Marcin Lewinski, “Polylogical fallacies: Are there any?”
1. Fallacy in argument is either an inferential infelicity or a disruption of intelligent interaction for dispute resolution. Intelligent interaction is dialogue with pro-con rules. Fallacies of dialogue are cases of breaking those rules. Polylogical contexts have more than two speakers, so have different rules. If different rules, then different kinds of ways to break them. So polylogical contexts can have different fallacies.
2. Polylogical context is verbal interaction in interaction of multiple parties with distinct positions. So instead of A-B dialogue, it’s A, B, C,D… polylogue. Dialogue rules are like rules of court- turn taking. Polylog rules are more like rules of order for a potentially raucous group.
3. Application: false dilemmas are regularly cases of looking at specific dialogical exchanges, but not acknowledging the variety of the positions on the issue. Polylogical false dilemma.
Collateral straw man. A, in responding to C, attributes B’s view to C. An ‘argument triangle’.
Comment (C.Woods) Lewinski’s cases may be polylogical cases of fallacies, but the polylogical background may occasion the fallacy, but that’s not the fallacy of the cases.
Q: Must polylogical cases be transitive? If A beats B, and B beats C, does A beat C? Answer: NO.
Q: Must there be global or local common ground for polylogical discussion?