CH 3 Fallacies Flashcards
Fallacy
An error in reasoning
Subjectivism
- Fallacy of Relevance
Using one’s personal beliefs or desires as evidence for the truth of a proposition, without considering objective facts or empirical evidence
- I want p to be true, so p is true
Appeal to Majority
- Fallacy of Relevance
“Bandwagon Fallacy”
Believing in a proposition solely because it appeals to a large majority of a population
- The majority (people, nations, etc.) believe p, so p is true
Appeal to Emotion
- Fallacy of Relevance
Deliberately evoking specific emotional responses to persuade a person into believing a proposition
Appeal to Force
- Fallacy of Relevance
Threatening someone to believe a proposition
Ad Hominem
- Fallacy of Relevance
(Latin: “At the person”)
Attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself
- X says p + X has some negative trait = p is false
Abusive Ad Hominem
- Fallacy of Relevance
- Ad Hominem
Insulting your opponent to dismiss their statement/claim; common technique used in propaganda
Tu quoque
- Fallacy of Relevance
- Ad hominem
Arguing against a statement by claiming it’s inconsistency with the speaker’s behaviour or prior statements
Poisoning the Well
- Fallacy of Relevance
- Ad hominem
Refuting a proposition/argument by claiming that the speaker has a non-rational motive behind it
Inductive Fallacies
Arguments that “jump to conclusions”
- Arguments involving features that make them appear stronger than they actually are
- Involve significant logical gaps, as they fail to consider a sufficiently broad context of relevant information
ex. Toronto is expensive + Cairo is expensive + Tokyo is expensive = All big cities are expensive
Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority
- Inductive Fallacy
Using what an authority figure says as evidence for the truth of a proposition when the conditions for credibility are not satisfied
- Occurs when the person in power is not competent in the subject/ has ulterior motives for hiding the truth
X says p is true = p is true
Conditions/Criteria for Credibility
X must be competent to speak on the subject; must have a genuine expertise in the relevant field
X must be objective, stating what they know without distortion or deceit (someone who only knows the truth)
How to tell if an authority figure is credible? (3)
- Education: Degrees, certificates/documents indicating a person has completed a systematic course of education and training in the field
- Position: Proof that the person is well-trusted in their expertise
- Achievement: Reflects a proportionate degree of expertise
False Dichotomy
- Inductive Fallacy
Excluding relevant possibilities without justifications
- An argument formatted in a way that forces you to choose between two extremes
- Either p or q + Not q = p is true
ex. You are not rich, so you must be poor
Post Hoc
- Inductive Fallacy
Concluding that one event caused another simply because it occurred first, without sufficient evidence of a casual relationship
- Superstitions
- A occurred before B = A cause B
ex. “Why are you whistling”/ “To keep the elephants away”/ But there aren’t any elephants”/ “See? It works.”
Hasty Generalization
- Inductive Fallacy
Inferring a general proposition from an inadequate sample of positive instances
- Is the conclusion a generalization?
- Premise: Particular observation
- Conclusion: Universal statement
ex. An Italian yells at you during your first trip to Italy; You infer that all Italians are quick-tempered
Accident
- Inductive Fallacy
Applying generalizations to particulars in disregard of special features
-
Is the conclusion a particular observation?
- Premise: General/universal statement
- Conclusion: Particular observation
ex. Penguins are birds so they can fly; Penguins can’t fly so they are not birds / You should always tel the truth because it’s morally right.
Slippery Slope
- Inductive Fallacy
An argument that attempts to show that a certain action/policy will lead to a series of unfortunate evidence, and therefore should be avoided at all cost
ex. A teenager comes home late: first it’s staying out late, then it’s not calling home, then it’s a few drinks with friends, and then wild parties–therefore they should never come home late.
How can a slippery slop argument be valid?
If the slope is real and if each course of action can be supported by evidence
What 2 factors does the strength of a Slippery Slope argument depend on?
- Strength of each link in the casual chain: The argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link
- Number of links: The more links, the more likely the consequences will be altered by other factors
Composition
- Inductive Fallacy
- Is there a relationship between the parts and wholes of a thing?
Inferring that a whole has a property merely because its parts have the property
- Premise about part ➡️ Conclusion about whole
ex. My team has the best quarterback in the NFL so they are the best team in the NFL
Division
- Inductive Fallacy
Inferring that a part has a property merely because the whole has that property
- An unjustified inference about individual components based on characteristics of the entire group or system.
- Premise about whole ➡️ Conclusion about parts
*ex**. The United States is a wealthy country, so every American must be rich
Begging the question (circular)
- Inductive Fallacy
Supporting a conclusion with a premise that assumes the conclusion is true
ex. God exists because the Bible says so / How do you know what the Bible says is true? / Because the bible is the word of God / How do you know a god exists? / Because the Bible says so
Complex/ Loaded Question
- Inductive Fallacy
The fallacy of trying to get someone to support a proposition by asking a question that presupposes that proposition
ex.
- A: You cheated
- B: I didn’t
- A: Why are you lying? (Fallacious because A is assuming B did cheat despite asking whether or not they did)
