Rethinking the Concept of Fallacies in Argumentation Instruction

Traditionally in critical thinking and argumentation instructional approaches groups of general argument patterns have often been listed and taught as fallacies, for example ad-hominem, slippery slope, and black and white. The definition of a fallacy is that it represents a general argument that applies invalid or faulty reasoning. However, the implication of listing groups of argument patterns as fallacies is that the problem with the argument is seen to be in the inherent form of the argument. Previous work, however, has pointed out that it is not the form but the content, the weakness or strength of the claim itself and the perspective being brought to the claim that determines the reasonableness or appropriateness of the claim, or whether it may display invalid or faulty reasoning. Building upon this body of work and my own experience, I develop a position arguing against using a traditional approach of instruction that describes groups of argumentative patterns as fallacies due to their inherent form. I also argue that the traditional approach has some potentially serious drawbacks for student attitudes and critical thinking dispositions. Finally, an alternative approach for how these argument patterns could be used as teaching materials that reflect a more real-world oriented paradigm is discussed.