based treatment. MethodologyOur philosophical method in this research is analytical, and as one of its aspects, we have analyzed documents. In this step of the analysis, we first collected the documents and then organized the claims and their content. Then, by explaining logic-based therapy (LBT) and searching for the obvious and hidden Aristotelian roots in this treatment method, we have presented our analysis and evaluation in connection with the Aristotelian foundations of logic-oriented therapy, especially based on the three aspects of the hypothesis proposed in the problem statement section. ConclusionIn a comprehensive statement, from Cohen's point of view, the field of human feelings, emotions, and decisions has an inferential structure that is often hidden. What endangers a person's psychological health is the transformation of these internal conclusions into pseudo-inferences or so-called fallacies. It is for this reason that a person's will and then his words and actions fall into error, and therefore the relationship of a person with himself, others and the world around him becomes restless and confused.But at the same time, he believes in this Aristotelian teaching that human happiness depends on living according to virtues. The solution to this psychological confusion in logic-based therapy (LBT) is to identify and fix these fallacies by replacing them with appropriate virtues in the same field of thinking.Our analysis of the Aristotelian foundations of Cohen's logic-based therapy shows that: 1. In some subjects, Cohen has completely taken the basics of his discussion and his method from Aristotle; topics such as the Doctrine of the Mean, some types of fallacies and virtues, as well as the role of practice in establishing virtues in a person's existence. 2. However, in matters such as the deductive nature of human emotions, feelings and decisions, as well as being inspired by Aristotle's theory of "logical slips" and Aristotle's theory of practical analogies, Cohen only has an Aristotelian framework. This means that the foundations of Cohen's claims are Aristotelian, but when applied to LBT, new results were obtained. Overall, it seems that the scope of this second meaning is wider.

The present research introduces the seller's status‐signaling fallacy: Sellers tend to use status signals to attract buyers, but buyers actually prefer sellers who do not signal status. Across six studies we demonstrate the effect using different operationalizations of status and various products for sale. Study 1 demonstrates this effect in contexts where sellers and buyers make initial sales connections. Study 2 replicates the effect in transaction situations where the buyer actually chooses the seller from whom to buy. Studies 3a and 3b reveal a novel mediation model according to which the seller's status signaling is perceived by buyers as an unsuccessful impression management attempt, which ultimately leads those buyers to prefer sellers who do not try to impress them through status signaling. Finally, studies 4a and 4b demonstrate the robustness of the effect in an incentivized setting and explore boundary conditions. This work enriches the growing literature on status signals in two ways. First, it shows that sellers mistakenly believe that such signaling is beneficial for them. Second, contrary to accepted wisdom, it shows that such signaling repels buyers. In the gig‐economy era, where everyone can become a seller in the marketplace, these findings are highly applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In IV, xvii, 19–22 of his Essay, Locke employs Latin labels for four kinds of argument, of which one (ad hominem) was already in circulation and one (ad judicium) has never had much currency. The present proposal seeks to locate and clarify what Locke was aiming to describe, and to contrast what he says with some subsequent uses that have been made of these labels as if they named fallacies. Though three of the four kinds of argument that Locke picks out are often less than decisive, he casts no aspersion on the legitimacy of their use in debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a misuse of the argument from silence to deny historical detail in New Testament study. It starts with a description of the argument from silence and its misuse, followed with an example to show its fallacious nature. Then it outlines two specific case studies of the misuse with respect to studies of 1 Thessalonians: the existence of Jews and a synagogue in Thessalonica, and the supposed non-Pauline interpolation of 1 Thess 2:13–16. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Tropelías: Revista de Teoría de la Literatura y Literatura Comparada is the property of Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sophia, Colección de Filosofía de la Educación is the property of Universidad Politecnica Salesiana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The provision of reliable clean, potable water services is key for sustainable human health and ecosystem management. However, there is growing global concern about the availability and accessibility of a potable water supply. According to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, the lack of provision of potable water is a violation of human rights. While there is a plethora of studies in the international literature on potable water, there is a dearth of such studies in South Africa that focus particularly on provision of clean water in Hammanskraal, although this can be gleaned from scattered and uncoordinated anecdotal evidence published in the local newspapers. A qualitative research approach is employed in this study to ascertain whether potable water at Hammanskraal is a service delivery challenge or a fallacy. Through a study of the ongoing situation, it has become evident that the water in Hammanskraal is not fit for human consumption, and this is indeed a service delivery challenge. It emerged that a set of challenges