Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation

by Douglas N. Walton

This is an introductory guide to the basic principles of constructing good arguments and criticizing bad ones. It is nontechnical in its approach, and is based on 150 key examples, each discussed and evaluated in clear, illustrative detail. The author explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound argument strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical questions for responding. Among the many subjects covered are: techniques of posing, replying to, and criticizing questions, forms of valid argument, relevance, appeals to emotion, personal attack, uses and abuses of expert opinion, problems in deploying statistics, loaded terms, equivocation, and arguments from analogy.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Reference

310 pages, Paperback

First published July 28, 1989

About the author

Douglas Neil Walton (PhD University of Toronto, 1972) is a Canadian academic and author, well known for his many widely published books and papers on argumentation, logical fallacies and informal logic. He is presently Distinguished Research Fellow of the Centre for Research in Reasoning, Argumentation, and Rhetoric (CRRAR) at the University of Windsor, Canada, and before that (2008-2014), he held the Assumption Chair of Argumentation Studies at the University of Windsor. Walton’s work has been used to better prepare legal arguments and to help develop artificial intelligence. His books have been translated worldwide, and he attracts students from many countries to study with him. A special issue of the journal Informal Logic surveyed Walton’s contributions to informal logic and argumentation theory up to 2006 (Informal Logic, 27(3), 2007). A festschrift honoring his contributions, Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton’s Theories of Reasoning and Argument, ed. C. Reed and C. W. Tindale, London: College Publications, 2010, shows how his theories are increasingly finding applications in computer science. A list of titles of many of Walton’s books is given below. Links to preprints of many of his published papers can be found on the website

http://www.dougwalton.ca

Reviews

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this was a very good introduction to informal logic. Walton gives a unique presentation on informal fallacies. He takes care to locate the fallacy in the "context of dialogue." I think he rightly points out that calling someone out for committing a fallacy isn't a black or white call. Some traditional fallacies are not always fallacies in every context of dialogue. For example, it would probably be wise to take the medicine your doctor prescribes, on his say-so. Thus the argumentum ad verecundiam isn't always a fallacy. This may be obvious (other texts point out the same) to some, but Walton even does the same with circular reasoning, force, pity, et alia. There is not many who would allow this pattern of reasoning to get a pass. I think Walton's book is extrememly helpful. It helps you get out of the freshman phrase where you call "fallacy!" even when there isn't one.

[Stefan Detrez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Douglas Walton starts his systematic discussion beginning with examples, analyzing there fallacious structures and ponders on potential difficulties of classifying particular examples as erratic or not, e.g. a tu quoque is not always an informal fallacy as seen in the example of the following dialogue:

A: 'Son, you shouldn't smoke.'
B: 'But dad, you smoke yourself!'

Walton's analyzing is thorough and a splendid follow-up to general introductions to informal fallacies.

[J]

Rigorous introduction to logic for argument. Reads much like a textbook.

[loafingcactus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anything by Walton is bound to be good and this is no exception. Many of my notes from this book will surely show up in future blog posts.

[Christine Cordula Dantas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good introduction and reference to argumentative fallacies and how to keep a rational dialogue. 4/5 stars

[Adr.Rock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Esse durou mais tempo do que eu gostaria! 😒

Através de vários exemplos claros e familiares, ele mostra como argumentar e refutar ideias ao discutir os mais diversos assuntos em nosso dia-a-dia. De forma prática e sem muitos termos técnicos, ele explica e exemplifica cada conceito, erro na lógica de um argumento, apelo emocional ou falácia utilizada para ludibriar, confundir ou induzir uma discussão para o lado em que a contrapartida desejar. Apesar de a contracapa indicar ser um manual introdutório à lógica informal, algumas partes podem dar um nós na mente, com isso requerem um pouco mais de atenção. Em geral, é muito interessante quando por diversas vezes me veio à mente as mais diversas ocasiões, onde pessoas cometeram os mesmos erros, as mesmas falácias, seja de forma proposital ou mesmo sem perceber. Atacar a pessoa e não a ideia, jogar números e estatísticas no discurso, citar pesquisa e especialistas, ou o famoso “Dizem que...”, sem fontes ou exatidão, apenas para encorpar um argumento dando-o uma cara verídica e confiável, quando em muitas vezes não são!

[Philip of Macedon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Douglas N Walton, in his 1989 book Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, discusses methods of analyzing arguments “as they occur in natural language in the real marketplace of persuasion on controversial issues...” Early in the book he introduces the main types of Argumentative Dialogue.

The quarrel is the lowest level of argument, full of ad hominem and emotional arguments that are irrelevant, excessive personal attacks, one-sided criticisms, and fallacies.

Then there is the debate, which tends to prohibit attacks but may still allow fallacious arguments, aggression, and personal allegations. The point is to win a verbal victory by impressing the audience, not by making the strongest arguments. This exchange is defensive and offensive, like a game. Is often more about appearing to have a good argument than actually having one.

The type to aspire toward is the persuasion dialogue / critical discussion: both participants have a thesis and the goal is for each side to persuade the other side that their thesis is true. Both are committed to internal and external proofs in support of their thesis, but also to accepting the statements of the other side, conceding when they make valid points or proofs. Cooperation is central to this form of argument — giving helpful and honest replies that allow the other participant to extract commitments from him.

Inquiry is a higher form of the persuasion dialogue, where the only allowable premises are those that are established to be true to the satisfaction of all parties, as reliable knowledge. The goal is to acquire increments of knowledge.

In discussions of moral, political, philosophical natures, or negotiation, or other contested forms, we should generally be aspiring toward these last two forms of dialogue if we want to have productive or useful conversations. In doing so, we agree to certain commitments. Walton spends the book first describing those commitments, and then explaining how we can analyze a huge array of ideas and forms of argument.

I’ve had this book for almost 19 years. I’ve started it multiple times and for one reason or another kept setting it aside for later. This time I finished it, and I wish I’d finished it long ago. In those 19 years I’ve read a lot of other philosophy, participated in philosophy forums online, and have had hundreds of discussions and arguments like the ones this book was written to clarify and help one understand, compose, and defend. Although being familiar with this book’s substance would have made me sharper and a more effective communicator, arguer, or participant in philosophical or political discussions over the last two decades, I think I got more out of it now than I would have in my early 20s. I have more familiarity with the topics, the nature of arguments and ideas. I am better able to appreciate what Douglas Walton has done and better able to apply it.

“ The problem with the debate and the quarrel as models of argument is that personal victory at any cost becomes the goal, even if impartial standards of logical reasoning may have to be waived or contravened. Yet dialogue can be reasonable only to the extent that the goal of building a stronger case than the opposition is carried out within a structure that is binding on both parties. Otherwise, the argument has a strong tendency to diverge from the path of dialogue when the sequence moves toward revealing the deeper positions of the participants on the issue to be discussed. A one-sided diatribe is worthless and unrevealing.

“Hence the importance of impartial criticism. An important skill is to be able to recognize those types of critical points where dialogue becomes less than reasonable or is diverted away from a better line of argument. In fact, being able to recognize these critical points in an argument, and deal with them by asking the right critical questions, are the key skills of informal logic as a discipline.”

Walton covers just about everything one could hope for or expect: how to handle questions and answers in dialogue, how to formulate and scrutinize presuppositions, complex questions, loaded questions, and reasonable rules to follow in such processes; how to critique details of arguments as irrelevant, or respond to allegations of irrelevance; appeals to emotion or popularity or force; what makes arguments valid or invalid; various forms of fallacies and attacks and biases exploited by inexperienced or undisciplined arguers; how expert opinions or statistics ought to, if at all, be weighed in deciding conclusions, such as in legal cases; and ultimately how all of this should be employed in what he calls natural language argumentation, with attention to ambiguity and vagueness as they are often used in equivocation or slippery slope arguments.

The chapters build on one another, often pulling from earlier examples and ideas to flesh out the later ones. Walton stresses the importance of defining our critical terminology so that we aren’t arguing about different things, arguing past one another. He provides many strategies for reducing confusion or sloppiness in argumentation, advocating for many sensible techniques that I have found effective myself, as well as many more I have never encountered.

The book can be a little dry for long periods, as it presents its subject in a serious and straight forward way. Many dozens of examples are used to illustrate the concepts of each chapter, followed by sometimes lengthy and detailed analyses and comparisons and critiques, focusing on all the relevant components of an argument, or the subtle nuances used by competing sides, or how persuasion works, how critique should proceed, or the tricks being attempted, such as slight shifts in meaning over the duration of an argument. It isn’t a pop-philosophy book aimed at a general audience, but was written for students of logic or those wanting to understand the rigor and structure of good argumentation.

The book will, if studied closely and its lessons applied, produce a more capable and intellectually robust participant in all kinds of philosophical discussions. One unfortunate conclusion I have come away from the book with, however, and which is supported by my years of trying to have these sorts of conversations, is that the people capable of putting these lessons into practice, or even recognizing their importance in the clear communication of ideas, are few and far between. After reading the book you may become more capable and attentive and careful, but you will also find disappointment in almost every serious, substantial argument you find yourself engaged in.

[Andy Adkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

many books I have listed as to be read are more accurately listed as to be re-read (it seems dishonest to say that I am currently reading 8000 books when in actuality many are just source material which on occasion awaken curious efforts for value assessments

[Steve Herreid]

I bought this book over 20 years ago and finally decided to read it. Got 60 pages in and was surprised how poorly written it was (in my opinion). Lots of unnecessary repetition. Will look for a better volume on this valuable topic.

[Ramos Greatest · Rating 4 out of 5]

Extremamente útil para perceber a argumentação, no dia a dia.