Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PHIL 150 > CH 3 Fallacies > Flashcards

CH 3 Fallacies Flashcards

1
Q

Fallacy

A

An error in reasoning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Subjectivism

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Appeal to Majority

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Appeal to Emotion

A
  • Fallacy of Relevance

Deliberately evoking specific emotional responses to persuade a person into believing a proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Appeal to Force

A
  • Fallacy of Relevance

Threatening someone to believe a proposition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Ad Hominem

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Abusive Ad Hominem

A
  • Fallacy of Relevance
  • Ad Hominem

Insulting your opponent to dismiss their statement/claim; common technique used in propaganda

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Tu quoque

A
  • Fallacy of Relevance
  • Ad hominem

Arguing against a statement by claiming it’s inconsistency with the speaker’s behaviour or prior statements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Poisoning the Well

A
  • Fallacy of Relevance
  • Ad hominem

Refuting a proposition/argument by claiming that the speaker has a non-rational motive behind it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Inductive Fallacies

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Appeal to (Inappropriate) Authority

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Conditions/Criteria for Credibility

A

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 well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How to tell if an authority figure is credible? (3)

A
  1. Education: Degrees, certificates/documents indicating a person has completed a systematic course of education and training in the field
  2. Position: Proof that the person is well-trusted in their expertise
  3. Achievement: Reflects a proportionate degree of expertise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

False Dichotomy

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Post Hoc

A
  • 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.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hasty Generalization

A
  • 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

16
Q

Accident

A
  • 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.

17
Q

Slippery Slope

A
  • 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.

18
Q

How can a slippery slop argument be valid?

A

If the slope is real and if each course of action can be supported by evidence

19
Q

What 2 factors does the strength of a Slippery Slope argument depend on?

A
  1. Strength of each link in the casual chain: The argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link
  2. Number of links: The more links, the more likely the consequences will be altered by other factors
20
Q

Composition

A
  • 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

21
Q

Division

A
  • 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

22
Q

Begging the question (circular)

A
  • 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

23
Q

Complex/ Loaded Question

A
  • 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)
24
Q

Equivocation

A
  • Inductive Fallacy

Using a word in two different meanings in the premises and/or conclusion of an argument

ex. The media should report on the matters of public interest + There is great public interest in politician’s sex lives = The media should report in politician’s sex lives

  • 1st Public interest: Common good
  • 2nd Public interest: What the public is interested in
25
Q

Appeal to Ignorance

A
  • Inductive Fallacy

“A proposition is true because it has not been proven false”

26
Q

Diversion

A
  • Inductive Fallacy

Trying to support one proposition by diverting attention to another proposition or issue

27
Q

Missing the Point

A
  • Diversion

Arguing for a conclusion that is different from the conclusion in question

28
Q

Straw Man

A
  • Diversion

Trying to refute a speaker’s position by arguing against a distorted version (oversimplified/extreme) of the position

ex.

  • A: I’m in favour of lowering sentences for drug offenses
  • B: So you think our children should be running around doing drugs?
29
Q

Red Herring

A
  • Diversion

Involves diverting attention from the issue by introducing irrelevant points

  • Deliberately tries to guide the conversation away from its initial topic

ex.

  • Son: “Wow, Dad, it’s really hard to make a living on my salary.
  • Father: “Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week.”
30
Q

Non Sequitur

A

Any argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises

ex.

A: Why are you wearing your shirt backwards?

B: Because there’s going to be a lunar eclipse tonight.

A: ???

PHIL 150 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions