Las falacias en las teorías contemporáneas de la argumentación

Abstract

In this paper we use Hansson’s concept of formalized philosophy and the linked categories of simplified idealization and perfectionist idealization, aiming to metaanalyze three theoretical approaches to human argumentation: van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragmadialectics, Walton’s argumentative schemes, and Jacobs and Jackson’s conversational angle, in relation to their treatment of fallacies as a type of transgression of pragmatics rules. We conclude that while the two first theories are anchored in a centralized conception of the fallacious, the third theory abandons any possibility of normativity.

Keywords

• Falacias
• filosofía formalizada
• lenguaje regulado
• teoría de la argumentación
• fallacies
• formalized philosophy
• regimented language
• argumentation theory