Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony
Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circul...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Walton, Douglas [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2005 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer 2005 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Argumentation - Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987, 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:19 ; year:2005 ; number:1 ; month:03 ; pages:85-113 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2062558465 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2062558465 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502210559.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2005 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2062558465 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 400 |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 7,11 |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a LING |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Walton, Douglas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2005 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer 2005 | ||
| 520 | |a Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a argumentation schemes | |
| 650 | 4 | |a begging the question | |
| 650 | 4 | |a circular reasoning | |
| 650 | 4 | |a evidence law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fallacies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a multi-agent systems | |
| 650 | 4 | |a testimony | |
| 650 | 4 | |a reputation management | |
| 650 | 4 | |a source trustworthiness | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Argumentation |d Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 |g 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 |w (DE-627)165801050 |w (DE-600)18188-2 |w (DE-576)034177094 |x 0920-427X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:19 |g year:2005 |g number:1 |g month:03 |g pages:85-113 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-LING | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_130 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2093 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4082 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 19 |j 2005 |e 1 |c 03 |h 85-113 | ||
| author_variant |
d w dw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:0920427X:2005----::egnteusinnruetbs |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2005 |
| publishDate |
2005 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Walton, Douglas verfasserin aut Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony 2005 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer 2005 Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness Enthalten in Argumentation Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 19 2005 1 03 85-113 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Walton, Douglas verfasserin aut Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony 2005 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer 2005 Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness Enthalten in Argumentation Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 19 2005 1 03 85-113 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Walton, Douglas verfasserin aut Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony 2005 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer 2005 Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness Enthalten in Argumentation Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 19 2005 1 03 85-113 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Walton, Douglas verfasserin aut Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony 2005 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer 2005 Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness Enthalten in Argumentation Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 19 2005 1 03 85-113 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 doi (DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Walton, Douglas verfasserin aut Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony 2005 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer 2005 Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness Enthalten in Argumentation Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 19 2005 1 03 85-113 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Argumentation 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Argumentation 19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113 volume:19 year:2005 number:1 month:03 pages:85-113 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness |
| dewey-raw |
400 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Argumentation |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Walton, Douglas @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2005-03-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-sort |
3400 |
| id |
OLC2062558465 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062558465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210559.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2005 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062558465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Walton, Douglas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer 2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">argumentation schemes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">begging the question</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">circular reasoning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">evidence law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fallacies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">multi-agent systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">reputation management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">source trustworthiness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:85-113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">85-113</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Walton, Douglas |
| spellingShingle |
Walton, Douglas ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc argumentation schemes misc begging the question misc circular reasoning misc evidence law misc fallacies misc multi-agent systems misc testimony misc reputation management misc source trustworthiness Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| authorStr |
Walton, Douglas |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)165801050 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0920-427X |
| topic_title |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony argumentation schemes begging the question circular reasoning evidence law fallacies multi-agent systems testimony reputation management source trustworthiness |
| topic |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc argumentation schemes misc begging the question misc circular reasoning misc evidence law misc fallacies misc multi-agent systems misc testimony misc reputation management misc source trustworthiness |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc argumentation schemes misc begging the question misc circular reasoning misc evidence law misc fallacies misc multi-agent systems misc testimony misc reputation management misc source trustworthiness |
| topic_browse |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc argumentation schemes misc begging the question misc circular reasoning misc evidence law misc fallacies misc multi-agent systems misc testimony misc reputation management misc source trustworthiness |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Argumentation |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-tens |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Argumentation |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 |
| title |
Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2062558465 (DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p |
| title_full |
Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| author_sort |
Walton, Douglas |
| journal |
Argumentation |
| journalStr |
Argumentation |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2005 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
85 |
| author_browse |
Walton, Douglas |
| container_volume |
19 |
| class |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Walton, Douglas |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |
| dewey-full |
400 100 |
| title_sort |
begging the question in arguments based on testimony |
| title_auth |
Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| abstract |
Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. © Springer 2005 |
| abstractGer |
Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. © Springer 2005 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence. © Springer 2005 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_130 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
165801050 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:31:36.898Z |
| _version_ |
1803572422269468672 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062558465</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210559.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2005 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062558465</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-004-2071-1-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Walton, Douglas</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer 2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Summary This paper studies some classic cases of the fallacy of begging the question based on appeals to testimony containing circular reasoning. For example, suppose agents a, b and c vouch for d’s credentials, and agents b, d, and e vouch for a’s credentials. Such a sequence of reasoning is circular because a is offering testimony for d but d is offering testimony for a. The paper formulates and evaluates restrictions on the use of testimonial evidence that might be used to deal with such problematic arguments. One is called the Non-repeater Rule: in an extended sequence of argumentation based on testimony, once a source x has been appealed to at any given point in the sequence, that same source x must never be appealed to again at any next point in the same sequence.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">argumentation schemes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">begging the question</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">circular reasoning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">evidence law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fallacies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">multi-agent systems</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">reputation management</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">source trustworthiness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">19(2005), 1 vom: März, Seite 85-113</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:19</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:85-113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-004-2071-1</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_130</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">19</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">85-113</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3999414 |