Common fallacies or Reasoning

Question 1

Know what epistemology is and the (brief) history of accepted arguments in European philosophy since the early church.

Answer 1

Epistemology = branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge
Came from: holy scriptures, philosophical logic, empirical reasoning

Question 2

Know the roles of the premises and conclusion in an argument

Answer 2

An argument is supported by multiple claims and premises to make a conclusion

Question 3

Be able to define and use appropriately the following terms: claim, evidence, argument, syllogism, valid, sound, cogent.

Answer 3

Claim: a statment that represents something about the world outside the speaker (true or false)
Evidence: the premises used in an argument
Argument a series of claims working in support of another claim
Syllogism: common type deductive argument (two premises -> a conclusion)
Valid: conclusions follow logically from premises
Sound: true premises and valid structure
Cogent: inductive arguments would be strong if premises were true; and the premises are likely to be true

Question 4

Be able to define; modus ponens, modus tollens, affirming/denying the antecedent/consequent

Answer 4

Modus ponens: affirming the antecedent (if a chicken lays an egg, then it is a hen. The chicken is laying an egg (Affirming the antecedent). Therefore, the chicken must be a hen)

Modus tollens: denying the consequent (if the dog smells his food, he will drool (antecedent). The dog did not drool (denying the consequent). Therefore, the dog did not smell his food)

Denying the antecedent: resembles modus tollens, but leads to an invalid conclusion. Example, if a creature if a cat, then it is an animal. Cisco is not a cat (Denying the antecedent). Therefore, Cisco is not an animal (which is incorrect).

Affirming the consequent: example, if I have the flu, I will have a sore. I have a sore throat (affirming the consequent). Therefore, I have the flu.

Question 5

Be able to define; associative and propositional thinking

Answer 5

Associative thinking: linking one thought, concept, idea, to another, without further information.

Propositional thinking: connection between two things, but with an additional qualification, such as negation, classification, causation, etc.

Question 6

What is the difference between deductive and inductive argument structure and what makes each one of these lead to true vs. false conclusions?

Answer 6

Deductive: making a general premises into a specific conclusion. Premises do not have to be correct, conclusion is based on premises.

Inductive: extracts likely (but not necessarily true) premise from specific observations (going from specific to general)

Deductive relies on premises being true or false, to make a claim, while induction is based on observations which could be true or false, but can never be completely true or false.

Question 7

Of the possible combinations of affirming/denying the antecedent/consequents, which are valid argument structures and which are not?

Answer 7

Valid:
Affirming the antecedent
Denying the consequent

Invalid:
Affirming the consequent
Denying the antecedent

Question 8

What is the connection between associative thinking, propositional thinking, and making error in deduction?

Answer 8

They are both thinking about a connection between two things, however propositional is also concerned with a third factor and is harder to visualise. While, if you cannot obtain this third variable than it may lead to you falling prey to associative thinking.

Question 9

What are some example of propositional info that goes beyond an association?

Answer 9

Negation (Rover is not a cat)
Classification (All dogs are animals)
Causation (Cigarettes cause cancer)
Roles (Rover bit the cat)

Question 10

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Ad Hominem, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise and the “grain of truth” behind it.

Answer 10

Ad Hominem: attacking the source of the argument for having traits not relevant to the argument

Hidden premise: hidden heuristic premise, bad people are always (usually) wrong.

Question 11

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Poisoning the well, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise.

Answer 11

Poisoning the well: attack credibility

Hidden premise: “haven’t served in the military, you’re not qualified to discuss defence policy”, implies you need military experience to say anything about military policy

Question 12

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Praise the persons, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise behind it.

Answer 12

Praise the person: support a person’s conclusions by praising them for traits unrelated to the argument

Hidden premise: such people are always right

Question 13

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Genetic fallacy, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premises behind it.

Answer 13

Genetic fallacy: a conclusion is rejected based on the possible reasons it was made, rather than its truth or falsehood.

