carnevalemanfredonia.it
» » Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument

eBook Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument download

by Douglas N. Walton

eBook Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument download ISBN: 0521370329
Author: Douglas N. Walton
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 28, 1989)
Language: English
Pages: 302
ePub: 1213 kb
Fb2: 1637 kb
Rating: 4.4
Other formats: txt mbr mobi azw
Category: Political
Subcategory: Philosophy

As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end.

In a word, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation is the best book in the field I have come across in recent years. Roy Martinez, Teaching Philosophy the book is well-written and provides easy to follow examples of different arguments and fallacies. As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end. Walton does tend to beat a dead horse, however. Although repetition is the surest method of teaching, as a rule of thumb, three repetitions of a point should suffice.

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Start by marking Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Douglas Neil Walton (2 June 1942 – 4 January 2020) was a Canadian academic and author, known for his books and papers on argumentation, logical fallacies and informal logic. For those who find current argumentation and debate books inadequate, Informal Logic fills a void. Published on August 14, 2002 by William R. Minto. Examining Induction I wrote sometime ago

PDF On Jan 1, 1990, James B. Freeman and others published Walton's Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical . This is a critical examination of Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. I clarify his notions of valid, philosophical, and ad hominem.

This is a critical examination of Johnstone's thesis that all valid philosophical arguments are ad hominem. r discuss his three supporting arguments (historical, theoretical, and intermediate).

Similar books and articles. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Douglas Walton - 2008 - Cambridge University Press. Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Cambridge University Press. Appreciation! Argument-Criticism: The "Aesthetics" of Informal Logic. Joel Rudinow - 1991 - Informal Logic 13 (2). Considering Carneades as a Framework for Informal Logic: A Reply to Walton and Gordon. Marcin Selinger & Marcin Koszowy - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):217-237. Argument and Its Uses (OSSA 2005 Keynote Address).

This is an introductory guidebook to the basic principles of how to construct good arguments and how to criticeze bad ones. It is non-technical in its approach and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. Professor Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses.

Informal logic: A handbook for critical argument. DN Walton, DN Walton. Cambridge University Press, 1989. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. Penn State Press, 2010. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, 1998. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 2005. The place of emotion in argument. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, 1995.

For Sale is a brand new version of Informal Logic A Handbook for Critical . The book will be ideally suited to courses in informal logic and in the introduction to philosophy

For Sale is a brand new version of Informal Logic A Handbook for Critical Argumentation by Douglas Walton and is ready for immediate shipment. This is an introductory guidebook to the basic principles of how to construct good arguments and how to criticeze bad ones. The book will be ideally suited to courses in informal logic and in the introduction to philosophy. It will also prove valuable to studetns of pragmatics, rhetoric, and speech communication. Cambridge University Press.

Contributions to informal logic often address specific aspects of scientific, legal, and . Hansen 2011 provides a survey of the methods of informal logic which.

in argument; and the rules that govern argumentative exchange in different communicative contexts.

This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, replying to, and criticizing questions, forms of valid argument, relevance, appeals to emotion, personal attack, uses and abuses of expert opinion, problems in deploying statistics, loaded terms, equivocation, and arguments from analogy.
Comments: (7)
Ielonere
I've read--and own--two books on Informal Logic: Robert Gula's Nonsense: Red Herrings, Straw Men and Sacred Cows: How We Abuse Logic in Our Everyday Language and Johnson and Blair's Logical Self-Defense (Key Titles in Rhetoric, Argumentation, and Debates Series).

As good as those two books are, they are a bit one-sided in that they only show you the dark side of informal logic--what not to do. Though this book is a bit more informal in structure compared to LOGICAL SELF-DEFENSE, I appreciate how the author gives examples of when a logical "fallacy" is not so fallacious after all. With this perspective one gets an even better picture of how Informal Logic really works.

There is a wide range of examples with insightful commentary. I also like how some of the questions that should be asked of a suspected fallacy are given in a list--very handy for future reference.