exists in different components of the potable water supply system in Hammanskraal. The residents are concerned with the quality of water provided by the municipality, while officials from Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (Metro), which is responsible for the provision of water in Hammanskraal, downplay the concerns raised by the residents. To ensure provision of sustainable potable water in Hammanskraal, the study proposes that more concerted effort from the government, environmental agencies and the general public is required. Thus, the entire supply of potable water needs a behavioural change from the Hammanskraal residents and better water supply management practice by the local government. These efforts must be driven by public enlightenment and stringent implementation of water supply policies and legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I'd rather not be an idiot and neither would you. One useful tool in avoid idiocy and figuring out what's true is to be aware of logical fallacies. Some errors in thinking are so common that they have been named in infamy. This article is an anti-idiocy vaccine to immunize you to common fallacies such as poisoning the well, begging the question, false dichotomy, and others, in order to give you a better shot at avoiding fallacy and finding out what's true. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explains the design and development of the pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. In this approach fallacies are viewed as violations of the standards for critical discussion that are expressed in a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse. After the problem-solving validity in resolving differences of opinion of the rules of this code has been discussed, their conventional validity for real-life arguers is demonstrated. Starting from the extended version of the theory in which the strategic maneuvering taking place in argumentative discourse is included, the article explains that the violations of the rules that are committed in the fallacies involve derailments of strategic maneuvering. This culminates in a discussion of the exploitation of hidden fallaciousness as an unreasonable way of increasing the effectiveness of argumentative discourse – a vital topic of research in present-day pragma-dialectics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This appearance condition of fallacies refers to the phenomenon of weak arguments, or moves in argumentation, appearing to be okay when really they aren't. Not all theorists agree that the appearance condition should be part of the conception of fallacies but this essay explores some of the consequences of including it. In particular, the differences between committing a fallacy, causing a fallacy and observing a fallacy are identified. The remainder of the paper is given over to discussing possible causes of mistakenly perceiving weak argumentation moves as okay. Among these are argument caused misperception, perspective caused misperception, discursive environment caused misperception and perceiver caused misperception. The discussion aims to be sufficiently general so that it can accommodate different models and standards of argumentation that make a place for fallacies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, social media content has become one of the main sources of information to feed the mind of social-media users. However, the reliability on social media for information may be problematic due to the doubtful credibility of its content. There are two ways to overcome this problem: fact-checking and fallacy identification of the argument. The paper has attempted to address this problem by identifying the fallacious argument of social media's textual content. The study has been divided into two parts: fallacious argument identification and its division according to their characteristics. For the fallacious argument identification, the study has adapted the concept of fallacy as a hindrance to the goal of conflict resolution and wrong moves in the communication process. The study has employed a fallacy taxonomy framework to classify fallacious arguments into different categories. The fallacy taxonomy framework has been prepared based on popular informal fallacies with the help of Walton's pragmatic theory of fallacy. The data for the study has been collected from the social media platform Quora. The data collection process only extracted the textual data related to the discourse of the socio-political domain, which is generated in Hindi. The study has analysed socio-political discourse to address the following objectives: 1. Identification of fallacious argument, 2. Categorisation of fallacious argument into different types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussion is asking for a reason from the others; it is not a one-way presentation of our claims, but an interaction (two-way) communication, where communicators and communicatees change their turns and roles continuously, arguing and reacting to each other’s arguments. In discussions of social networks in cyberspace, the communication processes are transactional; because they are not just dyadic questions-and-answers, but a helix of feedbacks and feedforwards by others. They are not only reasoning to persuade others, but they may include fallacy, claiming without warrants, and using rhetorical devices for persuasion. This paper is dedicated to subprocesses of critical discussions (i.e. reasoning, fallacies, and strategic maneuvering between them) among Iranian users of two virtual communities within Facebook. Toulmin’s argumentation model was applied to recognize reasoning practices and analyze fallacies. Van Eemeren’s Pragma-dialectic was used to understand how normative principles of a discussion are violated, but the discourse remains dynamic and communications continue. We concluded these discussions are examples of flouting of Grice cooperative principle, and they are performances of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arts for Linguistic & Literary Studies is the property of Thamar University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Gholam Hossein Sharegh Yazdi (1847-1928) is a recent Iranian poet who was also a teacher, a judge and a lawyer with a good knowledge of logic. His philosophical-sophistic Masnavi is renowned for highlighting weak and invalid reasoning and arguments. He follows an elaborative approach to different aspects of fallacy. Fallacy, or errors in thought, is a mixed comparison by means of similarities and illusions. