Information Seeking Processes in Evaluating Argumentation

This article points out the relevance of the research on information seeking for argumentation theory. The process of evaluating argumentation presupposes diverse principles of argument classification and forms thus conflicting information needs. Following Taylor (1989), we distinguish between Aristotelian classification and the prototype classification. We show how these classification kinds form the conflicting principles of information seeking providing at the same time a common ground for the dissent information seeking processes in evaluating argumentation

The Distinction Between False Dilemma and False Disjunctive Syllogism

Since a clear account of the fallacy of false disjunctive syllogism is missing in the literature, the fallacy is defined and its three types are differentiated after some preliminaries. Section 4 further elaborates the differentia specifica for each of the three types by analyzing relevant argument criticism of each, as well as the related profiles of dialogue. After defining false disjunctive syllogisms, it becomes possible to distinguish between a false dilemma and a false disjunctive syllogism: section 5 analyzes their similarities (which explains why the fallacies are often confused with one another) and section 6 explains their differences.Skrivningen av denna artikel har finansierats av Uppsala universitets Burmans docentstipendium.</p