Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 12:3 (2023) ► pp.253–277

Tweeting fallacies

An exploratory study on fallacy accusations on Twitter

ORCID logo | Universidad de Murcia
The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.
Keywords: common fallacies, empirical research, fallacies, fallacy accusations, informal logic, on-line argumentation, Twitter
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • Criterion 1: Is the kind of fallacy identified?
    • Criterion 2: Is the fallacy misidentified?
    • Criterion 3: Is the accusation substantiated?
    • Criterion 4: Does the substantiation make reference to the context?
    • Criterion 5: Does the accusation rely on the taxonomic technique?
    • Criterion 6: Does the accusation rely on a problematic theory?
    • Criterion 7: Is the accuser open to discuss the accusation?
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Characteristics of the accusations
    • 3.2Kinds of fallacies
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 15 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22023.gas
References (18)
References
Blair, J. Anthony. 1995. “The place of teaching informal fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking.” In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 328–338. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
. 2023. “Teaching the fallacies.” Argumentation 37(2): 247–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boudry, Maarten, Fabio Paglieri, and Massimo Pigliucci. 2015. “The fake, the flimsy, and the fallacious: Demarcating arguments in real life.” Argumentation 291: 431–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 1981. “Fallacies and the evaluation of reasoning.” American Philosophical Quarterly 181: 13–22.Google Scholar
1987. “Six types of fallaciousness: Toward a realistic theory of logical criticism.” Argumentation 11: 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. “Arguments, meta-arguments, and metadialogues: A reconstruction of Krabbe, Govier, and Woods.” Argumentation 211: 253–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flew, Antony. 1975. Thinking about thinking. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, David. 1995. “Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking?” In Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings, ed. by Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 319–327. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hundleby, Catherine. 2010. “The authority of the fallacies approach to argument evaluation.” Informal Logic 301: 279–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jason, Gary. 1987. “Are fallacies common? A look at two debates.” Informal Logic 81: 81–92.Google Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Massey, Gerald J. 1975. “Are there any good arguments that bad arguments are bad?” Philosophy in Context 41: 61–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981. “The fallacy behind fallacies.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 61: 489–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Willingham, Daniel T. 2008. “Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach?” Arts Education Policy Review 1091: 21–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar