APPENDIX A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws W e can treat fallacies either as: 1) mistakes, slips, blunders, or mental errors; or 2) deceptions, deceits, sophisms, ruses, or dirty tricks. We can classify fallacies by the following principles of division (Figure 25.1). All Flaws are either Mistakes or Sophisms. All Flaws are either Syntactic, Semantic, or Pragmatic. Each of the above three types can be divided dichotomously into two sub-types of mistakes or sophisms. Syntactic: Deductive and Inductive; Semantic: Definitional and Interpretive; Pragmatic: Diversionary and Illicit Processes. Syntactic (Logical) Fallacies Deductive (Formal) Fallacies Affirming the Consequent No conclusion can be drawn from a deductive argument in which a premise asserts the consequent of conditional. ([If p then q, and q], therefore p) is invalid. Affirming a Disjunct No conclusion can be drawn from a deductive argument in which a premise asserts a disjunct of an inclusive disjunction. (Either p and/or q.) ([(Either p and/or q) and q], therefore p) is invalid.
Transcript
APPENDIX
A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
We can treat fallacies either as: 1) mistakes, slips, blunders, or mentalerrors; or 2) deceptions, deceits, sophisms, ruses, or dirty tricks. We canclassify fallacies by the following principles of division (Figure 25.1).
All Flaws are either Mistakes or Sophisms. All Flaws are either Syntactic, Semantic,or Pragmatic. Each of the above three types can be divided dichotomously into twosub-types of mistakes or sophisms. Syntactic: Deductive and Inductive; Semantic:Definitional and Interpretive; Pragmatic: Diversionary and Illicit Processes.
Syntactic (Logical) Fallacies
Deductive (Formal) Fallacies
Affirming the ConsequentNo conclusion can be drawn from a deductive argument in which a premiseasserts the consequent of conditional.
([If p then q, and q], therefore p) is invalid.
Affirming a DisjunctNo conclusion can be drawn from a deductive argument in which a premiseasserts a disjunct of an inclusive disjunction. (Either p and/or q.)
([(Either p and/or q) and q], therefore p) is invalid.
CompositionTo argue that the qualities of the part necessarily belong to the whole.
Denying the AntecedentNo conclusion can be drawn from a deductive argument in which a premisedenies the antecedent of a conditional premise.
([(If p then q) and not p] therefore not q) is invalid.
DivisionTo argue that the qualities of the whole belong necessarily to the parts.
Faulty Presumption of Existential ImportThe faulty assumption that universal categorical premises of syllogisms alwaysare talking about things that exist.
(All S is P, therefore Some S is P) is invalid.
Faulty Converse of an A PropositionThe mistake of inferring that an universal affirmative categorical propositionimplies necessarily its converse, that is, the reversal of subject and predicate terms.
(All S is P, therefore All P is S) is invalid.
Fallacy of Four TermsThe mistake of having four terms in a syllogism. Valid syllogisms have only threeterms.
All M is PAll S is N
——————All S is M
Negative PremisesIn a syllogism no conclusion can be drawn validly from two negative premises.
Non SequiturA purported deductive argument that does not logically follow from premises.All invalid logical arguments are non sequiturs.
Particular PremisesIn a syllogism no conclusion can be drawn validly from two particular premises.
(Some — are — ) and (Some — are not — ) are particular premises.
258 • Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
Inductive Fallacies
Double CountingA graphical trick displaying the same data in ascending and descending curves tomake the count visually appear double the size.
Experimental ErrorData used to warrant a hypothesis that does not consider the magnitudes of theerrors of measurement in experiments.
Fallacies of OmissionNeglecting to present relevant facts at issue in an inductive argument.
Fallacies of SlantingGiving evidence only on one side of an issue in an inductive argument.
Fallacies of SelectionGiving only the evidence that supports a hypothesis in an inductive argument.
Fallacies of DistortionTwisting the facts to make them seem favorable or unfavorable, or visa versa, inan inductive argument.
Gamblers Fallacy (Fallacy of Maturity of Chances)The mistake of thinking that the probability of independently occurring eventsare linked.
Hasty GeneralizationForming empirical generalizations on the basis of too few instances, cases, events,or on the basis of too little evidence.
Hiding the Base Value of PercentagesHiding the numerical values of comparisons by percentages computed fromsmall numerical values, thus disguising relatively small amounts of data.
Insignificant FiguresData that contains numerical values that are rendered insignificant by computa-tions with numbers containing too much guess-estimated values in measurement.
Misleading Statistical MeasuresAny statistical measure that is either meaningless or that gives a distorted view ofthe frequencies of a correlation or the relative distribution in a population.
Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws • 259
Misuse of AveragesAn inappropriate use of mean, median, or mode that gives a distorted view ofthe frequency of distribution or the relative distribution.
Scale DistortionA graphical trick that distorts the scale of a graph by manipulating the scales onthe axes to magnify or diminish the size and appearance of the data.
Truncated ScalesThe graphical trick of not zeroing the scales on the axes of a graph thus magni-fying the appearance of change in the display of data.
Uncontrolled FactorsTo argue for a correlation between events from experimental data when the cor-relations are affected by factors not under control in the experiment or in the col-lection of the data.
Unmarked AxesA graphical trick of displaying data without marking the axes with scales to indi-cate the amounts and quantity of data.
Unrepresentative Sample (Example)A selection of instances or samples that do not have the same characteristics andpatterns that exist in the target population.
Semantic Fallacies
Definition
Circular DefinitionThe mistake of using a term being defined in the defining terms of a logical def-inition.
Figurative DefinitionUsing metaphors or figures of speech in the defining terms, thus making it dif-ficult to be precise or determinate about what is meant.
Negative DefinitionTo define in such a way that the defining terms names the complementary classof the term defined, or to define the class by naming all things not included inthe class defined.
Obscure DefinitionTo define in such a way that the defining terms are less understood than the termdefined.
260 • Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
Persuasive DefinitionDefining a term in such a way as to introduce normative standards or value stan-dards for judging something good or bad, right or wrong.
Question Begging DefinitionWhen establishing or defining the terms in an argument to define as true thepoint at issue in the argument.
ReificationThe mistake of treating a nominal or verbal definitions of terms or abstractionsas real things existing in the world.
Too Broad a DefinitionDefining a term in such a way that the class defined by the defining terms ismore extensive or contains more members than the class named by the termdefined.
Too Narrow a DefinitionDefining a term in such a way that the class defined by the defining terms con-tains fewer members than the class named by the term defined.
Interpretive
Ambiguity in Purpose and AimA lack of a determinate aim in a piece of discourse. Author confuses reader aboutwhat he or she is doing in a piece of discourse.
Ambiguity in Tone or VoiceThe author presents himself or herself in inconsistent ways, displaying inconsis-tent clues as to what he or she is like.
Black and White FallacyNot allowing a middle ground between two points at issue.
Empty TautologyA statement that is true on the basis of the meaning of the terms in the statement.
Empty and Vacuous AbstractionsThe use of abstract terms such as freedom, perfection, justice, equality with outany specification of their concrete applications.
EquivocationA shift in the sense of a term occurring more than once in an argument. Termsmust be uniformly interpreted in logical arguments.
Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws • 261
Faulty Presumption of an Exclusive ‘Or’Assuming that the alternatives in the argument are the only ones when they are not.
JargonThe use of the technical language inappropriate for and not understood by theaudience.
Loaded TermsUsing terms with either positive or negative connotations to beg ascriptions of value.
Logical AmbiguityA statement that has more than one plausible interpretation, thus making itimpossible to decide whether or not it is true or false.
Logical VaguenessA term or expression not sufficiently precise in meaning to be applicable in acontext of communication. Thus, it is impossible to determine whether or notthe statement is true or false.
Misleading Figures of SpeechA figure of speech that confuses an audience about what a speaker intends to sayor imply.
Misplaced HyperboleExaggeration for effect that leads someone to take the exaggeration literally.
Misplaced UnderstatementA downplay for rhetorical effect that leads one to taking the statement literallyas minimal when it is not.
MisrepresentationA misinterpretation, either deliberate or by mistake of another person’s position.
Mudding up the WatersIntroducing different issues to confuse the issue.
NeologismAn unnecessary use of a new word or an old term in a new or different sense.
OvergeneralizationAssuming that all of something is the case when in fact only a large or a smallernumber is the case.
Pragmatic AmbiguityHaving more than one plausible interpretation as to the function of an utteranceor as to the way the utterance is used.
262 • Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
Quoting out of ContextMisinterpreting a sentence by removing it from a piece of extended discoursethat is necessary to determine the meaning of what the sentence is doing or say-ing in the context.
Reading too Much into a StatementUnwarranted interpretations of the rhetorical implications of a statement.
Semantic AmbiguityA logical ambiguity caused by a word or an expression having more than oneplausible interpretation.
Syntactical Ambiguity (Amphibole)A logical ambiguity caused by faulty reference, scope, or other confusions result-ing from the grammar of a sentence.
Strawman (Strawperson)To misinterpret another person’s argument in counter argumentation so as tomake it easy to refute.
Spurious AccuracyDisplaying data with insignificant figures or with questionable precision to givean impression that the precision is significant when it is not.
Resolvable AmbiguityAmbiguity that can be interpreted but with a great deal of interpretive effort,thus making it extremely difficult to read.
Too Complex StatementsStatements with too many embedded elements of factors or terms making themdifficult if not impossible to comprehend.
Too Many Levels of NegationNegation operators syntactically over elements containing negation operatorsmaking statements too difficult, if not impossible to comprehend.
Too Many Premises to an ArgumentArguments with three or more premises making it difficult to see what rules of infer-ence apply without careful logical analysis, thus, making it difficult, if not impossi-ble, to comprehend without a rigorous formal logical analysis of the argument.
Pragmatic Fallacies
Diversionary Fallacies
Ad hominem AbusiveAttacking the person instead of the issue to divert attention away from the issue.
Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws • 263
Changing the SubjectIntroducing new topics to take people’s mind off the subject or the issue beingtalked about.
Emotive FallaciesEmotive appeals used in the context of rational appeals to persuade. The use ofemotive force in what one says to divert attention away from the point at issue.Diversions of issues to feelings, emotions, loyalties, and highly charged valueissues that may deeply concern the audience.
A List of Common Emotive Appeals
Appeals to Force Appeals to Pity Appeals to FearAppeals to Friendship Appeals to Friendship Appeals to LoyaltiesAppeals to Country Appeals to Pride Appeals to MobAppeals to Gallery Appeals to People Appeals to PatriotismAppeals to Religious Faith Appeals to Flag Appeals to PrejudicesAppeals to Jealousy Appeals to Anger Appeals to HateAppeals to Greed Appeals to Lust Appeals to EnvyAppeals to Wishful Thinking
Fallacies of DistractionDoing or saying things that will distract attention from the issue at hand.
Faulty Framing of IssueDefining the problem or issue in such a way that it begs the issue or diverts atten-tion from the real issue.
Side Stepping an ArgumentEvading the issue by any means such as changing the subject.
Red HerringBringing a controversial issue into the discussion to divert attention from thepoint at issue.
Second IssueIntroducing another issue to take attention away from the first issue.
Tricks to Prevent Discussion of an Issue
Use of Nitpicking Use of Ridicule Use of HumorUse of Frivolous Objections Use of Interruptions Use of FilibusterUse of Hairsplitting Use of Parliamentary Points of Order
Illicit Rhetorical Processes
Ad hominem AbusiveAttacking the person instead of the argument.
264 • Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
Ad hominem IngratiatingAn appeal on the basis of premises that an audience accepts, leaving the audiencewith the implication that the speaker accepts the premises when in fact he or shedoes not.
Alleged CertaintyAsserting a statement that is open to contention or as if it were true or accept-able to an audience.
Appeal to Authority (Ad verecundiam)An appeal to the credibility or expertise of another upon the probability that theperson knows or is correct about the point at issue. The appeal is a fallacy whenthe person has no credibility nor any recognized expertise.
Appeal to IgnoranceA form of shifting the burden of proof in which you argue that the other personhas no grounds for disproving what you are trying to prove.
