The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference

Berman, Michael; Lightbody, Brian

doi:10.22329/il.v30i2.1192

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If the middle term assumes a different meaning in the two premises, then the syllogism contains four terms, rather than three, which causes the fallacy. We called "metaphoric fallacy" a quaternio terminorum based on an ambiguity connected to the metaphorical premise of the argument (Walton, 1996;Lightbody and Berman, 2010;Fischer, 2014).…”

Section: Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and behavior in different meaningful ways. Thus, a double (metaphorical and affective) framing effect might influence argumentation in the case of emotive metaphors, such as “Poverty is a disease” or “Your boss is a dictator,” where specific “emotive words” (disease, dictator) are used as vehicles. We present and discuss the results of two experimental studies designed to explore the role of emotive metaphors in argumentation. The studies investigated whether and to what extent the detection of a fallacious argument is influenced by the presence of a conventional vs. novel emotive metaphor. Participants evaluated a series of verbal arguments containing either “non-emotive” or “emotive” (positive or negative) metaphors as middle terms that “bridge” the premises of the argument. The results show that the affective coherence of the metaphor's vehicle and topic plays a crucial role in participants' reasoning style, leading to global heuristic vs. local analytical interpretive processes in the interplay of the metaphorical and the affective framing effects.

show abstract

Section: Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Nuanced but important: A literature-based comparison between B2B and B2C platforms

Feike,

Rösch

2024

Decision Analytics Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ethics of Human–Animal Relationships and Public Discourse: A Case Study of Lions Bred for Their Bones

Coals

Burnham

Loveridge

et al. 2019

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation and natural resource management are increasingly attending the ethical elements of public decisions. Ethical considerations are challenging, in part, because they typically require accounting for the moral consideration of various human and nonhuman forms of life, whose interests sometimes conflict (or seem to conflict). A valuable tool for such evaluations is the formal analysis of ethical arguments. An ethical argument is a collection of premises, logically interrelated, to yield a conclusion that can be expressed in the form, “We ought to…” According to the rules of logic, a conclusion is supported by an argument if all its premises are true or appropriate and when it contains no mistaken inferences. We showed how the formal analysis of ethical arguments can be used to engage stakeholders and decision-makers in decision-making processes. We summarised the method with ten specific guidelines that would be applicable to any case. We illustrated the technique using a case study focused on captive-bred lions, the skeletons of which form part of an international trade to supply traditional medicine markets in Southeast Asia with felid bones. As a matter of public policy, the practice is a complicated nexus of concerns for entrepreneurial freedom, wildlife conservation, and the fair treatment of animals.

show abstract

The Metaphoric Fallacy to a Deductive Inference

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

Nuanced but important: A literature-based comparison between B2B and B2C platforms

The Ethics of Human–Animal Relationships and Public Discourse: A Case Study of Lions Bred for Their Bones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About