>>13371694>>13371701>>13371737>>13371769Philosophers of rhetoric have abandoned fallacy theory as a means to evaluate arguments. Here's a synopsis of an argument posted in a philosophy journal Argumentation:
https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html>Fallacy theory is popular among skeptics, but in fact it’s in serious trouble. Every fallacy in the traditional taxonomy runs into a destructive dilemma that I call the Fallacy Fork: either it hardly ever occurs in real life, or it is not actually fallacious.The author of the webpage is one of the authors of the philosophy paper, so it's an expert source. The way to casually bring it up against a smug asshole like that is to simply shut it down:
>hey dude I understand what you're saying, but are you familiar with Maarten Boudry's paper the Fallacy Fork? It's a paper published in the premier philosophy paper called Argumentation, and he argues that fallacies either aren't actually occurring in every day life, or that when they do they aren't actually fallacious. You seem to know a lot about fallacies so I'm curious what your opinions on his work is. Since people like that are usually smug assholes who will double down, all you have to say is
>hmmm I see what you're saying, but this guy is an actual philosophy professor of rhetoric. So I trust his opinion more than I trust yours on the topic of rhetoric. That's usually when he'd cite Argumentum ad Authority, but then you can just internally laugh at his idiocy.
