Fallacies - Exam #1 Flashcards
We went to three ball games this year and the home team lost each one. They’re losers.
Hasty Generalization - The inference from some specific examples to a general principle.
The rooster thinks his crowing brings up the sun each morning because each morning the sun rises shortly after he crows.
Post Hoc - The inference that one thing is the cause of another because the first thing occurs before the second thing.
If the Italians had not believed in clocks, we would all be Nazis. (with many similar steps in between)
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact - The “if only fallacy” - if only X were true (which it isn’t), Y would be true.
The Stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our desires is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes.
False Analogy - The usage of an analogy that either does not match the given scenario, or leaves out other possible options.
Descartes didn’t say anything about the Masons, so he must have been a Mason.
Argument from Silence - The argument that if a person is silent about X, he believes in X (or there is no X).
Because of suicide, increased depression, and more divorce, overall life is getting worse.
Selective Evidence - The usage of particular pieces of evidence to support a point of view and ignoring the rest.
Should our children be propagandized in government schools?
Slanting the Question - Obtaining a particular result by asking a question in a certain way.
Your argument that birds evolved is wrong because birds didn’t evolve.
Refuting an Argument by Refuting Its Conclusion - The belief that one can beat an argument by negating only its conclusion.
Dogs kill babies.
Babies throw tantrums.
Therefore, some dogs whine.
Your conclusion must be wrong because the argument is fallacious.
Assuming That Refuting an Argument Refutes Its Conclusion - Self-explanatory.
The Catholic argument for papal infallibility is wrong because the Borgia popes were corrupt.
Ignoring the Argument (Beside the Point) - Ignoring your opponent’s actual argument and arguing something else completely.
Natural selection proves that Darwinian evolution is true.
Substituting Explanations for Proofs - Believing that explanations will prove something.
Slavery is morally wrong, because it violates a basic human right.
That’s wrong, because slavery is better than death.
Answering Another Argument than the One Given - Self-explanatory.
Your brother says he saw a police car crash into the front door of the city library. You ask him to prove it.
Shifting the Burden of Proof - The one with the burden of proof has to prove his case.
Donald Trump or Ken Ham
Winning the Argument but Losing the Arguer (or Vice Versa) - Being an idiot.
Words are nothing but wind, and learning is nothing but words, therefore learning is nothing but wind.
Reductionism or “Nothing Buttery” - Making an argument that something complex can be reduced to simplicity.
A great nose indicates a great man.
The Fallacy of Accident - Confusing the accidental for the essential.
Statistics tell us that Pepsi tastes better than Coke.
Confusing Quantity with Quality - Self-explanatory.
Plato’s Theory of Forms
The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness - Confusing the abstract with the concrete.
You “believe” in Santa Claus because it makes you happy.
Confusing Logical, Physical, and Psychological Causes - self-explanatory.
Sartre’s claim that man’s essence is simply to exist, that we arbitrarily construct our own essence.
Confusing Essence and Existence - nothing can be unintelligible in itself.
Humans have a natural right to health care.
Confusing the Natural with the Common - self-explanatory.
“Only men are rational, women are not men, therefore women are not rational.”
Equivocation - the same term is used in two or more different sense in the course of an argument
“Guest for lunch one way to solve eating problem”
Amphiboly - not an ambiguous word but ambiguous syntax
“I do not choose to run at this time.”
Accent - ambiguity caused by voice inflection, ironic or sarcastic tone
“anti-life,” “the Jewish problem,” etc.
Slanting - “question-begging epithet,” exemplified in “propaganda” or “euphemism.” A word or group of words is chosen to create a certain perception
“I’m pro-life because of that bumper sticker: ‘A child, not a choice.’”
Slogan - substituting a slogan for an argument
“You should clean your room.” “Oh, so you want me to be your slave?”
Hyperbole - “exaggeration”
Samuel Johnson refuted Berkeley’s claim that material things were really ideas by kicking a rock”
“Straw Man” - creates a weak version of the opponents argument, and then refutes it.
“You are ugly.”
Ad hominem (Appeal to the Man) - attacking the person instead of their argument
“You can’t believe him, he’s a Democrat!”
“Poisoning the Well” - Includes slanting or name-calling within the attack, to try to bias against the person making the argument
“How can you criticize me for infidelity, you cheated on your wife!”
Tu quoque (You too) - alleging that because someone doesn’t follow their own advice the argument is in valid.
“You only say that because you are a man”
The Genetic Fallacy - alleging that the psychological origin of an argument invalidates it.
“Ho Chi Minh was not a tyrant.” “How do you know?” “Jane Fonda says so.”
Ad verecundiam (Appeal to authority) - fallicious when the authority appealed to is 1) irrelevant; 2) unreliable; 3) unnecessary; 4) dogmatic; or 5) uncritical, including “snow job,” “appeal to the expert” and “appeal to Big Names”
“Before you answer, remember who pays your salary.”
Ad baculum (Appeal to Force) - argument based on fear instead of reason
“If you flunk me, my parents will be devastated. They sacrificed all their savings on my tuitions”,
Ad misericordiam (Appeal to pity) - an argument based purely on pity.
“What? You’re going to be a lawyer? Is it because you want people to tell jokes on you?”
Ad ignominiam (Appeal to shame) - shame subsituted for an argument
“I am not orator, as Brutus is; but as you known me all, a plain blunt man. For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, action nor uttterance, nor the power of speech, to stir men’s blood; I only speak right on.
Ad populum (Appeal to the masses) - such as snob appeal, the Big Lie, etc. Appeal to the support of group of people
“He cannot prove he earned that money, he must have stolen it.”
Ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) - construing that an argument must be true because we do not know that it is not
“According to the Greek saying, water is best. So I’ll swap you some water for those diamonds and you’ll come out ahead.”
Dictor simpliciter - applies a general principle to specific case that should clearly be excepted
“There are a lot of idiots who can’t pass a logic course. Therefore man is not rational.”
“Special case” - opposite of dicto simpliciter; applies a special case as a general principle
Texas has more millionaires than any other states, therefore Texas is the richest start”
Composition - arguing from part to whole
“Irishmen are scattered all over the world. Pat is an Irishman. Therefore, Pat is scattered all over the world.
Division - reverse of composition; arguing from whole or part
“Do you hate me?” “No.” “Wonderful! You love me!”
“The Black-and-White Fallacy” - allows for no gradiation; might be called “either-or,” or “bifurcation.”
“Kennedy said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’ Therefore, he must have been against federal publix health care.”
Quoting out of Context - self-evident
“You’re tall; you must play basketball.”
Stereotype - self-evident
I hate courthouses; Therefore, you will lose your case in court today.
Non sequitur - it does not follow - the premises do not follow logically from the premises
“Poor people die because of lack of medical care, therefore we need single payer healthcare”.
Ignoratio elenchi (Irrelevant conclusion) - a form of non sequiter, where the premises prove something, but not necessarily what the arguer alleges
“The accused will be given a fair trial before he is hanged.” “Since everything that God wills is just for the very reason he wills it, the terrible fate of the non-elect does not violate the principles of justice.”
Petitio principi (begging the question) - assumes the conclusion it sets out to prove
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Complex Question - assumes something in the question asked
“The world must be well-ordered.” “Why?” “Because it is the work of divine wisdom.” “How do you know it is a work of divine wisdom?” “How can you doubt divine wisdom? Look how well-ordered the world is!”
Arguing in a circle - uses premises to justify a conclusion and then uses the conclusion to justify the premises.
“Truth is subjective.” “I will not tolerate intolerance!”
Contradictory premise - self-evident
“I can turn my bedroom light off and leap into bed before the room is dark; yet my light switch is 20 feet away from my bed.” “How do you do that?” “I wait till it’s daytime.”
False assumption - self-evident