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to examine the fallacies in Sharegh Yazidi’s Masnavi. The main question asked in this study is “what frameworks are presented by Sharegh Yazdi to avoid thought errors?” The results showed that the poet elaborates on the status of fallacies and answers illusive objections made by fake scholars through highlighting different types of thought errors and erroneous reasoning. It is notable that the pathology of fallacy and baseless claims, which are mostly rooted in emotions and criticizing misleading ambiguous topics, were the most mental damages mentioned by Sharegh. These features have also enriched the educational aspects of his work. This means that the poet was aware of fallacious reasoning and highlighted them intentionally in his poems. In addition, the poet’s adherence to religion has filled his poems with reasons rooted in religious beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Enthymema is the property of Enthymema, International Journal of Literary Criticism, Literary Theory & Philosophy of Literature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Naqd Va Nazar is the property of Islamic Sciences & Culture Academy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Exceeding deadlines and budgets occurs frequently in our daily lives, and this may be due to a failure to accurately predict the time, costs, and efforts we will need to complete a task or project, despite the knowledge that previous similar tasks took longer, costs, and efforts in general. Cognitive psychologists and social psychologists called this the planning fallacy, as many of us fall prey to the planning fallacy, (Buehler & etal, 1994: 366), whether it is in social plans, work projects, or anything on the personal to-do list, (Gilovich & etal, 2002:4). The literature has indicated the spread of the planning fallacy in multiple areas, as the underestimation of the importance of time and costs to complete personal, academic, and work-related tasks has been documented in a wide range of studies. The academy among students (Buehler&etal, 1994:370). Roy and colleagues argue that the planning fallacy is due to memory bias. (Roy&etal, 2005:738) Bezo et al. argue that the reason people make optimistic estimates is their desire to make a good impression on others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of thorny issues, such as the nature of time, free will, the clash of the manifest image and the scientific image, the possibility of a naturalistic foundation of morality, and perhaps even the possibility of accounting for consciousness in naturalistic terms, seem to be plagued by the conceptual confusion nourished by a single fallacy: the old fisherman's mistake. This is the mistake that consists in disregarding the fact that knowledge is not just learning new facts about old concepts. Knowledge is often to realise the inadequacy and misleading character of some of our old concepts, and the intuitions that ground them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fallacy can be described as the act of issuing a faulty argument to support and reinforce a previously published argument for purposes of persuasion. However, a fallacy is a broad subject that has been addressed from several viewpoints. A few experiments have tried to counter the fallacy pragmatically. However, the attempts above have suffered from shortcomings, which made them incomplete accounts in this regard. Hence, this study has set itself to provide pragmatic models for the analysis of fallacy as far as its pragmatic structure, forms, methods, and applications are concerned. These models use many models produced by several academics and the researchers themselves' observations. The validity of the established models was tested by reviewing three speeches by Joe Biden as the president of the United States. The analyses demonstrated the efficacy of the models created. Mostly because they have yielded varied results, it is clear that fallacy is a process of stages, with each round distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discussion is asking for a reason from the others; it is not a one-way presentation of our claims, but an interaction (two-way) communication, where communicators and communicatees change their turns and roles continuously, arguing and reacting to each other’s arguments. In discussions of social networks in cyberspace, the communication processes are transactional; because they are not just dyadic questions-and-answers, but a helix of feedbacks and feedforwards by others. They are not only reasoning to persuade others, but they may include fallacy, claiming without warrants, and using rhetorical devices for persuasion. This paper is dedicated to sub-processes of critical discussions (i.e. reasoning, fallacies, and strategic maneuvering between them) among Iranian users of two virtual communities within Facebook. Toulmin’s argumentation model was applied to recognize reasoning practices and analyze fallacies. Van Eemeren’s Pragma-dialectic was used to understand how normative principles of a discussion are violated, but the discourse remains dynamic and communications continue. We concluded these discussions are examples of flouting of Grice cooperative principle, and they are performances of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games.