I certainly don't advocate any one Informal Logic book over any other (they all have their pros and cons), but this book does cover some ground that I haven't seen covered elsewhere. That alone makes it a fine addition to any personal collection of books on this topic.
Zodama
Thank you
Cktiell
Great unbiased perception of the subject.
Iphonedivorced
The title is an example of overly aggressive questioning and a fallacious attempt to end debate by labeling anyone who disagrees a dunce. In a courtroom the question would be disallowed on the legal grounds that it is argumentative. In the newsroom, the boardroom, and just about any other type of room where people gather to discuss issues, that type of question is asked every day.

Walton clearly (but ponderously) explains why questions of this type (and questions and arguments of many other types) are just plain wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. He not only explains why they're wrong, unlike other books on informal logic that I've read, he gives advice on how to answer them.

As a professional who spent 32 years asking questions and making arguments in a courtroom, I wish that I had read this book at the beginning of my career rather than at the end.

Walton does tend to beat a dead horse, however. Although repetition is the surest method of teaching, as a rule of thumb, three repetitions of a point should suffice.

One other minor quibble. He is occasionally guilty of faulty analysis himself. In analyzing the hunter/anti-hunter debate, he said that the hunter's reply about meat eaters being in a poor position to criticize hunting was a weak argument. He found very little parallel between slaughtering innocent wild animals and eating hamburgers. The parallel is this: The objective of hunting is to eat what you kill. (If you're not dedicated to this proposition, stay out of the woods). In order to eat the hamburger, somebody has to slaughter the innocent cow for you. The difference between the hamburger eating anti-hunter and the venison eating hunter is who killed the food and whether they did it for sport or a paycheck.
MrDog
This book is really impressive. Although I would not state that it is a "beginner's course" to argumentation, it is certainly for those seeking to understanding argumentation in all its forms in a friendly and accessible format. Further, this book's greatest strength is its use of examples and situational argumentation from present day. Through the use of many examples, the reader is able to better grasp each point the author seeks to make. Each argumentation style is properly illustrated with a helpful example. After one reading, I was able to listen to people in discussion or argument and identify fallacies or validities.

If you are seeking a book that catalogs many of the most common uses of argumentation, and their limitations, then this is the book for you. Further, this is a great book for anyone trying to understand the gap between deduction and induction!
Manarius
This text is tough to beat as a resource with which to build a foundation for critical thought. The author clearly presents each topic of focus while emphasizing key points and utilizing examples to ensure the information finds a home in the reader's mind. The format and style of this work contribute to its readability and make it ideal as a reference once the first pass has been made. One's only imaginable complaint might be that the text is unnecessarily lengthy with regard to some explanations. Then again, these instances might not be seen in this light when a concept has to be revisited as a refresher or further clarification outside of the initial reading. As far as basic logic/argumentation texts are concerned, this is amongst the best that are currently available.
Mopimicr
Douglas Walton is the most prolific writer on the subject of logical fallacies, and this book is a distillation of many years of teaching and writing on the subject up to 1989. While it presages his more recent theoretical works in the pragma-dialectical tradition such as A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy and The New Dialectic, you will get in this book an approach with substantial points of contact with good recent approaches like Govier's ARG approach to argument appraisal, or Damer's extension of it (which in the latest version of his Attacking Faulty Reasoning drifts a bit more in the pragma-dialectical tradition).
I found his discussions to be quite illuminating. They are much more subtle than most, and he brings to bear on fallacy analysis a far richer toolbox of techniques drawn from logic, as well as rhetoric and communications studies.
That being said, I don't think this would make a good text for an undergraduate course in critical thinking or informal logic--the methodology is too still too idiosyncratic, the distinctions too subtle. I'd go with Zachary Seech or Trudy Govier rather than Walton. On the other hand, this would be a good book for upper-level courses in informal logic for communication studies or journalism students.
I think it deserves a place in the library of anyone teaching this material, but it's not the best place for someone approaching this material fresh to start at.