논증의 오류
The Fallacy of Argument
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
오류론의 목표는 오류의 사례와 유형을 기술하는 데 그치지 않는다. 오류의 오류성을 설명해야 한다. 이 설명을 위해서는 오류의 본성에 관한 일반적 탐구가 필요하다. 여기서는 오류를 좋은 논증의 기준을 어긴 논증 양식이라고 말한 블레어와 존슨의 정의를 수정하여, 오류란 논증의 성립조건을 어기거나 좋은 논증의 기준을 어긴 논증 양식으로 새롭게 정의한다. 그런데 논증의 성립조건은 닫혀있으나 좋은 논증의 기준은 그렇지 못하므로, 오류에 관한 이론은 본성상 부분적이다. 여기서는 논증의 의미를 명확히 하고, 좋은 논증의 요건을 일부 제시하면서 부분적인 오류론을 제시하고자 한다. 부분적 이론이라 해도 오류에 대한 논란을 해결하거나 해소하는데 도움이 될 뿐 아니라, 오류에 대한 우리의 탐구 목적에 따라서는 부분적이지만 충분한 이론이 될 수 있을 것으로 기대한다.
Abstract
What is the Fallaciousness of Argument? Blair and Johnson have proposed a lucid definition of fallacy. “By a fallacy, we mean a pattern of argument that violates one of the criteria which good arguments must satisfy.” Because of several reasons, slightly amended version of it is presented and defended here. According to the new definition, a fallacy is a pattern of argument that misses one of conditions which arguments must have and/or that violates one of criteria which good arguments must satisfy. The missing constituents of argument make a argument fail. In that case the argument is not good argument. This aspect has been ignored in Blair and Johnson's definition. This is the first reason why the refined definition is needed. Furthermore, the second part of the new definition seems to be the same as old one. But they do not say the same point. Blair and Johnson's “good criteria” are relevance(R), sufficiency(S), acceptability(A), but we have a good reason to doubt the criteria. For the list of conditions is open ended. RSA is apt for jusficatory purpose in broad sense, at most, and even it is not sufficient condition for it. There are many purposes of argument and each purposes has their own criteria. A sufficient condition for good argument is not closed in this sense. So the appropriate theory of fallacy which we can offer is a partial theory.
참고문헌 (38)
- 박준호, "비형식 논리학의 논증과 논증 평가 개념", 범한철학, 34(3), pp.151~175 (2004), 범한철학회
- 박준호, "논증의 종류와 평가의 기준 -비판적 사고와 비형식 논리학의 의의-", 범한철학, 42(3), pp.273~296 (2006), 범한철학회
- 박준호, "논증과 오류", 한국논리학회 2010 겨울 정기학술대회보 (2010)
- 박준호, "선결문제요구와 논증평가론", 범한철학, 61(2), pp.275~298 (2011), 범한철학회
- 여영서, "오류의 정의", 범한철학, 45(2), pp.187~205 (2007), 범한철학회
- 최훈, "사람에의 호소는 오류인가?", 논리연구, 6(1), pp.1~68 (2003), 한국논리학회
- 최훈, "오류의 새로운 정의", 범한철학, 51(4), pp.359~378 (2008), 범한철학회
- Barth, E. M, "From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation" (1982), Walter de Gruyter
- Biro, J., "In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation", Informal Logic, 26(1), pp.91~101 (2006)
- Blair, J. A, "The Place of Teaching Informal Fallacies in Teaching Reasoning Skills or Critical Thinking", pp.319~327 (1995)
- Blair, J. A, "Argument and Its Uses", Informal Logic, 24(2), pp.137~151 (2004)
- Carnap, Rudolf, "논리와 철학: 논리의 본질 및 철학과의 관계를 해명한 글들", pp.13~25 (1993), 서광사
- Cohen, Daniel H., "Evaluating Arguments and Making Meta-arguments", Informal Logic, 21(2), pp.73~84 (2001)
- Govier, Grudy, "Practical Study of Argument, 5th. ed" (2001), Wadsworth Publishing Co
- Fogelin, R. J., "Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 5th ed" (1997), Harcourt Brace College Publishers
- Johnson, R. H, "Massey on Fallacy and Informal Logic: A Reply", Synthese, 80(3), pp.407~426 (1989)
- Johnson, R. H, "The Blaze of her Splendors: Suggestions about Revitalizing Fallacy Theory", pp.107~119 (1995)
- Johnson, R. H., "Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument" (2000), Lawrence Erlbau Associates Publishers
- Johnson, R. H, "Logical Self-Defense, 3rd. ed" (1977), McGraw-Hill Ryerson
- Johnson, R. H, "New Essays in Informal Logic" (1994), Informal Logic
- Hamblin, C. L., "Fallacies" (1970), Vale Press
- Hansen, Hans V, "Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, University Park" (1995), The Pennsylvania State University Press
- Hansen, Hans V, "The Straw Thing of Fallacy Theory: The Standard Definition of ‘Fallacy’", Argumentation, 16, pp.133~155 (2002)
- Hazlett, Allan, "Epistemic Conceptions of Begging the Question", Erkentnis, 65, pp.343~363 (2006)
- "On the Concepts of Logical Fallacy and Logical Error" (2003)[URL]
- Lumer, Christoph, "Reductionism in Fallacy Theory", Argumentation, 14(4), pp.405~423 (2000)
- Massey, Gerald J, "The Fallacy Behind Fallacies", Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 6(1), pp.489~500 (1981)
- Paul, Richard, "Critical Thinking: What every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World, Rohnert Park" (1990), Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University
- Ritola, J., "Wilson on Circular Arguments", Argumentation, 15(3), pp.295~312 (2001)
- Salmon, W, "논리학" (1984), 박영사
- Searle, J. R., "Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language" (1969), Cambridge University Press
- Siegel, H., "Epistemic Normativity, Argumentation, and Fallacies", Argumentation, 11, pp.277~292 (1997)
- Sinnott-Armstrong, W, "Begging the Question’", Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 77, pp.174~191 (1999)
- Smith, Paul L., "Arguments as Abstract Objects", Informal Logic, 31(3), pp.230~261 (2011)
- Stark, Synthia A, "Hypothetical Consent and Justification", The Journal of Philosophy, 97(6), pp.313~334 (2000)
- Woods, J., "The Death of Argument: Fallacies in Agent Based Reasoning" (2004), Springer
- Walton, D., "A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy" (1995), University of Alabama Press
- Wreen, Michael, "What is a fallacy", pp.93~102 (1994)