@book{walton_informal_1987,
	title = {Informal {Fallacies}: {Towards} a {Theory} of {Argument} {Criticisms}},
	isbn = {978-90-272-5005-6},
	url = {http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Informal_Fallacies.html?hl=&id=BGwTc1DhylQC},
	abstract = {The basic question of this monograph is: how should we go about judging arguments to be reasonable or unreasonable? Our concern will be with argument in a broad sense, with realistic arguments in natural language. The basic object will be to engage in a normative study of determining what factors, standards, or procedures should be adopted or appealed to in evaluating an argument as “good,” “not-so-good,” “open to criticism,” “fallacious,” and so forth. Hence our primary concern will be with the problems of how to criticize an argument, and when a criticism is reasonably justified.},
	publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing},
	author = {Walton, Douglas N},
	year = {1987},
	keywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Fallacies of Reason, Psychiatrist}
}

{"_id":"kwCeRrjPMQ4Bok6Xt","bibbaseid":"walton-informalfallaciestowardsatheoryofargumentcriticisms-1987","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-03-15T15:56:59.077Z","title":"Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms","author_short":["Walton, D. N"],"year":1987,"bibtype":"book","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero/davidlloyd3","bibdata":{"bibtype":"book","type":"book","title":"Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms","isbn":"978-90-272-5005-6","url":"http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Informal_Fallacies.html?hl=&id=BGwTc1DhylQC","abstract":"The basic question of this monograph is: how should we go about judging arguments to be reasonable or unreasonable? Our concern will be with argument in a broad sense, with realistic arguments in natural language. The basic object will be to engage in a normative study of determining what factors, standards, or procedures should be adopted or appealed to in evaluating an argument as “good,” “not-so-good,” “open to criticism,” “fallacious,” and so forth. Hence our primary concern will be with the problems of how to criticize an argument, and when a criticism is reasonably justified.","publisher":"John Benjamins Publishing","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Walton"],"firstnames":["Douglas","N"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"1987","keywords":"Mental Health/Bias: Fallacies of Reason, Psychiatrist","bibtex":"@book{walton_informal_1987,\n\ttitle = {Informal {Fallacies}: {Towards} a {Theory} of {Argument} {Criticisms}},\n\tisbn = {978-90-272-5005-6},\n\turl = {http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Informal_Fallacies.html?hl=&id=BGwTc1DhylQC},\n\tabstract = {The basic question of this monograph is: how should we go about judging arguments to be reasonable or unreasonable? Our concern will be with argument in a broad sense, with realistic arguments in natural language. The basic object will be to engage in a normative study of determining what factors, standards, or procedures should be adopted or appealed to in evaluating an argument as “good,” “not-so-good,” “open to criticism,” “fallacious,” and so forth. Hence our primary concern will be with the problems of how to criticize an argument, and when a criticism is reasonably justified.},\n\tpublisher = {John Benjamins Publishing},\n\tauthor = {Walton, Douglas N},\n\tyear = {1987},\n\tkeywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Fallacies of Reason, Psychiatrist}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Walton, D. N"],"key":"walton_informal_1987","id":"walton_informal_1987","bibbaseid":"walton-informalfallaciestowardsatheoryofargumentcriticisms-1987","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Informal_Fallacies.html?hl=&id=BGwTc1DhylQC"},"keyword":["Mental Health/Bias: Fallacies of Reason","Psychiatrist"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["informal","fallacies","towards","theory","argument","criticisms","walton"],"keywords":["mental health/bias: fallacies of reason","psychiatrist"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["kRLSZGSDAgwZPh2tM"]}