Tarihte informel mantık ve mantık hataları

Abstract

It is not possible to talk about a research field, a study discipline in which there is no logic, correct thinking, argumentation, deduction, and reasoning. Therefore, as a field of study, the discipline of history puts out its products within the framework of logic, correct thinking, and reasoning. In social sciences fields such as history, informal logic may be used better than classical or modern logic in disciplines where everyday language may be used. This study aims to show informal logic, the compatibility of informal logic with the nature of the history discipline, and how historical interpretations can be handled in terms of fallacies by considering the compatibility with nature. In the study, the informal logic in history discipline and the fallacies within the scope of informal logic are discussed, and the existing fallacies are refined by considering those that have similar content, were interrelated, were seen together, and then they were grouped under 13 fallacies. Thus, in the study, a classification of historical reasoning fallacies is presented based on historical reasoning: “ambiguity, ad hominem, exaggeration, reductionism, over-generalization, false analogy, criteria-based fallacies, inductive fallacy, faulty causality, emotionalization, irrelevance, faulty justification, stereotypical thinking”. With these 13 kinds of fallacies, various historical commentaries, and description examples, the aim is to offer explanatory information on this subject to historians and history educators. In subsequent studies, it is suggested to identify whether fallacies work in increasing the level of historical thinking when used by historians and history educators.