PHIL 201 CHAPTER 4 INFORMAL FALLACIES FALLACIES IN

  • Slides: 41
Download presentation
PHIL 201 CHAPTER 4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

PHIL 201 CHAPTER 4 INFORMAL FALLACIES

FALLACIES IN GENERAL • FALLACY: A DEFECT IN AN ARGUMENT THAT CONSISTS IN SOMETHING

FALLACIES IN GENERAL • FALLACY: A DEFECT IN AN ARGUMENT THAT CONSISTS IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN MERELY FALSE PREMISES. • FORMAL FALLACY: A LOGICAL ERROR IN A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT THAT OCCURS IN THE FORM OR STRUCTURE OF AN ARGUMENT. IF HUMANS SETTLE MARS, THEN THERE WILL BE LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS. IF H, THEN L HUMANS DON’T SETTLE MARS. NOT H THERE WON’T BE LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS. NOT L • INFORMAL FALLACY: A MISTAKE IN REASONING THAT OCCURS IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE, INCLUDING MISTAKES DUE TO RELEVANCE, UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION, AND AMBIGUITY OR DIVERSION. • UNDERSTANDING HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND ANALYZE FALLACIES GIVES YOU A BETTER APPRECIATION OF GOOD

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE • THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST GROUPS OF FALLACIES WITH WHICH

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE • THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST GROUPS OF FALLACIES WITH WHICH WE ARE GOING TO BECOME FAMILIAR ALL SHARE THE FLAW OF CONTAINING PREMISES THAT ARE LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSION. • WHEN ANALYZING THESE FALLACIES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT A CLAIM CAN BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY RELEVANT TO ANOTHER CLAIM, WITHOUT BEING LOGICALLY RELEVANT. • MY CHILDREN MAY WANT TO BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUSE, BECAUSE THEY LIKE TO DO SO, OR BECAUSE THEY ARE MOTIVATED BY THE EXTRA GIFTS THEY GET FROM ‘SANTA, ’ BUT IN THE FACE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE, THEY HAVE NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE. • A COMMON FEATURE OF THE FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE IS THE RELIANCE ON AN EMOTIONAL APPEAL TO MOTIVATE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONCLUSION.

FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS OR EMOTIONAL APPEALS • FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS

FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS OR EMOTIONAL APPEALS • FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS • OCCUR WHEN AN ARGUMENT IS REJECTED SOLELY ON AN ATTACK AGAINST THE PERSON MAKING THE ARGUMENT, NOT ON THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT ITSELF. • FALLACIES BASED ON EMOTIONAL APPEALS • OCCUR WHEN AN ARGUMENT RELIES SOLELY ON THE AROUSAL OF A STRONG EMOTIONAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTION TO GET A PERSON TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION.

FPA AND FEP • FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS • FALLACIES BASED ON EMOTIONAL

FPA AND FEP • FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS • FALLACIES BASED ON EMOTIONAL APPEALS 1. AD HOMINEM ABUSIVE 5. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE 2. AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL 6. APPEAL TO PITY 3. POISONING THE WELL 4. TU QUOQUE 7. APPEAL TO FEAR OR FORCE

AD HOMINEM, ABUSIVE • AD HOMINEM—“AGAINST THE PERSON” • THE ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM IS

AD HOMINEM, ABUSIVE • AD HOMINEM—“AGAINST THE PERSON” • THE ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM IS COMMITTED WHEN A CLAIM OR CONCLUSION IS REJECTED BASED ON ALLEGED CHARACTER FLAWS OR A NEGATIVE STEREOTYPE OF THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. • EXAMPLE: YOU SHOULD NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT OUR ECONOMY BECAUSE HE IS A LEFT-LEANING, CARD-CARRYING LIBERAL. • AN ARGUMENT SHOULD BE JUDGED ON ITS VALIDITY OR STRENGTH, AND THE TRUTH OF THE CLAIMS MADE IN IT, NOT BY VAGUE LABELS DENIGRATING A PERSON’S CHARACTER.

AD HOMINEM, CIRCUMSTANTIAL • THIS VERSION OF THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A

AD HOMINEM, CIRCUMSTANTIAL • THIS VERSION OF THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A CONCLUSION OR CLAIM IS REJECTED BASED ON THE LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. • EXAMPLE: SENATOR HILLTOP THINKS MY ADMINISTRATION’S TAX PROPOSALS ARE BAD FOR THE COUNTRY. HIS POLITICAL PARTY LOST THE LAST ELECTION. MEMBERS OF THE LOSING PARTY ARE ALWAYS JEALOUS OF THE WINNING PARTY. • THE PREMISES OF THIS ARGUMENT SUPPORT REJECTION OF HILLTOP’S POSITION PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HILLTOP’S POLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. • AN NON-FALLACIOUS REJECTION WOULD REFERENCE HILLTOP’S REASONS FOR HIS POSITION.

POISONING THE WELL • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN YOU REJECT SOMEONE’S POSITION IN ADVANCE,

POISONING THE WELL • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN YOU REJECT SOMEONE’S POSITION IN ADVANCE, ON THE BASIS OF POTENTIALLY PREJUDICIAL ASPECTS OF HER PERSON OR SITUATION, BEFORE THEY’VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARTICULATE THEIR ARGUMENT FOR THEIR POSITION. • EXAMPLE: BEFORE YOU READ HER ARTICLE “STOP ALL WARS, ” YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT SHE WAS ARRESTED SIX TIMES FOR PROTESTING IN FRONT OF THE PENTAGON AND WHITE HOUSE. SHE ALSO HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI FOR POSSIBLE TIES TO PEACE MOVEMENTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, SOME OF WHICH RESULTED IN VIOLENCE. IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THESE KINDS OF PEOPLE ARE DANGEROUS AND WANT TO DESTROY OUR CONSTITUTION AND TAKE AWAY OUR BASIC FREEDOMS. WE MUST NOT LET THEM.

AD HOMINEM, TU QUOQUE • THIS VERSION OF THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY OCCURS WHEN

AD HOMINEM, TU QUOQUE • THIS VERSION OF THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A CONCLUSION OR CLAIM IS REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF CLAIMED HYPOCRISY. • EXAMPLE: YOU HAVE BEEN LECTURING ME ABOUT NOT JOINING A GANG. BUT DAD, YOU WERE A GANG MEMBER, AND YOU NEVER WENT TO JAIL. [ DAD, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. I CAN DISREGARD YOUR LECTURES. ] I'LL MAKE MY OWN DECISION ABOUT JOINING A GANG. • ONCE AGAIN, RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHATEVER REASONS DAD OFFERS AGAINST GANG MEMBERSHIP, THE RESPONSE SEEKS TO REJECT THE CONCLUSION ON SOME OTHER (IRRELEVANT) GROUNDS.

SUMMARY OF FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS • PATTERN: • PERSON X PRESENTS AN

SUMMARY OF FALLACIES BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS • PATTERN: • PERSON X PRESENTS AN ARGUMENT. • PERSON Y ATTACKS THE CHARACTER OR CIRCUMSTANCES OF PERSON X. • BASED SOLELY ON THE ATTACK AGAINST PERSON X, PERSON Y REJECTS PERSON X’S ARGUMENT. • WHEN THE FALLACY DOES NOT OCCUR: • WHEN THERE ARE OBJECTIVE GROUNDS FOR DOUBTING A PERSON’S CLAIMS. • WHEN A DESCRIPTION OF A PERSON’S CHARACTER IS RELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION.

APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE IS AN

APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE IS AN ARGUMENT WHERE THE APPEAL TO AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE OR REFERENCE TO A PSYCHOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT GROUP IDENTITY IS OFFERED TO JUSTIFY SOME CONCLUSION. • THE APPEAL CAN BE DIRECT, AS WHEN A POLITICIAN EVOKES ANXIETIES OR SOME COMMON OR GROUP IDENTITY (EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE) IN PROPAGANDA AND DEMAGOGUERY. • EXAMPLE: “WHEN MEXICO SENDS ITS PEOPLE, THEY’RE NOT SENDING THEIR BEST. THEY’RE NOT SENDING YOU. THEY’RE SENDING PEOPLE THAT HAVE LOTS OF PROBLEMS, AND THEY’RE BRINGING THOSE PROBLEMS WITH US. THEY’RE BRINGING DRUGS. THEY’RE BRINGING CRIME. THEY’RE RAPISTS. AND SOME, I ASSUME, ARE GOOD PEOPLE. ” DONALD J. TRUMP (6/16/2015) • IT CAN ALSO BE INDIRECT, AS IS TYPICALLY SEEN IN ADVERTISING WHERE EMOTIONS OR DESIRES CAN BE MANIPULATED BY SUCH AN APPEAL. • VARIATIONS: • BANDWAGON: OF COURSE YOU WANT TO BUY ZING TOOTHPASTE. WHY, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA BRUSHES WITH ZING. • APPEAL TO SNOBBERY: CESAR. SOPHISTICATED FOOD FOR SOPHISTICATED DOGS.

APPEAL TO PITY • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO PITY IS AN ARGUMENT IN

APPEAL TO PITY • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO PITY IS AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH A SENSE OF PITY IS THE SOLE SUPPORT OFFERED. • EXAMPLE: STUDENT TO TEACHER: YOU NEED TO GIVE ME A C, OTHERWISE MY GRADE POINT WILL FALL BELOW 2. 0 AND I WILL LOSE MY SCHOLARSHIP AND WON’T BE ABLE TO FULFILL MY FAMILY’S DREAM OF BECOMING THE FIRST PERSON TO GRADUATE FROM COLLEGE. • IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH THIS FALLACY FROM A LEGITIMATE APPEAL TO COMPASSION. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT LEGITIMATE APPEALS ARE PLEAS, NOT ARGUMENTS ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY A

APPEAL TO FEAR OR FORCE • A THREAT OF HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES (PHYSICAL AND OTHERWISE)

APPEAL TO FEAR OR FORCE • A THREAT OF HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES (PHYSICAL AND OTHERWISE) USED TO FORCE ACCEPTANCE OF A COURSE OF ACTION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE UNACCEPTABLE. • EXAMPLE: IF THE WORKERS OF THIS COMPANY DO NOT AGREE TO A 25% CUT IN SALARY, THEN THE COMPANY MAY HAVE TO SHUT ITS DOORS. THEREFORE, THE WORKERS OF THIS COMPANY MUST AGREE TO A 25% CUT IN SALARY.

SUMMARY OF FALLACIOUS APPEALS TO EMOTION • PATTERN: • PERSON A USES PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS

SUMMARY OF FALLACIOUS APPEALS TO EMOTION • PATTERN: • PERSON A USES PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS KNOWN TO AROUSE STRONG EMOTIONS • PERSON B IS EXPECTED TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSION BASED SOLELY ON THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL

EXERCISE 4 B EXAMPLE I POISONING THE WELL FALLACIES ARE EMOTIONAL PLEAS THAT RELY

EXERCISE 4 B EXAMPLE I POISONING THE WELL FALLACIES ARE EMOTIONAL PLEAS THAT RELY SOLELY ON A SENSE OF PITY FOR SUPPORT. ANSWER FALSE EXAMPLE II MANNY WAS BORN IN ANOTHER COUNTRY. HE COULDN’T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THIS COUNTRY TO RUN FOR STATE GOVERNMENT. ANSWER AD HOMINEM CIRCUMSTANTIAL

FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION • THIS FALLACIES IN THIS FAMILY ALL SHARE THE SAME

FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION • THIS FALLACIES IN THIS FAMILY ALL SHARE THE SAME FLAW: THE WEAKNESS OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PREMISES AND THE CONCLUSION. • UNLIKE THE FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, THE PREMISES ARE RELEVANT TO THE CONCLUSION. IT’S JUST THAT THE EVIDENCE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSION ISN’T STRONG ENOUGH TO WARRANT ACCEPTING IT. • LIKE WITH THE FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE, THE PREMISES MAY DISPOSE US PSYCHOLOGICALLY OR PRUDENTIALLY TO AFFIRM THE CONCLUSION, BUT THE WEAKNESS OF THE CONNECTION TO THE CONCLUSION UNDERMINES THE LOGICAL BASIS FOR AFFIRMING IT.

2 SUBGROUPS • ONE SUBGROUP OF THESE FALLACIES ARE FALLACIES OF WEAK GENERALIZATION. TYPICALLY,

2 SUBGROUPS • ONE SUBGROUP OF THESE FALLACIES ARE FALLACIES OF WEAK GENERALIZATION. TYPICALLY, CHARACTERISTICS OF A FEW MEMBERS OF A GROUP ARE ASSIGNED TO THE ENTIRE GROUP • TERMS USED IN THE ANALYSIS OF GENERALIZATION FALLACIES: • POPULATION: A GROUP OF OBJECTS OR HUMAN BEINGS • SAMPLE: A SUBSET OF A POPULATION • REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE: A SAMPLE IN WHICH EVERY MEMBER OF THE POPULATION HAS AN EQUAL CHANCE OF GETTING IN • ANOTHER SUBGROUP ARE THE FALSE CAUSE FALLACIES. THEY OCCUR WHEN A CAUSAL CONNECTION IS ASSUMED TO EXIST BETWEEN TWO

LET’S LIST THEM • FALLACIES OF WEAK GENERALIZATION • FALSE CAUSE FALLACIES 13. COINCIDENCE

LET’S LIST THEM • FALLACIES OF WEAK GENERALIZATION • FALSE CAUSE FALLACIES 13. COINCIDENCE 8. RIGID APPLICATION OF A GENERALIZATION 14. POST HOC 9. HASTY GENERALIZATION 16. SLIPPERY SLOPE 10. COMPOSITION 11. DIVISION 12. BIASED SAMPLE 15. COMMON CAUSE

RIGID APPLICATION OF A GENERALIZATION • ALSO CALLED THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT, THIS FALLACY

RIGID APPLICATION OF A GENERALIZATION • ALSO CALLED THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT, THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN YOU MISAPPLY A GENERALIZATION OR A RULE TO A PARTICULAR CASE. • EXAMPLE: I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT THE POLICE DIDN’T GIVE THE DRIVER OF THAT AMBULANCE ANY CITATIONS. THE DRIVER WAS SPEEDING. THE DRIVER WENT THROUGH A RED LIGHT. THE AMBULANCE SWERVED FROM LANE TO LANE WITHOUT USING ANY TURN SIGNALS. • THE GENERAL RULES THAT APPLY TO DRIVERS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLES WHEN THEY ARE RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY. • NOTICE THAT THE PATTERN OF THIS FALLACY IS AN ILLEGITIMATE MOVE FROM A GENERAL CLAIM/OBSERVATION TO A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE.

HASTY GENERALIZATION • THE FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION IS PRESENT IN AN ARGUMENT WHEN

HASTY GENERALIZATION • THE FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION IS PRESENT IN AN ARGUMENT WHEN A GENERAL CONCLUSION IS DRAWN FROM A NONREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. • A SAMPLE CAN BE NON-REPRESENTATIVE BECAUSE IT IS TOO SMALL, BECAUSE IT IS NOT RANDOM, OR BECAUSE IT IS NOT APPROPRIATELY CONTROLLED. • EXAMPLE: I SAW A FRATERNITY GUY ACT RUDELY TO A FAST FOOD EMPLOYEE IN THE FOOD COURT AT LUNCH TODAY. PROBABLY MOST FRATERNITY AND SORORITY MEMBERS ARE RUDE AND ARROGANT. • NOTICE THAT THE PATTERN IN THIS FALLACY IS AN ILLEGITIMATE MOVE FROM A PARTICULAR TO A GENERAL CLAIM. .

COMPOSITION • THE MISTAKEN TRANSFER OF (1) AN ATTRIBUTE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS OF

COMPOSITION • THE MISTAKEN TRANSFER OF (1) AN ATTRIBUTE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS OF AN OBJECT TO THE OBJECT AS A WHOLE; OR (2) AN ATTRIBUTE OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF A CLASS TO THE CLASS ITSELF. • EXAMPLE: ALL THE CELLS IN HIS BODY ARE TINY. THUS, HE IS TINY. • EXAMPLE: THE BRICKS IN THIS BUILDING ARE STURDY, SO THE BUILDING MUST BE STURDY. • COMPARE: • EXAMPLE: EVERY THREAD OF MATERIAL OF WHICH THIS SHIRT IS COMPOSED IS RED, SO THE SHIRT IS RED. (NOT A FALLACY)

DIVISION • THE MISTAKEN TRANSFER OF (1) AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN OBJECT AS A

DIVISION • THE MISTAKEN TRANSFER OF (1) AN ATTRIBUTE OF AN OBJECT AS A WHOLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL PARTS OF THE OBJECT OR (2) AN ATTRIBUTE OF A CLASS TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS. • EXAMPLE: HE IS HUGE, SO HE MUST HAVE HUGE CELLS. • EXAMPLE: THE CAKE TASTES BURNT, SO YOU MUST HAVE USED BURNT INGREDIENTS. • COMPARE: • EXAMPLE: THAT IS A WOODEN CHAIR, SO ITS LEGS ARE MADE OF WOOD. (NOT A FALLACY)

BIASED SAMPLE • USES A NON-REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE AS SUPPORT FOR A STATISTICAL CLAIM ABOUT

BIASED SAMPLE • USES A NON-REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE AS SUPPORT FOR A STATISTICAL CLAIM ABOUT AN ENTIRE POPULATION. • EXAMPLE: RECENTLY, A SAMPLE OF CATHOLICS REVEALED THAT 85% BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG. THUS, EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT APPROXIMATELY 85% OF ALL AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG. • A SURVEY LIMITED TO CATHOLICS IS LIKELY TO BE UNREPRESENTATIVE OF THE GENERAL POPULATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT CONCERNS MORAL OR THEOLOGICAL ISSUES WHERE THERE IS A SPECIFIED CATHOLIC POSITION.

