Rethinking the Concept of Fallacies in Argumentation Instruction

Traditionally in critical thinking and argumentation instructional approachesgroups of general argument patterns have often been listed and taught asfallacies, for example ad-hominem, slippery slope, and black and white. Thedefinition of a fallacy is that it represents a general argument that applies invalidor faulty reasoning. However, the implication of listing groups of argumentpatterns as fallacies is that the problem with the argument is seen to be in theinherent form of the argument. Previous work, however, has pointed out that itis not the form but the content, the weakness or strength of the claim itself andthe perspective being brought to the claim that determines the reasonableness orappropriateness of the claim, or whether it may display invalid or faultyreasoning. Building upon this body of work and my own experience, I develop aposition arguing against using a traditional approach of instruction thatdescribes groups of argumentative patterns as fallacies due to their inherentform. I also argue that the traditional approach has some potentially seriousdrawbacks for student attitudes and critical thinking dispositions. Finally, analternative approach for how these argument patterns could be used as teachingmaterials that reflect a more real-world oriented paradigm is discussed