Ch.6 Flashcards
Fallacies
•Good arguments provide good reasons to except a claim.
•Some bad or fake reasons for accepting a claim are often so frequently they have been labelled and named.
•There are other ways arguments can be bad.
•But labelled and named ways are known as fallacies
• these aren’t the only fallacies either, but the most common ones.
Irrelevant premises:
Genetic fallacy
Arguing a claim is true or false Soley because of its origin. (Abstract origin, not personal)
-Ex: we should reject that proposal. it came from the liberal government.
Irrelevant premises:
Composition
Arguing that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole.
-Because everything in the universe has a cause, the universe as a whole must have a cause.
-Because my cells are invisible, I must be invisible.
Irrelevant premises:
Division
Arguing that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts.
-because I am conscious, my cells each must be conscious
-A House is really heavy, so each brick the composes it must be really heavy
Irrelevant premises:
Equivocation
Using a word in two different senses in the same argument.
-Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.
-“Man” as “Human beings” Vs. “Man” as ”Human male”
Irrelevant premises:
Appeal to the person (Ad hominem)
Rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim it’s self. (personal)
-We should reject Chen’s argument for life on other planets. He dabbles in the paranormal.
Irrelevant premises:
Appeal to popularity
Arguing a claim must be true merely because a substantial number of people believe it.
-Everyone believes in democracy. So it must be the right form of government.
Irrelevant premises:
Appeal to tradition
Arguing a claim must be true just because it’s part of a tradition.
-Acupuncture has been used for a thousand years in China. it must work.
Irrelevant premises:
Appeal to emotion
Using emotions (pity, fear, etc.) rather than relevant reasons as premises.
-“If you elect my opponent there will be rioting and looting in the streets, our whole country will be destroyed!”
Irrelevant premises:
Appeal to ignorance
Arguing that lack of evidence proves something.
-no one has shown that ghosts aren’t real, so they must be real.
-No one has shown that ghosts are real, so they must not exist.
Irrelevant premises:
Burden of proof
The weight of evidence or argument required by one side in a debate or disagreement.
•Burden of proof rests on the side that makes a positive claim, i.e. An assertion that some thing exists or is the case.
•Appeals to ignorance place the burden of proof on the wrong side.
•Theist: god exists
•Agnostic: I don’t know if God exists or not
•Theist has the burden of proof
Irrelevant premises:
Red herring
Deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument.
-Everywoman should have the right to an abortion on demand. There’s no question about it. These anti-abortion activist block the entrances to abortion clinics, threaten abortion doctors, and Intimidate anyone who wants to terminate a pregnancy.
Irrelevant premises:
Straw man
Distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying someone’s position so it can be more easily attacked or refuted.
-All communists want to live under Stalinist dictatorship, so capitalism is the way to go.
Irrelevant premises:
Two wrongs make a right
Arguing that doing some thing in immoral is justified because someone else has done the same (or similar) thing.
-I have a clear conscience. I stole his laptop because he took mine a month ago. 
Varieties of appeal to the person
Types:
-Personal attack: “AOC Is a socialist, so there’s no way she’s right!”
-Accusation of inconsistency: “Madison says she’s opposed to abortion, but you can’t take her seriously. Her view goes against everything her party stands for.”
-Tu quoque (“you’re another): “Alice, the town liberal tells us that we shouldn’t drive SUVs because the cars use too much gas and are bad for the environment. But she drives an SUV herself. What a hypocrite! I think we can safely reject her stupid pronouncements.”
-Circumstances: “That’s exactly what a conservative would say, so it’s worthless”
-Poisoning the well: “He’s a libertarian, so don’t trust anything he says!”
Unaccepted premises:
Begging the question (Arguing in a circle)
Attempting to establish a conclusion but using that conclusion as a premise.
-God exists. We know that God exists because the Bible says so, and we should believe what the Bible says because God wrote it.
Unaccepted premises:
False dilemma
Asserting there are only two alternatives to consider when there are more than two.
-Look, either you support the war or you are a traitor to your country. You don’t support the war. So you’re a traitor.
Unaccepted premises:
Decision-point fallacy
Arguing that because a distinction cannot be drawn at any point in the process, there are no differences or gradations in that process. 
-At conception, an embryo is not a person (a being with full moral rights, including a right to life.) There is no precise point at which we can say the fetus has turned into a person. Therefore, the fetus is simply not a person.
-Even if we only have fuzzy distinctions, there might still be a difference between an embryo and a being about to be born in 10 minutes.
Unaccepted premises:
Slippery slope
Arguing, without good reasons, that taking a particular step will inevitably lead to further, undesirable steps.
-If we legalize gay marriage, the next thing you know people will be murdering each other in the streets.
Unaccepted premises:
Hasty generalization
Drawing a conclusion about a target group based on an in adequate sample size.
-The French or snobby and rude. I met a French man once he was so full of himself. I rest my case.
-Hitler was vegetarian. So all vegetarians are evil Nazis.
Unaccepted premises:
Faulty analogy
A defective argument by analogy in which the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways.
-Dogs are warm blooded, nurse they’re young, and give birth to puppies. Humans are warm blooded and nurse her young. Therefore, Humans give birth to puppies too.
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Innuendo 
Suggesting some thing denigrating about a person without explicity stating it. 
-“I think we can assume that Mr. Abernathy absolutely does not embezzle—anymore.”
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Euphemism
Words used to convey positive or neutral attitudes or emotions in a place of more negative ones.
-“Enhanced interrogation techniques” Instead of torture.
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Dysphemism
Words used to convey negative attitudes or emotions in place of neutral or positive ones.
-Using “Anti-self-defense” To negatively characterize opponents of gun control.
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Stereotyping
Drawing on warranted conclusion or generalization about an entire group of people.
-“We all know western Canadians are backward Bumpkins” or “We all know that eastern Canadians are corrupt liars”
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Ridicule
Using derision, sarcasm, laughter, or mockery to disparage a person or idea.
-“you think Fox News is fair and balanced? Ha!”
Persuaders: Rhetorical moves (Not fallacies)
Rhetorical definitions
Using an emotion-charged skewed definition to influence someone.
-Defining abortion as “The murder of innocent human beings and the rejection of God” or as “Exercising ones reproductive right to terminate a mere clump of cells” 
