View Only Articles , Only References , Everything

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Position to Know Ad Populum Argument Scheme

Depending on preferred classification style, it can be a subcategory of Ad Populum or a subcategory of Source-based Arguments.
Ad Populum arguments are inherently weak and prone to exploit prejudice. They are typically categorized as fallacies but in many instances they can be reasonable arguments and the best kind of evidence available to make a rational decision (Walton, Reed, Macagno. 121). 
The degree of commitment to the truth of the argument varies from person to person, however, if artifacts are available for review in support of the Ad Populum argument, they strengthen the persuasiveness of the argument, and the Ad Populum argument takes on the characteristics of another more persuasive reasoning scheme.

The type of reasoning scheme that it transitions to must be assessed with regard to all that is known about it in order to determine which scheme it has transitioned to.
Major Premise: a person a is in a position to know about things in the domain of a subject which contains proposition P.
Minor Premise: a asserts that P is true (or false).
Conclusion: P is true (or false).

Critical Questions about the argument
1. Is a in a position to know whether P is true (or false)?
2. Is a an honest (trustworthy, reliable) source?
3. Did a assert that P is true (or false)?

Reference for this example in the book Argumentation Schemes
Douglas Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002, p. 46.

Reference for this page in Argumentation Schemes
Walton, Reed, Macagno. Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 309
Email this article

No comments: