Fallacies Flashcards
2 types of most common FORMAL fallacy
Affirming the consequent
= P->Q
Q
- P
Denying the antecedent
= P->Q
~P
- ~Q
What are the 2 types of fallacies
1) invalid arguments = LOGICAL/FORMAL FALLACIES
- premises don’t support conc.
2) valid but unsound
- premises are false
Non-Formal fallacies:
False Dilemma
2 alternatives are presented as exhaustive, when other possibilities exist
Non-Formal fallacies:
Slippery slope
A small concession is presented as having potentially catastrophic consequences
Non-Formal fallacies:
Question-begging arguments
Premises rephrase conc
Non-Formal fallacies:
Circular arguments
Premises support and are supported by conc
Non-Formal fallacies:
Equivocal arguments
Same word is used in 2 or more different senses
Non-Formal fallacies:
Misplacing burden of proof
Something is assumed which needs to be proved
Appeal to common practice
When a speaker appeals to the fact that a view is universally held in support of it
Can still be false (spot easier if reconstructed)
Eg.
How can you be in favour of slavery? All progressive minded people think that it is wrong.
Every progressive minded person believes slavery is wrong is true
Every belief that progressive minded people hold true is true (FALSE)
Therefore, ‘slavery is wrong’ is true
The appeal to authority
When speaker appeals to an authority in support of a position
Eg.
Contraception is sinful
The pope has made his views on the subject quite clear
The pope has stated that ‘contraception is sinful’ is true
Everything the pope States is true is true
Therefore ‘contraception is sinful’ is true
Ad hominem
When you attack your opponents character rather than their views
Tu Quoque
Special type of Ad Hominem argument
Attempt to discredit opponents views by pointing out they don’t always act on them
But fact that person is inconsistent doesn’t mean that what they’re saying is false
Crime by association
Fallacy of assuming that because some beliefs of an individual/group are false, all their beliefs must be false
The straw man
Where you level your arguments against a crude caricature of your opponents views
– you set up a ‘straw man’ which you knock down