COINCIDENCE • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A CHANCE OR COINCIDENTAL CONNECTION BETWEEN EVENTS IS

COINCIDENCE • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A CHANCE OR COINCIDENTAL CONNECTION BETWEEN EVENTS IS MISTAKEN FOR A CAUSAL CONNECTION. • EXAMPLE: I CAN PROVE THAT SOME DREAMS LET US SEE INTO THE FUTURE. LAST WEEK, I DREAMED THAT MY COUSIN CHARLIE WAS IN A TERRIBLE CAR WRECK. JUST NOW, I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM MY COUSIN CHARLIE'S WIFE SAYING THAT HE IS IN THE HOSPITAL BECAUSE HE WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT. • WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF DREAMS A YEAR; A FEW ARE LIKELY TO RESEMBLE REAL EVENTS. WE FORGET THAT MOST DREAMS DO NOT CONNECT TO REAL EVENTS.

POST HOC FALLACY • THIS FALLACY INVOLVES THE CONFUSION OF TEMPORAL SUCCESSION WITH CAUSAL

POST HOC FALLACY • THIS FALLACY INVOLVES THE CONFUSION OF TEMPORAL SUCCESSION WITH CAUSAL CONNECTION. THE FACT THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS AFTER SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE FORMER CAUSED THE LATTER. • EXAMPLE: RESEARCHERS HAVE FOUND A PATTERN SHOWING THAT WHILE A DEMOCRAT WAS PRESIDENT, COCA-COLA TOPPED ALL SOFT-DRINK SALES. WHILE A REPUBLICAN WAS PRESIDENT, PEPSI TOPPED ALL SALES. YOU SHOULD INVEST IN A SOFT-DRINK COMPANY BASED ON WHO IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. • POST HOC FALLACIES ARE A COMMON INSTANCE OF AN ERROR HUMANS ARE PRONE TO COMMIT: CONFUSING CORRELATION WITH CAUSATION.

COMMON CAUSE FALLACY • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN TWO OR MORE EVENTS THAT SHARE

COMMON CAUSE FALLACY • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN TWO OR MORE EVENTS THAT SHARE A CAUSE ARE MISTAKENLY THOUGHT TO CAUSE EACH OTHER. • EXAMPLE: RIGHT BEFORE THE STORM HIT, I NOTICED THAT THE BAROMETER WAS FALLING. THAT MUST HAVE BEEN WHAT CAUSED THE STORM. • THE FALLING BAROMETER AND THE STORM WERE BOTH CAUSED BY CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE. THIS COMMON CAUSE IS MISSED, AND ONE CAUSED THING IS THOUGHT TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE OTHER.

SLIPPERY SLOPE • THE FALLACY OF SLIPPERY SLOPE IS ANOTHER KIND OF CAUSAL FALLACY,

SLIPPERY SLOPE • THE FALLACY OF SLIPPERY SLOPE IS ANOTHER KIND OF CAUSAL FALLACY, THOUGH IN THIS CASE THE CAUSE IS NOT FALSE OR UNLIKELY, BUT RATHER CONNECTED BY A CHAIN OF CAUSATION TO A REMOTE EFFECT AND IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE CHAIN OF CAUSES WILL ACTUALLY PLAY OUT AS SUGGESTED. • EXAMPLE: IF YOU START SMOKING MARIJUANA FOR PLEASURE, YOU WILL NEED MORE AND MORE TO ACHIEVE THE EXPECTED HIGH. YOU WILL BEGIN TO RELY ON IT WHENEVER YOU FEEL DEPRESSED. EVENTUALLY YOU WILL EXPERIMENT WITH MORE POWERFUL DRUGS. THE AMOUNT OF DRUG INTAKE WILL HAVE TO INCREASE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULTS. AT THIS POINT, THE ADDICTION WILL TAKE HOLD AND WILL LEAD TO A LOSS OF AMBITION, A LOSS OF SELF-ESTEEM, THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUR HEALTH, AND THE DISSOLUTION OF ALL SOCIAL TIES. THEREFORE, YOU SHOULD NOT START SMOKING MARIJUANA. • THE ARGUMENT RELIES ON A CAUSAL NETWORK WITH EACH STEP IN THE CHAIN CAUSING NEXT STEP. THE ALLEGED INEVITABILITY OF THE FINAL ACT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

EXERCISE 4 C EXAMPLE I A HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A GENERALIZATION IS

EXERCISE 4 C EXAMPLE I A HASTY GENERALIZATION FALLACY OCCURS WHEN A GENERALIZATION IS INAPPROPRIATELY APPLIED TO THE CASE AT HAND. ANSWER FALSE EXAMPLE II EVERY TIME MYCHAL HEARD THAT SONG ON THE RADIO HE SOLD MORE MEMBERSHIPS TO THE CLUB THAN USUAL AND INCREASED HIS COMMISSION! I THINK HE SHOULD LISTEN TO THAT SONG EACH DAY BEFORE WORK. ANSWER POST HOC FALLACY

FALLACIES OF UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION • THESE FALLACIES OCCUR WHEN AN ARGUMENT ASSUMES THE TRUTH

FALLACIES OF UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTION • THESE FALLACIES OCCUR WHEN AN ARGUMENT ASSUMES THE TRUTH OF SOME UNPROVED OR QUESTIONABLE CLAIM. • THEY INCLUDE: 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. BEGGING THE QUESTION COMPLEX QUESTION APPEAL TO IGNORANCE APPEAL TO AN UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY FALSE DICHOTOMY

BEGGING THE QUESTION • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUMENT ASSUMES AS EVIDENCE (IN

BEGGING THE QUESTION • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUMENT ASSUMES AS EVIDENCE (IN THE PREMISES) THE VERY THING THAT IT ATTEMPTS TO PROVE IN THE CONCLUSION. • ANOTHER NAME FOR THIS FALLACY IS PETITIO PRINCIPII, WHICH CAN BE TRANSLATED AS “ASSUME AT THE BEGINNING. ” • EXAMPLE: YOU CAN BELIEVE HIM. HE NEVER LIES. HE ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH. HE IS SOMEONE THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE. • THE ARGUMENT BEGS THE QUESTION, “WHAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT HE NEVER LIES? ”

COMPLEX QUESTION • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION IS POSED THAT ACTUALLY

COMPLEX QUESTION • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN AN ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION IS POSED THAT ACTUALLY CONTAINS TWO QUESTIONS. THE OBVIOUS QUESTION MASKS ANOTHER, BUT THE OBVIOUS QUESTION ASSUMES AN ANSWER TO THE OTHER. • EXAMPLE: WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES? • THIS QUESTION MASKS AND ASSUMES ANOTHER QUESTION: ARE YOU CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES? • ONLY AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THIS HIDDEN QUESTION JUSTIFIES ASKING THE POSED QUESTION. • IF YOU ANSWER WITHOUT MAKING THE HIDDEN QUESTION OBVIOUS, YOU CAN FIND YOURSELF TRAPPED INTO A FALSE ADMISSION. • ANSWERING, "I'M NOT [CHEATING], " CAN BE EASILY MISCONSTRUED AS "I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, " SEEMINGLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN. • ANSWERING, "I AM/WILL, " IS ALSO A CLEAR ACKNOWLEDGMENT. • LAWYERS COMMONLY USE COMPLEX QUESTIONS TO CONFUSE WITNESSES AND GET THEM TO ADMIT THINGS THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE. • THE KEY TO RESPONDING IS TO REVEAL THE HIDDEN QUESTION, AND THEN ANSWER IT.

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO IGNORANCE IS AN ARGUMENT IN

APPEAL TO IGNORANCE • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO IGNORANCE IS AN ARGUMENT IN WHICH AN ASSERTION OF IGNORANCE ON A SUBJECT IS USED AS A BASIS FOR DRAWING A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE SUBJECT. • THE IGNORANCE OR LACK OF EVIDENCE CAN BE USED TO JUSTIFY A BELIEF OR CRITICIZE A BELIEF. EITHER ARGUMENT CAN BE FALLACIOUS. • EXAMPLE: WE HAVE NEVER RECEIVED SIGNALS FROM ANY PART OF SPACE. THERE IS NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE. • EXAMPLE: NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN THAT THERE IS NO LIFE ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNIVERSE, SO THERE MUST BE LIFE ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE. • • GENERALLY, THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE HOLDS WHEN CLEAR CONDITIONS OF CONFIRMATION CAN BE SPECIFIED. IN CERTAIN INSTANCES THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A CLAIM DOES PROVIDE STRONG INDUCTIVE GROUNDS FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM. • IN CASES WHERE THE EXPERTISE OF THE EVALUATORS IS RELEVANT TO THE TESTING OF THE CLAIM (AS IS THE CASE WITH A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS) OR WHEN NORMAL EXPERIENCE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO CONFIRM IT AND IT DOESN’T, THEN THERE ARE STRONG GROUNDS FOR ASSERTING THAT THE CLAIM IS LIKELY FALSE. • IN COURTS OF LAW, THE STANDARDS OF PROOF HAVE TO BE MET. IF THEY ARE NOT, THE APPROPRIATE VERDICT(S) ARE: NOT GUILTY (WITHIN A REASONABLE DOUBT) OR NOT LIABLE (WITHIN APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES).

APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY IS AN

APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY • THE FALLACY OF APPEAL TO UNQUALIFIED AUTHORITY IS AN INSTANCE OF A VERY COMMON FORM OF INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT (APPEAL TO AUTHORITY) WHERE THE APPEAL FAILS TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION BECAUSE THE AUTHORITY IN QUESTION IS NOT QUALIFIED OR TRUSTWORTHY. • DISQUALIFYING FEATURES OF AN AUTHORITY INCLUDE: LACK OF REQUISITE EXPERTISE OR EXPERIENCE; BIAS OR PREJUDICE; MOTIVE TO LIE OR DISTORT CLAIMS; LACK OF CAPACITY FOR DISCERNMENT. • EXAMPLE: I'M NICK PANNING, QUARTERBACK OF THE LOS ANGELES SEALS. I'VE BEEN EATING OATIES FOR BREAKFAST SINCE I WAS A KID. OATIES TASTES GREAT AND THEY HAVE ALL THE NUTRITION KIDS NEED. YOU SHOULD GET SOME FOR YOUR KIDS TODAY. • MERELY BEING FAMOUS DOES NOT QUALIFY SOMEONE TO PRONOUNCE THE MERITS OF A PRODUCT. • EXAMPLE: MY NEIGHBOR, JOE (YOU KNOW, THE BLIND ONE), SAID THAT THE GALLERY OPENING WAS FULL OF BEAUTIFUL PAINTINGS, SO WE SHOULD GO. • HERE THE ISSUE IS LACK OF CAPACITY. A BLIND PERSON IS NOT IN A POSITION TO EVALUATE THE BEAUTY OF A VISUAL ARTISTIC MEDIUM LIKE PAINTING.

FALSE DICHOTOMY • THE FALLACY OF FALSE DICHOTOMY IS AN ARGUMENT THAT RESTS ON

FALSE DICHOTOMY • THE FALLACY OF FALSE DICHOTOMY IS AN ARGUMENT THAT RESTS ON AN EITHER/OR THAT APPEARS (IS PRESUMED) TO EXHAUST THE OPTIONS, BUT DOES NOT IN FACT DO SO. • EXAMPLE: AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT. YOUR CRITICISMS OF THE PRESIDENT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU DON’T LOVE AMERICA, SO YOU SHOULD EMIGRATE. • NOTE, IN SOME CASES THE ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED REALLY IS EXHAUSTIVE, SO NO FALLACY IS COMMITTED IN THOSE INSTANCES. • EXAMPLE: YOU ARE EITHER ALIVE OR YOU ARE DEAD. YOU AREN'T DEAD. SO YOU ARE ALIVE.

FALLACIES OF DIVERSION • THESE ARE FALLACIES THAT OCCUR WHEN THE MEANINGS OF TERMS

FALLACIES OF DIVERSION • THESE ARE FALLACIES THAT OCCUR WHEN THE MEANINGS OF TERMS OR PHRASES ARE CHANGED (INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY) WITHIN THE ARGUMENT, OR WHEN OUR ATTENTION IS PURPOSELY (OR ACCIDENTALLY) DIVERTED FROM THE ISSUE AT HAND. • THE FALLACIES OF DIVERSION WE WILL CONSIDER ARE: 22. EQUIVOCATION 23. STRAW MAN FALLACY 24. RED HERRING FALLACY 25. MISLEADING PRECISION 26. MISSING THE POINT

EQUIVOCATION • THE INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL USE OF DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF WORDS OR PHRASES

EQUIVOCATION • THE INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL USE OF DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF WORDS OR PHRASES IN AN ARGUMENT. • WORDS THAT ADMIT OF DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE AMBIGUOUS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMBIGUITY AND VAGUENESS. A VAGUE TERM IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE APPLIED PRECISELY (NOT SURE WHAT IT MEANS); AN AMBIGUOUS TERM IS ONE THAT ADMITS OF MORE THAN ONE PRECISE MEANING (NOT SURE WHICH MEANING APPLIES). • EXAMPLE: MY OLDER BROTHER TRIES HARD TO BE COOL. I TOLD HIM HE HAS THE PERSONALITY OF A CUCUMBER. SINCE A REFRIGERATOR IS A GOOD PLACE TO KEEP THINGS COOL, HE SHOULD SPEND SOME TIME THERE.

STRAW MAN • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN SOMEONE’S ARGUMENT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT,

STRAW MAN • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN SOMEONE’S ARGUMENT IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, AND PURPOSELY DISTORTED TO CREATE A NEW, WEAK ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE EASILY REFUTED (A STRAW MAN THAT IS EASILY KNOCKED DOWN). • EXAMPLE: MS. WILLIAMSON SAID THAT SHE IS AGAINST THE NEW LAW THAT MANDATES TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN ALONGSIDE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS TO ANYONE THAT SHE REALLY WANTS TO ELIMINATE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. SHE WANTS US TO DESTROY ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. • THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF OPPOSITION TO THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS DISTORTED TO A POSITION OPPOSING RELIGION, WHICH IS THEN ATTACKED (ENTHYMATICALLY) BY REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION. • WHILE SUCH AN ATTACK MAY BE A RELEVANT CRITICISM OF THE DISTORTION, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POSITION.

RED HERRING • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN SOMEONE COMPLETELY IGNORES AN OPPONENT’S POSITION AND

RED HERRING • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN SOMEONE COMPLETELY IGNORES AN OPPONENT’S POSITION AND CHANGES THE SUBJECT, DIVERTING THE DISCUSSION IN A NEW DIRECTION. • EXAMPLE: MANY PEOPLE CRITICIZE TV AS TURNING AMERICA INTO AN ILLITERATE SOCIETY. BUT, HOW CAN WE CRITICIZE THE VERY MEDIUM THAT IS THE ENVY OF COUNTRIES ALL OVER THE WORLD? THE ENTERTAINMENT QUALITY AND VARIETY OF TV PROGRAMS TODAY IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE, NOT TO MENTION THE ENORMOUS NUMBER OF CABLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE VIEWING AUDIENCE. • IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL ISSUE (THE CLAIMED DAMAGE IS DOING TO SOCIETY) IS IGNORED, AND IN REPLACED BY OTHER CONCERNS (THE QUALITY AND VARIETY OF OFFERINGS).

MISLEADING PRECISION • THIS IS A FALLACY COMMON TO ARGUMENTS THAT EMPLOY STATISTICAL INFORMATION.

MISLEADING PRECISION • THIS IS A FALLACY COMMON TO ARGUMENTS THAT EMPLOY STATISTICAL INFORMATION. • SUCH ARGUMENTS REQUIRE US TO IDENTIFY THE CONTEXTUAL FEATURES RELEVANT TO AN EVALUATION OF THE STATISTICAL CLAIMS AS PART OF OUR EVALUATION OF THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT. • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN STATISTICAL INFORMATION IS PRESENTED WITHOUT THIS CONTEXT OF APPRECIATION. • EXAMPLE: OUR COOKIES CONTAIN 30% LESS FAT, SO YOU SHOULD START EATING THEM IF YOU WANT TO LOSE WEIGHT. • THE MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION THAT NEEDS AN ANSWER BEFORE WE CAN EVALUATE THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT IS ‘LESS THAN WHAT? ’. IF IT'S LESS THAN OTHER COMPETING COOKIES, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. IF IT'S LESS THAN LARD, THAT'S ANOTHER. • WE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE 30%. IF THE COMPETITION HAS 10 GRAMS OF FAT PER COOKIE, THEN 30% IS A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION, BUT IF THE COMPETITION HAS ONLY 1 GRAM OF FAT PER COOKIE, THEN A 30% REDUCTION IS RELATIVELY NEGLIGIBLE.

MISSING THE POINT • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN PREMISES THAT SEEM TO LEAD LOGICALLY

MISSING THE POINT • THIS FALLACY OCCURS WHEN PREMISES THAT SEEM TO LEAD LOGICALLY TO ONE CONCLUSION ARE USED INSTEAD AS CLAIMED SUPPORT FOR AN UNEXPECTED CONCLUSION WHICH THE PREMISES DO NOT IN FACT SUPPORT. • EXAMPLE: I READ THAT IT CAN TAKE YEARS TO FIND THE “BLACK BOXES” THAT CONTAIN CRUCIAL FLIGHT INFORMATION REGARDING AN AIRPLANE CRASH, AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE NEVER FOUND. GIVEN THIS, ALL AIR TRAVEL SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. • THE PREMISES OFFERED COULD SUPPORT A NUMBER OF CONCLUSIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE SHOULD IMPROVE THE SIGNALING CAPACITY OF THE BLACK BOXES. THE CONCLUSION THAT IS OFFERED INSTEAD IS IN FACT NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PREMISES.

EXERCISE 4 D EXAMPLE I IN A FALSE DICHOTOMY FALLACY, IT IS ASSUMED THAT

EXERCISE 4 D EXAMPLE I IN A FALSE DICHOTOMY FALLACY, IT IS ASSUMED THAT ONLY TWO CHOICES EXIST, WHEN IN FACT OTHERS EXIST. ANSWER TRUE EXAMPLE II ALEX SAID THE STUDENTS IN HER GOVERNMENT CLASS SHOULD TAKE THE IDEA OF A BENEVOLENT DICTATOR SERIOUSLY. BASICALLY SHE’S SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD RESIGN THEMSELVES TO HAVING NO PERSONAL LIBERTIES AT ALL, FOR THE GOOD OF EVERYONE ELSE. ANSWER STRAW MAN FALLACY