Yanılgı olgusu, insanın bizzat kendi doğası ve yaşadığı çevreyle doğrudan ilişkilidir. İnsanın hangi durumlarda ve nasıl yanıldığını bilmesi onun yanılgılara düşmesine büyük ölçüde engel olacaktır. Bu nedenle dinlerin en önemli amaçlarından biri müntesiplerini dünya ve âhiret mutluluğuna ulaştırmak, insanların içine düşebilecekleri yanılgıları önceden tespit ederek bunların sebeplerini ve çözüm yollarını ortaya koymaktır. Yahudilik, Hıristiyanlık ve İslâm dinleri temelde tevhid esasına dayalı ilâhi kaynaklı dinlerdir. Ancak Yahudilik ve Hıristiyanlık çeşitli sebeplerden dolayı tahrif edilmiş ve tevhid akidesinden çıkmıştır. Onların bu asli kaynaktan uzaklaşmalarının temel nedenlerinden biri birçok konuda yanılgı içine düşmeleri, bunda ısrarcı olmaları ve gerçekçi bir çözüm için gerekli çalışmalarda bulunmamalarıdır. Zira yanılgının sebepleri tespit edilmeden, çözüm yolları bulunmadan ortadan kaldırılması mümkün değildir. Çevresindeki varlıklarla iletişim ve etkileşim içinde olan insan bunlarla bağlantılar kurar ve birtakım sonuçlara ulaşarak kararlar verir. Önceden edinilen bilgi ve tecrübelere dayanarak kurulan bu bağlantılarda oluşacak bozukluklar, insanda yanılgılara sebep olabilir. Tanah ve İncil tahrif boyutları olan kutsal metinler oldukları için bu kaynaklarla kurulan bağlantılar insanları yanılgılarından kurtarmak yerine bazı konularda yanlış inançlara sevk edebilmektedir. Ehl-i Kitab’ın en büyük ve diğerlerine de kaynaklık eden temel yanılgıları kendilerini Allah’ın kulları değil de oğulları, evlatlığı ve özellikle dostları olarak görmeleridir. Bu durum onları bazı emir ve yasaklardan muaf oldukları ve hesap gününde ayrıcalıklı muamele görecekleri, cennete sadece kendilerinin girebileceği veya cehennemde sayılı günler kalacakları gibi yanılgılara götürmüştür. Ne yazık ki onları böyle düşünmeye sevk eden nedenlerin başında tahrif ettikleri kutsal kitaplardaki kendileriyle ilgili ifadeler gelmektedir. Hâlbuki Kur’ân, cehennemde az bir süre azap görecekleriyle ilgili bu inançlarının bir yanılgı olduğunu, gerçeğin onların iddia ettikleri gibi olmadığını açık bir şekilde ortaya koymuştur. Hristiyan inancının en önemli meselelerinden birisi gerek Hristiyan dünyasında gerekse İslâm âleminde sürekli tartışma konusu olan teslis inancıdır. Hıristiyanların Hz. İsa’ya olan aşırı sevgileri, onları Hz. İsa’yı bir insan olmaktan çıkarıp, insanları asli günahtan kurtarmak için gönderilen tanrısal bir varlık olarak görmeleri gibi bir yanılgıya sürüklemiştir. Onların bu düşünceleri Kur’ân’ın birçok âyetinde reddedilmiş ve Hz. İsa’nın Allah’ın kulu ve elçisi olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Ehl-i Kitab’ın diğer önemli bir yanılgısı da Hz. İbrahim soyundan geldiklerini ileri sürerek seçilmişlik ve soy üstünlüğünü ileri sürmeleri ve bu nedenle Hz. Peygamberin davetini kabul etmemeleridir. Çalışmamızda Ehl-i Kitab’ın dinlerini tahrif ederken içine düştükleri; Allah’ın sevgili kulları olduklarını düşünme, Allah’tan başkasına ilahlık atfetme, Allah’ın cömert olmadığını ve cennetin kendilerine ait olduğunu söyleme gibi bazı temel yanılgıları Kur’ân ışığında ele aldık. Bu noktadan hareketle öncelikle Yahudi ve Hıristiyanların gerek dünya gerekse uhrevî felaketleriyle sonuçlanabilecek yanlış kararlar almasına yani yanılgıya düşmesine etki eden faktörlerin neler olduğunu belirlemeye çalıştık. Devamında belirlediğimiz bu faktörlerin insanın karar alma sürecinde ve iradi davranışlarını nasıl etkilediğini inceledik. Son olarak da Ehl-i Kitab açısından Kur’ân’ın ele aldığı yanılgıları ve bu yanılgıları ortadan kaldırmak için sunduğu çözüm yollarını tespit etmeye çalıştık. Çalışmamızın ana eksenini Kur’ân ve tefsir kaynakları oluştursa da psikoloji, sosyoloji ve ahlak gibi bilim dallarına ait kaynaklardan da faydalandık. Ne yazık ki Ehl-i Kitab’ın bütün delillere rağmen tahrifatı kabul etmedikleri, onları yanılgılara sürükleyen gerek maddi gerekse nesep yönüyle üstünlük ve seçilmişlik duygusunun hâlâ devam ettiği, eski inanç ve davranışları üzere hareket ettikleri görülmektedir. Ayrıca geçmişte ve günümüzde bazı Müslümanların da bu yanılgılara sürüklenmesi konunun ne denli önemli olduğunun bir göstergesidir.

This article advances research on the normalisation of far-right rhetoric on the “migration issue” by analysing statements from the current Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, and the ruling political party New Democracy political figures. Having presented the discourse-historical approach (DHA) from critical discourse studies (CDS) as a suitable theory and method of analysis of political discourses, I use an argumentative-based DHA approach and add the argumentative schemes of Aristotelian topoi and fallacies to explore how the leadership of the conservative New Democracy government adopted far-right rhetoric on the refugee issue to justify its tough political agenda on security, law, and order. In particular, I focus on the representation of migration as a threat to national security and public health, the politics of hate, and theories of securitisation via an in-depth analysis of the current and former prime ministers’ discourses, the former government spokesman’s statement on the refugee issue and a popular journalist and New Democracy’s MP television interview, and intend to illustrate how extreme right rhetoric could serve the conservative New Democracy’s political strategies.

Copyright of Politica y Sociedad is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Medical appraisal has emerged as a medico-social problem. There are more medical appraisal errors than expected. Physicians are trained in the process of scientific thinking, and then can make a medical appraisal error. Medical appraisal requires both legal knowledge and medical experience. Medical appraisal is neither commentary nor advice for the best ideal medicine. The ideal medical practice described in textbooks and the implementation of the guidelines are different from the medical reality. Medical appraisal should reflect the real-time changing medical field. Medical appraisal experts must consider the level of medical care at the time the incident occurred, the facility, region, environment of the medical institution, and the patient's underlying disease, sequelae, and complications. Since the medical appraisal doctor conducts a retrospective analysis with all the data and time to review, it should be kept in mind that the medical appraisal may differ from the judgment of the actual medical field. Medicine is an evolving but limited science because it is the youngest science. For the fairness of medical appraisal, the medical professionalism and appraisal education of medical appraisers are essential. The Korean Medical Practice Review Authority was established in 2019 led by the Korean Medical Association. The appraisal education program was implemented to strengthen the expertise of appraisers and to develop appraisal skills. The medical field, especially gastroenterology, is the most common subject of medical appraisal. The principles and errors of medical appraisal were reviewed by focusing on the gastroenterology appraisal cases.

Western fascination for Eastern poetic diction is vastly documented, in several latitudes and languages, and has resulted in an impressive output in the field of poetry. It is known that Pound's reinvention of Chinese poetry, largely at the origin of his proposal for a revolution in the poetic language, in the first decades of the 20th century, was actually based on a fallacy: on a misconception of the nature of Chinese (and Japanese) writing as essentially pictographic and ideogrammatic, based on expressive properties recognized in poetry that would prove to be particularly effective in the apprehension and translation of the real. Pessanha praises the writing of classical Chinese poetry in terms similar to the Poundian exaltation. We will review some inventories of the features of Chinese and Japanese poetic diction that explain why it is taken as a metonymy and metaphor of poetry, or as a goal and utopia of poetry, in order to understand what led very different authors to try their hand at haikus. Along this process, we will probe some poetic formulations in Portuguese. We also consider that this fascination with a (dreamed of) origin of poetic diction resulted in very interesting poems, when crossed with the (non-metaphorical, in this case) inhabiting of the tiny enclave of Macau, by authors who settled there. In this approach we will comment on poems by Eugénio de Andrade, Sophia de Mello Breyner, José Tolentino Mendonça, Yao Feng, Fernanda Dias and Fernando Sales Lopes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Estudios Filosóficos is the property of Estudios Filosoficos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In typical critical thinking texts, hyperbole is presented as being largely “argumentationally innocent” - it’s primary role being to express emotion of to bring desired emphases to a particular point. This discounts its prevalent use in argumentation, as it is also used as a device to persuade, and in particular, to persuade an interlocutor that they should take or support a course of action. When it is so used, the exaggerated claims would, if true, provide greater support for the conclusion. But since the claims are not fully accurate, this “greater support” is only illusory. Its use is thus deceptive and counts as fallacious reasoning.

A statistician having collected and analyzed data has to draw inferences and explain their significance. In interpretation, the researcher goes beyond the descriptive data to extract meaning and insights from the data. Various methods are applied in the collection and analysis of statistical data. Statistics are not an end in themselves but they are a means to an end, the end being to draw certain conclusions from them. This has to be done very carefully, otherwise, misleading conclusions may be drawn and the whole purpose of doing research may get vitiated. A researcher or statistician besides the collection and analysis of data has to draw inferences and explain their significance. Through interpretation the meanings and implications of the study become clear. An analysis is not complete without interpretation, and interpretation cannot proceed without analysis. Both are, thus, interdependent. This paper attempts to articulate some basic steps and processes involved in the interpretation of Statistical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fallacy of ignoring qualifications, or secundum quid et simpliciter, is a deceptive strategy that is pervasive in argumentative dialogues, discourses, and discussions. It consists in misrepresenting an utterance so that its meaning is broadened, narrowed, or simply modified to pursue different goals, such as drawing a specific conclusion, attacking the interlocutor, or generating humorous reactions. The "secundum quid" was described by Aristotle as an interpretative manipulative strategy, based on the contrast between the "proper" sense of a statement and its meaning taken absolutely or in a certain respect. However, how can an "unqualified" statement have a proper meaning different from the qualified one, and vice versa? This "linguistic" fallacy brings to light a complex relationship between pragmatics, argumentation, and interpretation. The secundum quid is described in this paper as a manipulative argument, whose deceptive effect lies in its pragmatic dimension. This fallacy is analyzed as a strategy of decontextualization lying at the interface between pragmatics and argumentation and consisting of the unwarranted passage from an utterance to its semantic representation. By ignoring the available evidence and the presumptive interpretation of a statement, the speaker places it in a different context or suppresses textual and contextual evidence to infer a specific meaning different from the presumable one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims at investigating linguistically from a pragmatic perspective the (im)politeness of political fallacies of the 2020 US presidential campaign debates. There is relatively little literature that tackles the relation between (im)politeness and political fallacies. This study tries to fill in that gap and shed light on these linguistic concepts in accordance with particular pragmatic theories. Two main pragmatic theories are used to analyse these data: Van Eemeren, and Henkemans' (2017) Pragma-dialectical Theory of Fallacy, and Culpeper's (1996, 2005) Theory of Impoliteness, in addition to Brown and Levinson's views of politeness. The data are extracted from the first and the second (final) US presidential debates between Trump and Biden. They are analyzed in detail to find out the fallacies committed by the politicians and to determine whether they are committed politely or impolitely. This study ends with some conclusions that show the politicians' language has a considerable number of fallacies, and the fallacious arguments or fallacious standpoints committed by them are kinds of impolite fallacies, committed intentionally to impose their authority and power upon their opponents. Nevertheless, some other fallacies are committed in a polite way especially when addressing the audience to gain their approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing the slippery slope argument (SSA) in legal contexts from the perspective of pragma-dialectics, this paper elaborates the conditions under which an SSA-scheme instance is used reasonably (rather than fallaciously). We review SSA-instances in past legal decisions and analyze the basic legal SSA-scheme. By illustrating the institutional preconditions influencing the reasoning by which an SSA moves forward, we identify three sub-schemes (causal SSA, analogical SSA, and Sorites SSA). For each sub-scheme we propose critical questions, as well as four rules that clarify when the SSA scheme is used reasonably. The institutional preconditions make the analogical SSA expectable in common law contexts; the Sorites SSA is expectable in civil law contexts; whereas the causal SSA is common to both contexts. This result should inform future work on the identification of typical argumentative patterns for the SSA in legal contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]