Cover not available

In:Exploring Dialogue: Selected essays on argumentation by Erik C. W. Krabbe with contributions by Jan Albert van Laar
Edited by Erik C.W. Krabbe and Jan Albert van Laar
[Argumentation in Context 23] 2026
► pp. 16–29

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 1
Can we ever pin one down to a formal fallacy?

Published online: 5 June 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.23.01kra
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Nothing but excuses
  • 3.Fallaciousness and formality
  • 4.A profile of dialogue
  • 5.Counterexample and invalidity
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (17)
References
Barth, E. M. & E. C. W. Krabbe (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. A. (1980). Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. Berlin: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). ‘So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogue’. Argumentation 6, 2, pp. 271–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Massey, G. J. (1975a). ‘Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad?’. Philosophy in Context 4, pp. 61–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975b). ‘In defense of the asymmetry. Questions for Gerald J. Massey’. Philosophy in Context 4, Supplement, pp. 44–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1981). ‘The fallacy behind Fallacies’. In: P. A. French, Th.E. Uehling, Jr. & H. K. Wettstein (eds.), The Foundations of Analytic Philosophy (pp. 489–500), Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliver, J. W. (1967). ‘Formal fallacies and other invalid arguments’. Mind. A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy 76, pp. 463–478. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing Complex Argumentation. The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in Critical Discussion. (PhD thesis). Amsterdam: SICSAT.
van Eemeren, F. H., & R. Grootendorst (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht/ Cinnaminson: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey/Hove/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1989a). Question-Reply Argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989b). Informal Logic. A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. & E. C. W. Krabbe. (forthcoming). Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press. [Published in 1995].
Woods, J. & B. Hudak (1989). ‘By parity of reasoning’. Informal Logic. Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice 11, 3, pp. 125–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue