Experimental research demonstrates how argumentum ad baculum falls under rules of reasonableness, highlighting its recognition issues.
Key Points
This article examines why certain fallacies, particularly the argumentum ad baculum, are often unrecognized in argumentation despite clear rules of reasonableness.
Conducted experimental research in the Netherlands and China to observe perceptions of the argumentum ad baculum.
Assessed how fallacies are perceived as reasonable or unreasonable in argumentation.
Focused on differences between disguised and undisguised argumentation ad baculum.
Participants judged an argumentum ad baculum as more reasonable when presented as advice than when it was direct threat.
Results replicated previous findings from the Netherlands, confirming cultural consistency in perceptions of fallacies.