Hidden premise: if a person ever has a motive to make a statement, then the statement is always false.

Question 14

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Appeal to authority, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise and the “grain of truth” behind it.

Answer 14

Appeal to authority: trusting an authority figure that what they say is true (and vice versa)

Hidden premise: an authority is always an expert and correct

Question 15

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Appeal to ignorance.

Answer 15

Appeal to ignorance: absence of evidence (if A has never been proven true than A must be false, the absence of evidence is evidence

Question 16

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Bandwagon, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise and the “grain of truth” behind it.

Answer 16

Bandwagon: some is true because everyone believes it

Hidden premise: is something is believed by everyone than it must be true
Grain of truth: if there is no objective basis then we rely on social consensus for its truth.

Question 17

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Naturalistic, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise behind it.

Answer 17

Naturalistic fallacy: nature is healthy, that it is good

Hidden premise: that natural is always good for us, ignores how nature can be bad for us

Question 18

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Past practice, and to identify, where appropriate the hidden false premise behind it.

Answer 18

Past practice: appeal to tradition, since it has been done for a long time then it must be true

Hidden premise: we wouldn’t do something if it was bad

Question 19

Define and identify examples of the following fallacy, Begging the question.

Answer 19

Begging the question: evidence is not independent of conclusions, it is circular reasoning

Question 20

Be able to define and identify the inductive fallacies, faulty analogy and false cause

Answer 20

Faulty analogy: things that are similar in one way, must be similar in other ways
False cause: incorrectly suggesting that two events are causally connected

Question 21

What is the reification error, how is it based on the differences between constructs and events, and how does it lead to a critique of much research and theory in psychology?

Answer 21

Reification error: regarding abstract concepts as if they were concrete objects

Constructs: things that are not physical, e.g. free will
Events: things that are physical, e.g. motionless

Psychology is teeming with outdated and empirically unsupported theories. Since they have never been disproven, because they can’t be, so people take it as fact. Type C theories cannot be proven or unproven, Type C merely exist for us to potentially best explain the world around us and understand it.

Question 22

What is the nominal fallacy and tautology, and how does falling into one error put you at risk for committing the other?

Answer 22

Nominal fallacy: if we find or invent a special name for something, we fools ourselves into believing we have explained it (involves circular or tautological reasoning).

Tautology: using different words to say the same thing. Cannot be falsified due to its inherent nature, true but convey no useful info.

Question 23

What is the consequence-intentionality fallacy and how does it show up in psychological theories?

Answer 23

Consequence-intentionality fallacy: judging someone’s behaviour based on the result of it. The fallacy is that we should not assume outcome is in and of itself, proof of intent.

in Psychological theories it may lead to them falling prey to misattribution of causation by confusing consequences with intentionality

Question 24

What is confirmation bias and what is hindsight bias?

Answer 24

Confirmation bias: more inclined to search and believe evidence that supports your beliefs

Hindsight bias: tendency to assume you knew the outcome of an event after it outcome had already been decided.

Question 25

How are confirmation bias and hindsight bias similar and different?

Answer 25

Similar: hindsight comes after confirmation bias, uses the same processes.

Different: Hindsight you believe you already knew the outcome of the event after it happened, but in confirmation bias you are still searching for information to support your claim.

Question 26

How can hindsight bias and confirmation bias undermine diagnosing and identifying psychological phenomena in individuals?

Answer 26

Confirmation bias can lead to profound influence on psychotherapy, as therapists may selectively probe for information and asking leading questions to confirm their beliefs about what is wrong with the individual

Hindsight bias is a problem as researchers and practitioners may write something that already has a conclusion to it, since they may already know the issue. Stating that it is obvious that it got to this point, pointing at the individuals past and stating because x and y happened then this is the cause. However, changing the scenario can prove that this is a problem, as x may not explain y, leads to their statement falling apart.