Begging the Question (Petitio principii)Using as a premise the conclusion of an argument.
Circular ArgumentComplex form of begging the question where there is intermediate argumenta-tion between the premise that is begged and the conclusion.
Fallacy of Only One ExplanationThe mistake of thinking that since there is only one explanation that the expla-nation must necessarily be true or correct.
False Dilemma (False Double Bind)An argument made of alternatives and the statements of the consequences of thealternatives in which either the alternatives are false or the statements of the con-sequences derived from the alternatives are false. You are damned if you do anddamned if you don’t. The alternatives in either case are not exclusive thus theargument is invalid.
Faulty AnalogyA faulty comparison that attempts to suggest that two cases are alike in all or inmost respects when they are not.
Faulty ComparisonComparisons made on the basis of features or factors unlike or not the same.
Genetic FallacyArguing that someone is wrong on the basis of how they acquired their belief.
Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws • 265
Jumping to ConclusionsMaking judgments either about explanations or about facts on the basis of toolittle evidence, or no evidence, or without assessing the evidence available.
Making Inferential Leaps Too BigLeaping across evidence casually, too quickly, sketching proofs too quickly withwild leaps in the intermediate logical steps, thus prone to error and making mis-takes in the argument.
Poisoning of the WellsMaking it impossible or difficult to argue by making it impossible to give evi-dence or premises in an argument, either by not accepting premises, always ques-tioning premises, or making it impossible to give evidence by discounting anyevidence presented.
Post Hoc (Post hoc ergo propter hoc) (After this because of this)The mistake in thinking that A is the cause of B because B is observed to followor occur just after A.
Rhetorical VaguenessNot saying enough to fulfill the aim or the purpose of a piece of discourse.
Shifting the Burden of ProofTrying to get someone to disprove what you are trying to prove when it is yourargument and your claim.
Special PleadingAn argument where a universal principle is announced and applied against oth-ers but not applied to cases that are in the interest of the person arguing.
Slippery SlopeAn argument that treats a small gradation of change as big. One little slip is asgood as a mile.
Treating a Contributing Cause as the Sole CauseThe mistake of thinking that a causal situation has only one or a single causewhen a number of casual factors enter into the situation.
Treating an Inductive Argument as a Deductive ArgumentIndicating that a conclusion necessarily follows when the conclusion is open todisconfirmation.
266 • Appendix: A Taxonomy of Rhetorical and Logical Flaws
Reference List
Alterman, Eric. 2003. What liberal media? The truth about bias and the news. New York:Basic Books.
Aristotle. 1941. The basic works of Aristotle: Poetics, Rhetoric, Sophistical Refutations, andPolitics. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House.
Auden, W. H., and Louis Kronenberger. 1981. The Viking book of aphorisms: A personalselection. New York: Viking Press.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
———. 1970. Philosophical papers. Ed. J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bacevich, Andrew J. 2005. The new American militarism: How Americans are seduced bywar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bacon, Sir Francis. 1955. Novum organum. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.Bakan, Joel. 2004. The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York:
Simon and Schuster.Barthes, Roland. 1988. The semiotic challenge. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill
and Wang.Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bloom, Allan. 1987. Closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Bok, Sissela. 1978. Lying: Moral choices in public and private life. New York: Vintage
Books.———. 1983. On the ethics of concealment and revelation. New York: Vintage Books.Booth, Wayne. 1961. The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.———. 1978. Modern dogma and the rhetoric of assent. Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press.———. 1979. Critical understanding: The powers and limits of pluralism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.———. 2004. The rhetoric of rhetoric: The quest for effective communication. Oxford:
Blackwell.Brock, David. 2004. The republican noise machine: The right wing media and how it cor-
rupts democracy. New York: Three Rivers Press.Brooks, David. 1996. Backward and upward: The new conservative writing. New York:
Vintage Books
Bruner, Jerome. 1990. Acts of meaning: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.———. 2002. Making stories: Law, literature, life. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Geroux.Burke, Edmund. 1955. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Indianapolis, IN: Liberal
Arts Press.———. 1962. An appeal from the new to the old Whigs. Indianapolis, IN: Liberal Arts
Press.Calvin, John. 1950. On God and political duty. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1986. Cicero on oratory and orators. Trans. J. S. Watson.
Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.Clymer, Adam. 1955. Simpson joins ranks of pragmatists leaving Senate. New York Times,
December 4.Coleman, James S. 1982. The asymmetrical society. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.———. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Commons, John R. 1950. The economics of collective action. New York: Macmillan.Connason, Joe. 2003. Big lies: The right-wing propaganda machine and how it distorts the
truth. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Corbett, Edward P. J. 1999. Classical rhetoric for the modern student. 4th ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Crick, Bernard. 1962. In defense of politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2003. Good business. New York: Viking.Dahms, Harry F., ed. 1999. Transformation of capitalism: Economy, society, and the state in
modern times. New York: New York University Press.Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.———. 1927. The public and its problems. Denver: Alan Swallow.———. 1929. The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge to action. New
York: C. P. Putnam’s and Sons.———. 1959. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.Dietze, Gottfried. 1985. Liberalism proper and proper liberalism. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.Dionne, E. J., Jr. 1991. Why Americans hate politics. New York: Simon and Schuster.Drew, Elizabeth. 1999. The corruption of American politics: What went wrong and why.
New York: Overlook Press.Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Eco, Umberto. 1992. Interpretation and overinterpretation. With Richard Rorty, Jonathan
Culler, and Christine Brooke-Rose. Ed. Stefan Collini. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Eisenberg, Abne M., and Joseph A. Ilardo. 1972. Argument: An alternative to violence.Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ennis, Robert H. 1981. Critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Fisher, Walter R. 1987. Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of rea-
son, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Flew, Anthony. 2001. Equality in liberty and justice. London: Transaction.Foucault, Michel. 1973. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New
York: Vintage Books. Originally published as Les Mots et les choses.Frank, Thomas. 2001. One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism, and
the end of democracy. New York: Anchor Books.———. 2004. What’s the matter with Kansas: How conservatives won the heart of America.
New York: Henry Holt.
268 • Reference List
Franken, Al. 2003. Lies, and the lying liars who tell them. New York: Dutton.Frankfurt, Harry G. 2005. On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the “Postsocialist” condition.
New York: Routledge.Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. 1990. Free to choose: A personal statement. New
York: Harcourt.———. 2002. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1958. The affluent society. Boston: Houghton and Mifflin.———. 1998. Created unequal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books.———. 2004. Changing minds: The art and science of changing our own and other people’s
minds. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Garver, Eugene. 1994. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: The art of character. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.———. 2004. For the sake of argument: Practical reasoning, character, and the ethics of
belief. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Gergen, David. 2000. Eyewitness to power: The essence of leadership Nixon to Clinton. New
York: Simon and Schuster.Gerwirth, Alan. 1982. Human rights: Essays on justification and applications. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.———. 1996. The community of rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Giglioli, Pier Paola. 1985. Language and social context: Selected readings. New York:
Penguin.Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ:
Doubleday.———. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.Gray, John. 2001. The two faces of liberalism. New York: New Press.Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.———. 2001. Aspects of reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Grotius, Hugo. 1957. Prolegomena to the law of war and peace. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-
Merrill.Habermas, Jurgen. 1990. Moral consciousness and communication action. Trans. Christian
Lendhardt and Shuvig Weber Nicholson. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press.
———. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a categoryof bourgeois society. Trans. Thomas Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence.Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Halstead, Ted, and Michael Lind. 2001. The radical center: The future of American poli-tics. New York: Anchor Books.
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison. n.d. The federalist: A commentary on
the Constitution of the United States. Ed. Edward M. Earle. New York: Modern Library.Hauser, Gerard. 2002. Introduction to rhetorical theory. Prospect, IL: Waveland Press.Hauser, Gerard, and Amy Grim, eds. 2004. Discursive practices of civic engagement.
Selected papers from 2002 Rhetoric Society of America. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Hayek, Freidrich A. 1967. Road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reference List • 269
———. 1979. Law legislation and liberty. Vol. 3, The political order of a free people.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayes, John R. 1989. The complete problem solver. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Herbert, Bob. 2004. New York Times, November 8.Hirsch, E. D. 1988. Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. New York:
Vintage Books.Hirschman, Albert O. 1991. The rhetoric of reaction: Perversity, futility, jeopardy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Hobbes, Thomas. 1961. Leviathan or the matter, forms and power of commonwealth eccle-
siastical and civil. Oxford: Blackwell.Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1988. Eloquence in an electronic age: The transformation of polit-
ical speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.———. 1992a. Dirty politics: Deception, distraction, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.———. 1992b. Packaging the presidency: A history and criticism of presidential campaign
advertising. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and David S. Birdsell. 1988. Presidential debates: The challenges
of creating an informal electorate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. 2005. The interplay of influence:
News, advertising, politics and the mass media. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Paul Waldman. 2003. The press effect: Politicians, journal-
ists, and the stories that shape the political world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Johannesen, Richard L. 1975. Ethics and human communication. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.Johnson, Ralph H. 1996. The rise of informal logic: Essays on argumentation, critical think-
ing, reasoning, and politics. Newport, VA: Vale Press.Johnstone, Henry W., Jr. 1970. The problem of the self. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press.Jonsen, Albert B., and Stephen Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral
reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.Judis, John, and Ruy Teixeira. 2002. The emerging democratic majority. New York:
Scribner.Kant, Immanuel. 1956. Critique of practical reason. Trans. Lewis Beck White. New York:
Liberal Arts Press.———. 1969. Foundation to the metaphysics of morals. Trans. Lewis Beck White.
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Kaplan, Justin, ed. 1992. Bartlett’s familiar quotations. 16th ed. Boston: Little Brown.Kaufer, David S., and Kathleen M. Carley. 1993. Communcation at a distance: The influ-
ence of print on sociocultural organization and change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Kennedy, George. 1980. Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from
ancient to modern times. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Kinneavy, James L. 1971. A theory of discourse: The aims of discourse. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.Knight, Frank Hyneman. 1956. On the history and method of economics: Selected essays.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Kristol, Irving. 1995. Neoconservatism: The autobiography of an idea. New York: Free
Press.
270 • Reference List
Krugman, Paul. 2003. The great unraveling: Losing our way in the new century. New York:Norton.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Originally published, 1962.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about themind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2002. Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Lind, Michael. 1996. Up from conservatism: Why the right is wrong for America. New York:Free Press.
Locke, John. 1952. An essay concerning human understanding. Chicago: EncyclopediaBritannica.
———. 1985. Treatise of civil government and a letter concerning toleration. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.
MacCullum, Gerald C. 1987. Political philosophy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame, IN: Notre
Dame University Press.Marx, Karl. 1955a. Capital. Ed. Friedrich Engels. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.———. 1955b. The communist manifesto. Ed. Friedrich Engels. Chicago: Encyclopedia
Britannica.Massey, Douglas S. 2005. Return of the “L” word: A liberal vision of the new century.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.McChesney, Robert W. 2004. The problem with the media: U. S. communication politics
in the 21st century. New York: Monthly Review Press.McCroskey, James C. 1978. An introduction to rhetorical communication. 3rd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.McLean, Ian, and Alistair McMillan, eds. 2003. Concise Oxford dictionary of politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind self and society: From the standpoint of the behavior-
ist. Ed. Charles W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Mill, John Stuart. 1947. On liberty. Ed. Alburey Castell. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.Miller, Matt 2003. The two percent solution: Fixing America’s problems in ways liberals and
conservatives can love. New York: Public Affairs.Morris, Charles W. 1938. Foundation of the theory of signs. Vol. 1, no. 2, Encyclopedia of
unified science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.———. 1946. Signs, language, and behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall.Moyers, Bill. 2004. Moyers on America: A journalist and his times. New York: Free Press.Nagel, Thomas. 1991. Equality and partiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nietsche, Friedrich. 1966. Beyond good and evil. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York:
Vintage Books.———. 1994. On the genealogy of morals. Trans. Carol Diethe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Nussbaum, Martha C. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Diability, nationality, species membership.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Reference List • 271
Ortega y Gasset, José. 1932. The revolt of the masses. New York: W. W. Norton.Paine, Thomas. 1915. Rights of man: Being an answer to Mr. Burke’s attack on the French
Revolution. New York: E. P. Dutton.Panofsky, Erwin. 1955. Meaning in the visual arts. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Parsons, Talcott. 1949. The structure of social action. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Perlman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1968. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumen-
tation. Trans. John Wilkenson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: University ofNotre Dame Press.
Perry, Charner. 1973. Ethics and democracy. Ethics: An International Journal of Social,Political, and Legal Philosophy 83, no. 2 (January): 87–107.
Phillips, Kevin. 1990. The politics of the rich and poor: Wealth and the American electoratein the Reagan aftermath. New York: Random House.
———. 2002. Wealth and democracy: A political history of the American rich. New York:Random House.
Plato. 1969. The collected dialogues of Plato: Republic and Phaedrus. Ed. Edith Hamiltonand Huntington Cairns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Popper, Karl. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchitson.———. 1963. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routleledge and Kegan Paul.Raskin, Marcus B. 2004. Liberalism: The genius of American ideals. Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield.Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.———. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.———. 1999. The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Reich, Robert. 2005. Reason: Why liberals will win the battle of America. New York:
Vintage Books.Richards, I. A. 1965. The philosophy of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Roberts, R. H., and J. M. M. Good, eds. 1994. The recovery of rhetoric: Persuasive discourse
and disciplinarity in the human sciences. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.———. 1998a. Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth century. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.———. 1998b. Truth and progress. Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.———. 1999. Philosophy and social hope. New York: Penguin.Rousseau, Jean Jaques. 1957. The social contract. New York: Hafner.Sabato, Larry J. 1993. Feeding frenzy: How attack journalism has transformed American pol-
itics. New York: Free Press.Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York:
Penguin.Sandel, Michael J. 1996. Democracy’s discontents: America in search of a public policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Scheffler, Samuel. 2002. Boundaries and allegiances: Problems of justice and responsibility
in liberal thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York:
HarperCollins.Scott, Robert L. 1967. On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. Central States Speech Journal
18:9–16.
272 • Reference List
———. 1976. On viewing rhetoric as epistemic: Ten years later. Central States SpeechJournal 27:258–66.
Searle, John. 1995. Construction of social reality. New York: Simon and Schuster.Sidgwick, Henry. 1962. The method of ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Singer, Peter. 1993. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.———. 1999. A Darwinian left: Politics, evolution and cooperation. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.———. 2004. One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Sontag, Susan. 1966. Against interpretation. New York: Dell Publishing.Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.Strauss, Leo. 1968. Liberalism, ancient and modern. New York: Basic BooksStrauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey, eds. 1987. The history of political philosophy. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.———. 1992. The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.———. 1994. Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.———. 2002. Varieties of religion today: William James revisited. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.Thurow, Lester C. 1996. The future of capitalism: How today’s economic forces shape tomor-
row’s world. New York: William Morrow.Toulmin, Stephen E. 1992. Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago:
University Press.———. 2001. Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Trilling, Lionel. 1971. Sincerity and authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Veblen, Thorstein. 1902. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Viking Press.———. 1958. The theory of business enterprise. New York: Mentor.Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.———. 1992. The place of emotion in argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press.———. 2001. Persuasive definitions and public policy arguments. Argumentation and
Advocacy 37 (3): 117–32.Walzer, Michael. 2005. Politics and passion: Towards a more egalitarian liberalism. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Weaver, Richard. 1985. The ethics of rhetoric. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.Weber, Max. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. Trans. A. M.
Henderson and Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.Willard, Charles Arthur. 1989. A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press.———. 1996. Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democ-
racy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Williams, Bernard. 1995. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Reference List • 273
———. 2002. Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
———. 2005. In the beginning was the deed: Realism and moralism in political argument.Ed. Geoffrey Hawthorne. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, John F., and Carroll C. Arnold. 1968. Public speaking as a liberal art. Boston:Allyn and Bacon.
Winterowd, W. Ross. 1998. The English department: A personal and institutional history.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
———. 1972. On certainty. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. New York:Harper and Row.
Wollheim, Richard. 1980. Art and its objects. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.Yoos, George E. 1971. A phenomenological look at metaphor. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 32 (September): 77–88.———. 1973. Review of Fallacies by C. L. Hamblin. Rhetoric Society Newsletter 3
(March): 11.———. 1975. Review of Ethics in human communication by Richard Johannesen.
Quarterly Journal of Speech 61 (October): 340–43.———. 1979. A revision of the concept of ethical appeal. Philosophy and Rhetoric 12
(Winter): 41–58.———. 1984. Rational appeal and the ethics of advocacy. In Classical rhetoric and mod-
ern discourse, ed. Robert C. Connors, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford, 82–97.Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
———. 1987. Rhetoric of appeal and rhetoric of response. Philosophy and Rhetoric20:107–17.
———. 1991. Person, personae, and ghostwriting: Ethics and fictive voice. In Rhetoricand ethics: Historical and theoretical perspectives, ed. Theresa Aarons and Willis A.Salomon. Lewistown, NY: Mellen Press.
———. 1994. Style, invention, and indirection: Aphorisms. In Composition and context,by George E. Yoos and Philip M. Keith, 235–57. Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.
———. 1995. Pragmatics and critical thinking. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across theDisciplines 14 (Summer): 19–28.
———. 1996. Logos. In Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition, ed. Theresa Enos,410–14. New York: Garland.
———. 1998a. Comparative review of Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A newrhetoric for modern democracy by Charles Arthur Willard, In defense of politics byBernard Crick, The revolt of the masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset, and The public and itsproblems by John Dewey. Rhetoric Review 16, no. 2 (Spring): 344–49.
———. 1998b. Ross tells stories: Explorations in the study of narrative. Journal ofAdvanced Composition 18, no. 3 (Fall): 427–38.
———. 2004. Review of Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy by BernardWilliams. Rhetoric Review 23, no. 1 (Fall): 85–89.
Young, Richard E., Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. 1970. Rhetoric: Discovery andchange. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Zinn, Howard. 1999. A people’s history of the United States: 1492–Present. New York:HarperCollins.
274 • Reference List
Index
abortion, 87–88, 91ad hoc argument, 254ad hominem, abusive, 42, 104, 188ad rem, 254alleged certainty, 246, 265allusion, 160. See also remindinganalytic statements, 183anarchy, 58–59aphorisms, 102, 166, 168appeals, 75, 80-81, 145–47, based on
trust, 198. See also argumentargument: as appeal, 184; as deductive,
184; as quarrel, 184; byexample/instantiation, 186
ing; remindingAustin, J. L., xvi, 144authority, 25, 155
background matrix, 182Bacon, Sir Francis, 247Berlin, Isaiah, 27black and white fallacy, 252Bok, Sissela, 205Booth, Wayne, 10, 23, 103Bruner, Jerome, 164–65burden of proof, xiv, 251–54, 265Burke, Kenneth, 185, 233–34Bush, George W., 6, 11, 14, 41, 60, 141
calculations of probabilities, 185capitalism, 60, 128–29Carnap, Rudolph, 244casuistry, 75centrists/middle of the road. See politicschecks and balances, 119–20Chicago Seven, 210chunking, 173citing the testimony of others, 189classical pattern of arrangement, 167Coleman, James, 69common places. See topicscommunications studies, 225communitarians, 49, 58,compromise, 12conceptual frames, 47–48, 53, 169consistency: semantic, 183; syntactical, 183contrasts, 169–70conventions of credentialing, 157Corbett, Edward P. J., 167corporations/corporate actors, 60, 70,
111–12, 124–25, 200–201correlative terms, 99Covey, Preston, 38creativity, 53, 145, 218credibility, 155, 157, 198. See also trustCrick, Bernard, 21critical analysis, 234–35
159liberalism, 9, 12, 39–40, 68libertarians, 25–27liberty. See freedomlimits of attention, 45, 173Locke, John, 196logically possible worlds, 182logos: as reason, 185; as word, 183–85
