This paper builds a nine-step method for determining whether a straw man fallacy has been committed in a given case or not, by starting with some relatively easy textbook cases and moving to more realistic and harder cases. The paper shows how the type of argument associated with the fallacy can be proved to be a fallacy in a normative argumentation model, and then moves on to the practical task of building a hands-on method for applying the model to real examples of argumentation. Insights from linguistic pragmatics are used to distinguish the different pragmatic processes involved in reconstructing what is said and what is meant by an utterance, and to differentiate strong and weak commitments. In particular, the process of interpretation is analyzed in terms of an abductive pattern of reasoning, based on co-textual and contextual information, and assessable through the instruments of argumentation theory.
|Title of host publication||Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy:|
|Subtitle of host publication||Theories and Applications|
|Editors||Alessandro Capone, Marco Carapezza, Franco Lo Piparo|
|Place of Publication||Cham|
|Number of pages||26|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jan 2019|
|Name||Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology|