La Non-cogency misjudged: Reconstructing a three-stage mistaken argumentation-process

Abstract

Good intentions are not enough for cogent argumentation. Cogency is inherently epistemic and it is sustained in some prior conditions. First, it is necessary to establish the universe, or subject-matter, the discourse is about. Second, statements that convey information of that subject-matter must be coherent, they should say something. Third, chains of reasoning leading from one statement to another must be correct. These three conditions feature cogency as it is realized in argumentative practice. This article tracks non-cogency misjudged when combining concepts into a pseudo-thought and “linking” it in reasoning. Mistakes involved are uncovered by means of a two-vector analysis. The first arrow exhibits the unfortunate genealogy of a three-step sequence of errors. It begins with a category mistake due to crossing the extension of the concept of the universe of discourse established. It continues with a fallacy due to a gap in reasoning, and ends in a paradoxical argumentation. Paradox is a clear indication that something needs to be revised in our web of beliefs. The converse arrow regains cogency by de-constructing the previous vitiated process. It exhibits a way out of the paradox so obtained by re-classifying it as a fallacy due to the prior commission of a category mistake. Thus, cogency is restored and its whereabouts sharply recorded.