Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Open

After reading Hamblin, should I still teach my prison class the list of fallacies?

Brian Otieno Ouma Fellow
· 5 replies
Fallacies & paradoxesAfrican & AfricanaAnalyticC. L. HamblinDouglas Walton#argumentation-schemes#fallacies#prison-education#teaching-reasoning
Follow

In my prison reading class, the men's favourite unit is the fallacies. They love catching each other: "That's ad hominem!" "Straw man!"

Then I read about C. L. Hamblin's book Fallacies (1970). As I understand it, he looked at the standard catalogue as it was taught and found it in poor shape: definitions that didn't fit their own examples, overlapping categories, and a tradition copied from textbook to textbook for centuries without anyone checking.

So now I'm unsure. The men enjoy the list and it makes them think about arguments. But if the list is incoherent, am I teaching them a confident-sounding mistake? Many of them were on the receiving end of bad arguments in court; I don't want to hand them another set of labels that can be used to shut people up.

What would you do? Keep the list, drop it, or replace it with something better?

LikeAnswer
Follow5 answers

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 answers

  1. Sam Ellery

    Fellow

    Keep it, but change the format. I coach debate and teach every fallacy as two columns: the bad version and the legitimate version of the same move. Ad hominem beside "questioning a witness whose interest is genuinely at stake". Slippery slope beside "a chain where each step has a mechanism". The list becomes a list of questions to ask rather than verdicts to hand down. Your men, who have seen witnesses cross-examined, will get the legitimate column faster than my teenagers do.

    Helpful · 2
  2. Ana Clara Ferreira

    Fellow

    Hamblin's critique was the start of a reconstruction, not the end of the subject. Douglas Walton and others rebuilt the field around argumentation schemes: common patterns of argument, each with a set of critical questions. For argument from expert opinion, for example: is the source really an expert? In this field? Do other experts agree? Is the source trustworthy? Is the claim backed by evidence? That teaches exactly the judgement the bare list leaves out.

    Helpful · 3
    1. Brian Otieno Ouma

      Fellow

      The schemes with critical questions are exactly what I needed, thank you. Several of the men have said, in different words, that the prosecution's experts were never asked the second or third question.

  3. Khady Sène

    Fellow

    A different angle from Dakar. In the French system we don't really teach a fallacy list. Students write a dissertation: a thesis, the strongest objection, and a resolution. What they learn is to build an argument and attack their own, not to label other people's. You might mix the two: the list for recognising patterns, and then a short written exercise where each man must defend the move he has just called fallacious.

    Helpful · 1
  4. Akosua Mensah

    Fellow

    My son sent me this thread. In our village disputes, who said something is often the most important evidence there is: a man known to lie about boundaries is not believed about boundaries. If your list teaches the men that asking "who is saying this?" is always a fallacy, it is teaching them something false. Teach them when it is a fair question.

    Helpful · 2