ما مدى نجاعة المغالطة في الاقناع ?

Abstract EN

Paralogism is considered among the most prominent means in the argumentative discourse.

It was exercised by the Sophists to incite the listeners to adopt their claims or win an issue they defended, relying on the authority of the language and the custom and all that is common within the group, regardless of the validity of the thesis or not.

This is what prompted Plato and later on Aristotle to fight this trend in argumentation by trying to detect its thesis fragility/frailty, horizon narrowness and drawing the public attention to its shortcomings in distinguishing the truth from the falsehood, in addition to the deviation of this method from the principles of the good and high ethics.

This study is to unveil the types of fallacies that the arguer resorts to in order to justify his issue and refute the thesis of his opponent.