(redirected from Argument from)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia.
References in periodicals archive ?
Clearly, we want to be able to say that the argument from p to q is irrational precisely because it ignores r.
Now the big issue is whether the circumstantial ad hominem (or possibly the other forms as well) is the same thing as argument from commitment, or whether they are two different types of argument.
Rogan's argument is clearly an argument from analogy.
This argument is not an ad hominem argument, but just an argument from precedent.
On the surface, the argument seems to be an argument from commitment of the following form.
The upshot of this argument from commitment is that these people should be committed to non-leniency in this case too.
There is a form of argument called argument from pragmatic inconsistency (or, say one thing, do another) identified in Walton (1998, p.
For example, if in using argument from pragmatic inconsistency, the arguer says that a's actions represent his true commitments, and the conclusion is drawn that a is deceiving us, or that a is a hypocrite, or something of that sort, then the argument is a genuine ad hominem.
Is it an ad hominem, or merely an argument from pragmatic inconsistency?
Judged as an argument from pragmatic inconsistency, Rogan's argument is reasonable, and not fallacious.