Rhetoric & Fallacies

Facebook Twitter

Dictionnaire de rhétorique et des figures de style. Lexique, Définition. Figurez-vous que vous avez du style! On pourrait croire que les figures de style sont l’apanage des grands auteurs et des professeurs de français qui prennent plaisir à tourmenter leurs étudiants... Pourtant, chacun de nous emploie quotidiennement plusieurs procédés stylistiques. - Les figures de rhétorique - Les figures de style - SCHOPENHAUER'S 38 STRATAGEMS, OR 38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher.


These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument. (abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer) The Art of Being Right. The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831) (Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu Behalten) is an acidulous and sarcastic treatise written by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in sarcastic deadpan.[1] In it, Schopenhauer examines a total of thirty-eight methods of showing up one's opponent in a debate.

The Art of Being Right

He introduces his essay with the idea that philosophers have concentrated in ample measure on the rules of logic, but have not (especially since the time of Immanuel Kant) engaged with the darker art of the dialectic, of controversy. Whereas the purpose of logic is classically said to be a method of arriving at the truth, dialectic, says Schopenhauer, "...on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest.

" Publication[edit] A. C. Rhétorique. Langue_bois. Générateur de langue de bois. La langue de bois !

Générateur de langue de bois

Un langage que tout présidentiable sérieux se doit de maîtriser. Eluder les questions embarrassantes, parler pour ne rien dire, brosser l'électeur dans le sens du poil, autant d'exercices dans lesquels la plupart des hommes politiques excelle. Mais la campagne est longue. Parce qu'on ne peut pas être au sommet de sa forme tous les jours, Présidentielle 2012 met à la disposition des candidats ce générateur de langue de bois. D'une utilisation très simple, il vous sortira des situations les plus embarassantes et vous évitera de faire des promesses que vous n'avez pas l'intention de tenir.

La langue de bois générée par cet outil n'est pas le fruit de notre imagination. Deepak Chopra Mad Libs. Just-world hypothesis. The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, such as: "You got what was coming to you", "What goes around comes around", and "You reap what you sow".

Just-world hypothesis

This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s.[1] Research has continued since then, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.[2] Emergence[edit] Many philosophers and social theorists have observed and considered the phenomenon of belief in a just world. Lerner's work made the just-world hypothesis a focus of research in the field of social psychology. Melvin Lerner[edit] Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering. Early evidence[edit] Taxonomy of the Logical Fallacies. Fallacies. Dr.


Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters (webmaster@nizkor.org) and to Dr. Other sites that list and explain fallacies include: Logical Fallacies. Fallacies  A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning.


The list of fallacies contains 209 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides brief explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The discussion that precedes the long alphabetical list of fallacies begins with an account of the ways in which the term "fallacy" is vague.

Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric. Rhetoric. Painting depicting a lecture in a knight academy, painted by Pieter Isaacsz or Reinhold Timm for Rosenborg Castle as part of a series of seven paintings depicting the seven independent arts. This painting illustrates rhetorics. From Ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments.[4] The word is derived from the Greek ῥητορικός (rhētorikós), "oratorical",[5] from ῥήτωρ (rhḗtōr), "public speaker",[6] related to ῥῆμα (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying",[7] and ultimately derived from the verb ἐρῶ (erō), "say, speak".[8]

Category:Rhetoric theorists. Figure de style. Clé des procédés littéraires. Figure of speech. A figure of speech is the use of a word or a phrase, which transcends its literal interpretation.

Figure of speech

It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal meaning of the words in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, or synecdoche. Figures of speech often provide emphasis, freshness of expression, or clarity. However, clarity may also suffer from their use, as any figure of speech introduces an ambiguity between literal and figurative interpretation.

A figure of speech is sometimes called a rhetorical figure or a locution. Rhetoric originated as the study of the ways in which a source text can be transformed to suit the goals of the person reusing the material. The four fundamental operations[edit] Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. La Dialectique éristique. Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Définition[modifier | modifier le code] « La dialectique éristique est l'art de la controverse. » Cet art repose sur la distinction entre la vérité objective d'une proposition et l'apparence de vérité que cette proposition peut prendre aux yeux des disputeurs et des auditeurs. Sophisme. Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre.


Un sophisme, est une argumentation à la logique fallacieuse, c'est un raisonnement qui cherche à paraître rigoureux mais qui en réalité n'est pas valide au sens de la logique (et cela quand bien même sa conclusion serait pourtant la « vraie »). À l'inverse du paralogisme qui est une erreur dans un raisonnement, le sophisme est fallacieux : il est prononcé avec l'intention de tromper l'auditoire afin, par exemple, de prendre l'avantage dans une discussion. Fallacy. A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning.


An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.[1][2] A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form.[3] Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.[4] Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion due to insufficient evidence.

Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Copyright © Stephen Downes, 1995-2000 stephen.downes@ualberta.ca Taken from Fallacies of Distraction Ø False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options. List of Fallacies. A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.

List of Fallacies

Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Formal fallacies[edit] Main article: Formal fallacy. Rhetological Fallacies. Buy a printable multi-language PDF Thanks to 李为维, Hayanna Carvalho, Iván Galarza, Klaus-Michael Lux, Kadar Magor, Gilles Peyroux and Adriano Venditti, Rhetological Fallacies is now available in Chinese, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian and Spanish. We’re thinking of creating an interactive version of this graphic. Is that a good idea? Let us know your thoughts & ideas in our 30 sec survey. Taken from the forthcoming infographic mega-tome, Knowledge is Beautiful. Culture & Education. Gabriella Coleman - Faculty Bio.

Gabriella Coleman Curriculum Vitae/Syllabi Trained as an anthropologist, Gabriella (Biella) Coleman examines the ethics of online collaboration/institutions as well as the role of the law and digital media in sustaining various forms of political activism. Between 2001-2003 she conducted ethnographic research on computer hackers primarily in San Francisco, the Netherlands, as well as those hackers who work on the largest free software project, Debian.

Her first book, "Coding Freedom: The Aesthetics and the Ethics of Hacking" is forthcoming with Princeton University Press and she is currently working on a new book on Anonymous and digital activism. She is the recipient of numerous grants, fellowships, and awards, including ones from the National Science Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Social Science Research Council and the Institute for Advanced Study. The Self-Attribution Fallacy. Intelligence? Talent? No, the ultra-rich got to where they are through luck and brutality. By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 8th November 2011.