Project description
Reevaluating mediaeval fallacy theory across traditions
Bad arguments have long intrigued scholars. Although interest in fallacies and critical thinking has recently grown, mediaeval fallacy theory is often overlooked. It is commonly believed that, after Aristotle, fallacy studies stagnated until revived by thinkers like those at Port Royal and John Locke. Supported by the ERC, the RevLogRedux project challenges this misleading narrative by examining mediaeval argumentative practices across the Arabic, Greek East, Hebrew and Latin West traditions. The project aims to provide a more accurate account of fallacy theory development, establish a foundation for improved classification and assessment of argumentation, and develop a computational infrastructure with a virtual research environment to manage complex data.
Objective
Bad arguments have never been in short supply. The same holds for the scholarly interest they have elicited both in their own right and as a cautionary tale about everything that can go amiss when we argue. This is hardly surprising. Asking what is wrong with flawed arguments is tantamount to investigating the very rules and principles of argumentation – only in reverse. Fallacy Studies have flourished in recent years (especially under the label of «critical thinking»). Without notable exception, the ever-growing literature on argumentative failures suffers from a conspicuous lack of interest in medieval fallacy theory – arguably one of the most creative stages in the whole history of argumentation theories. The standard story is that after Aristotle got off to a tentative start, the study of fallacies lay dormant until people at Port Royal and John Locke revived it.
RevLog Redux will show that this narrative is misleading and will replace it with a new account which will bring to bear the full resources of medieval treatments of illegitimate argumentative moves within and across the Latin West and the Greek East, as well as in the Arabic and the Hebrew traditions. In an unprecedented attempt to explore how medieval authors discussed fallacies, RevLog Redux will lay the groundwork for more conscious and historically sound ways to describe, classify and theoretically assess the laws and flaws of argumentation. To that end, RevLog Redux will develop an integrated computational infrastructure to manage the wealth and complexity of data, information and knowledge the project is expected to produce: namely, AskSten (as in «Ask Sten Ebbesen»), a multi-layered virtual research environment whose digital archive, knowledge base, Semantic Web architecture and on-line deployment will dramatically enhance the formal expressivness and coherence of the project’s findings. AskSten will also include a curated open access Encyclopaedia of Illegitimate Argumentative Moves.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
HORIZON.1.1 - European Research Council (ERC)
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
HORIZON-ERC-SYG - HORIZON ERC Synergy Grants
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) ERC-2024-SyG
See all projects funded under this callHost institution
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
75794 PARIS
France
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.