《论证与真理》中的认知权威与道义权威

M. Koszowy, D. Walton
{"title":"《论证与真理》中的认知权威与道义权威","authors":"M. Koszowy, D. Walton","doi":"10.1075/PS.16051.KOS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us\n to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them.\n To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes\n representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new\n argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching\n set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the\n ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building\n a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority\n (argumentum ad verecundiam).","PeriodicalId":213325,"journal":{"name":"Rhetorical Theory eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic and Deontic Authority in the Argumentum Ad Verecundiam\",\"authors\":\"M. Koszowy, D. Walton\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/PS.16051.KOS\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us\\n to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them.\\n To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes\\n representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new\\n argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching\\n set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the\\n ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building\\n a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority\\n (argumentum ad verecundiam).\",\"PeriodicalId\":213325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhetorical Theory eJournal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhetorical Theory eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/PS.16051.KOS\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetorical Theory eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/PS.16051.KOS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

本文的目的是详细阐述工具,使我们能够分析来自权威的论点,并防止错误地使用它们。为了实现这一目标,我们扩展了代表权威论点的现有论证方案列表。为此,我们为来自道义权威的论证制定了一个新的论证方案,以及一套用于评估它的匹配关键问题。我们认为,澄清来自认识论权威和道义权威的论点之间的歧义,有助于更好地解释诉诸权威的非正式谬论(论证与verecundiam)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemic and Deontic Authority in the Argumentum Ad Verecundiam
The aim of this paper is to elaborate tools that would allow us to analyse arguments from authority and guard against fallacious uses of them. To accomplish this aim, we extend the list of existing argumentation schemes representing arguments from authority. For this purpose, we formulate a new argumentation scheme for argument from deontic authority along with a matching set of critical questions used to evaluate it. We argue that clarifying the ambiguity between arguments from epistemic and deontic authority helps building a better explanation of the informal fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信