En matière d’argument fallacieux, il est certainement important d’aiguiser nos esprits pour les remarquer. A noter cependant que fallacieux ne veut pas dire malicieux. C’est un terme neutre sur le plan de l’intentionnalité. En effet, si vous grattez un peu dans la multitude de façon de raisonner de travers, vous vous apercevez que l’essentiel de nos intervention le sont, fallacieuses, faillibles, imparfaites. Cela demande un travail d’une grande rigueur pour s’en affranchir , si tant est qu’on puisse s’en affranchir.
De plus, il y a un risque important lorsque l’on découvre ce monde merveilleux, c’est la militarisation de cette nouvelle connaissance. Dans les discussions internes si on commence à se balancer des accusation en argumentum ad nauseam, ou sequdum quid, on n’arrive plus à rien. Au contraire il convient de passer par un détour, un exemple comparable, pour démontrer l’erreur, sans nécessairement être trop agressif.
Essentiellement, si le but est d’améliorer la qualité des échanges sur cette plate-forme, on préférera une vision positive sous la forme d’un code de conduite intellectuelle, si dessous en anglais:
1. The Fallibility Principle
Each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the
fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that one’s
own initial view may not be the most defensible position on the question.
2. The Truth-Seeking Principle
Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the
truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one
should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in
the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or
raise objections to any position held on an issue.
3. The Clarity Principle
The formulations of all positions, defenses, and attacks should be free of any kind
of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
4. The Burden-of-Proof Principle
The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth
the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argu-
ment for that position.
5. The Principle of Charity
If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully
expressed in its strongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed
to be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that inten-
tion or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given the ben-
efit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity
to amend it.
6. The Structural Principle
One who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the
fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument. Such an argument
does not use reasons that contradict each other, that contradict the conclusion, or
that explicitly or implicitly assume the truth of the conclusion. Neither does it draw
any invalid deductive inferences.
7. The Relevance Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only rea-
sons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.
8. The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons
that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard
criteria of acceptability.
9. The Sufficiency Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide
relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in
number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.
10. The Rebuttal Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the argu-
ment an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that
may be brought against it or against the position it supports.
11. The Suspension-of-Judgment Principle
If no position is defended by a good argument, or if two or more positions seem to
be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment
about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require a more immediate deci-
sion, one should weigh the relative benefits or harm connected with the conse-
quences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.
12. The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the argument for one of the alternative
positions is a structurally sound one that uses relevant and acceptable reasons that
together provide sufficient grounds to justify the conclusion and that also includes
an effective rebuttal to all serious criticisms of the argument and/or the position it
supports. Unless one can demonstrate that the argument has not met these condi-
tions more successfully than any argument presented for alternative positions, one
is obligated to accept its conclusion and consider the issue to be settled. If the argu-
ment is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new
doubts about the merit of the position it supports, one is obligated to reopen the
issue for further consideration and resolution.
The first three of these principles are commonly regarded as standard principles
of intellectual inquiry. They are almost universally understood as underlying our
participation in serious discussion.
tiré de
ATTACKING FAULTY
REASONING
A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments
SIXTH EDITION
T. Edward Damer
Emory & Henry College