Exam 3-Phil 110 Flashcards
Fallacies of Relevance
Appeal to Force Appeal to Pity Ad Hominem (Abusive) Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) Ad Populum (Appeal to Emotion) Appeal to Ignorance Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Force
Attempting to convince others to perform some action by threatening them with something unwelcome, instead of providing relevant evidence for the principle or idea that the action is right or good.
Appeal to Pity
Attempting to convince others to perform some action by appealing their sympathy, instead of providing relevant evidence for the principle or idea that the action is right or good.
Ad Hominem (Abusive)
Rejecting a person’s claim or argument by verbally attacking the person, instead of providing relevant evidence that the claim itself is false.
Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
Rejecting a person’s claim or argument by pointing out some special circumstance of the person, instead of providing relevant evidence that the claim itself is false. In case the special circumstance is that the person’s actions are in conflict with the person’s claim, this is called the tu quoque
Ad Populum (Appeal to Emotion)
Attempting to convince others, a group or an individual, to accept a conclusion by appealing to their emotions or other strong feelings, instead of providing relevant evidence for the conclusion.
OR
Attempting to convince others to accept a conclusion by using as a premise a claim that some group of people believes the claim, instead of providing relevant evidence that the conclusion is true.
Appeal to Ignorance
Claiming that a conclusion is true, using as a premise that there is no evidence, or no proof, or that is unknown, that the conclusion is false (or equivalently, that the conclusion’s denial or opposite is true), instead of providing evidence that the conclusion is itself true.
Appeal to Authority
Attempting to support a conclusion by using a premise that claims that some questionable source states that the conclusion is true. The source being used as an “authority” may be a person or something in print. Sources may be questionable if they are known to be, or suspected of, lacking expertise or of being biased about the conclusion.
Fallacies of Presumption
Accident Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization) Irrelevant Conclusion False Cause Slippery Slope Begging the Question Complex Question
Accident
Drawing a conclusion by applying a general rule to a specific case that is an exception to the rule.
Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)
Drawing a conclusion that is a general rule, based on too few specific cases or exceptional specific cases.
Irrelevant Conclusion
Drawing a conclusion in an argument whose premises support a different conclusion that may be stated or unstated, but whose premises do not support the conclusion that was drawn.
False Cause
Assuming that one event is the cause of another, without sufficient evidence of the causal connection between the two events.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Assuming that one event causes the other, merely because once precedes the other, or because they occur at the same time. That is, assuming event A caused event B, merely because B occurred after A, or at the same time as A.
Confusion of Cause and Effect: Assuming that one event causes the other, when in fact, the causal connection is reversed. That is, assuming event A caused event B, when in fact, event B caused event A.
Neglect of a Common Cause: Assuming that one event causes another, when in fact, there is a third event that causes them both. That is, assuming that event A causes event B, when event C is actually the cause of both A and B.
Causal Oversimplification: Assuming that one event is the only cause of another, when in fact it is just one of many causes of the other event. That is, assuming that event A is the only cause of event B, when events A, C, D, E, etc., are all causes of B.
No Causal Connection: Assuming that one event causes another, when there is no evidence of any causal connection whatsoever between the two events.
Slippery Slope
Arguing that some proposed action or event is just the first of a series of actions or events that will lead to some disastrous consequence, without evidence that the series of events will occur.
Begging the Question
Drawing a conclusion that appears to be supported by a premise that is actually just a restatement of the conclusion, for which no real or other support is given. The suspect premise may be the only premise given, or may appear in a chain of premises, each supporting the next, eventually claiming to support the conclusion.
Note: The term “begging the question” has recently been misused, especially in the media, to refer to situations where we are left wondering about something, that is, when something raises a question. “The child was found wandering the streets at 4am, which begs the question “where are his parents?” This is an incorrect usage of the term.
