Lecture 7 Flashcards
1
Q
Relevance fallacy Ad hominem
A
- a relevance fallacy that is the most common fallacy
- it means dismissing someone’s position by dismissing the person
- e.g. person isn’t “knowledgable” enough - occurs when a speaker talks about the other person instead of their position on an issue
- accusations of inconsistency or changing one’s mind are common examples
- discussing someone’s circmstances, character, or motivation does not comment on the strengths or weaknesses of their position
- fallacies can be inductive or deductive
2
Q
poisoning the well
A
- speakers and writers try to get us to dismiss what someone is going to say by talking about their consistency, character, or circumstances
- it is an attempt to poison the well, hoping that we will dismiss whatever the person says
3
Q
guilt by association
A
- refers to the concept that a person is judged by the company they keep
- in logic, it is a version of argumentum ad hominem where a speaker tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we don’t like has that belief
- read WADA code
4
Q
genetic fallacy
A
- it is committed whena speaker/writer argues that the origin of a contention renders it false
- an example: father jonathon’s views on abortion should be ingored because he’s a priest and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin
- another example: rejecting an idea as absurd simply because it originated from the Tea Party or talk radio
- in summary the genertic fallacy involves attacking the source of an idea rather tan the idea itself
- dismissing a product coming out of a specific country, cause you just don’t trust it
- still stereotyping
- all hominem fallacies overlap eachother —> poison the well
5
Q
straw man
A
- the straw man fallacy is when someone distorts or misrepresents an argument in order to dismiss it
- this is different from the ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the person making the argumet rather than the argument itself
- the straw man fallacy is a common mistake in arguments
- it is important to accurately represent the other person’s argument in order to have a productive discussion
- misrepresent, dismiss - represent the opposite position at its best, then destroy it afterword - downplay the opposite side
6
Q
false dilemma (ignoring other alternatives)
A
- when someone presents a conclusion as the only alternative to something unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
- the speaker ignores other options, making it a fallacy
- alse dilemma is also called black/white, either/or, false choice, and false alternative fallacy
- this or that - the best name is “ignoring other options”
- putting ou in a corner, not giving many options, “not at all or death penalty”
7
Q
the perfectionis fallacy
A
- occurs when a speaker or witer ignores options between “perfection” and “nothing”
- example: arguing that a single english course won’t make someone a great writer, so we shouldn’t take one at all
- value of beauty, arts
- all or none
8
Q
the line-drawing fallacy
A
- occurs when a speaker or writer assumes a clear line can be drawn between two things, or there’s no difference between them
- example: either a clear line can be drawn between violent and nonviolent videos, or there’s no distinction between them
- another example: arguing that poverty isn’t a problem because there’s no precise line between being really poor and not being really poor
- no boundaries
- e.. angry birds
- impact
- no clear cut definition
9
Q
misplacing the burden of proof
A
- the burden of proof is on the person making a claim to provide evidencce to support it
- misplacing the burden of proof occurs when someone tries to shift the responsibility of providing evidence onto the other party
- the burden of proof generally falls on the side making the more outlandish claim or seeking to chane something
- in a criminal court, the burden of proof always falls on the prosecution
- appeal to ignorance is a version of misplacing the burden of proof and occurs when someone argues that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false
- innocent until proven guilty
- all cases but not anti-doping
- guilty as soon as the test is positive, you need toprove yoursel innocent - strict liability —> your body is yours
- the person always making the claim s responsible for providing proof
10
Q
begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove)
A
- begging the question is a logical fallacy where the speaker tries to support their argument by repackaging the same contention in question
- it is not evidence , and it assumes what it’s trying to prove
- an example is somone saying the president wouldn’t lie, so he must have told the truth about a specific topic
- loaded questions can also beg the question
- it is like trying to establish something by assuming it
- area 51
- “god didn’t create us cause likely we developed from chimpanzees”
11
Q
appeal to emotion
A
- the fallacy of appeal to emotion occurs when a speaker or writer tries to support a contention by playing on our emotions rther than producing a real argument
- the argument from outrage is a variety of this fallacy that attempts to convince us by making us angry rather than giving a relevant argument
- scare tactics is another variety of the fallacy in which a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion
- the apeal to pity fallacy occurs when a speaker or writer tries to convince us of something by arousing our pity rather than giving a relevant argument
- other appeals to emotion include playing onour pride (apple polishing), trying to make us feel gilty (guilt tripping), arousing envy (appeal to envy), and playing on our hopes adn fears (wishful thinking and bandwagoning)
- speakers adn writers may use fear or hate mongering, which involves making inflammatory or scary statements just to rile people up or frighten them without pretending that the statements support a speacific conclusion
12
Q
induction fallacies
A
13
Q
generalizations
A
- generalizing from too few cases (hasty generalization)
- speakers adn writers often make general statements without adequte reasoning
- hasty generalization is a fallacy that occurs when someone arives at a general statement or rule byciting too few supporting cases
- generalization based on small samples are not necessarily fallacies if the population is known to be homogeneous or if an appropriate error margin is built into it
- anecdotes/stories have little logical force and are insufficient to support a general claim
- the fallacy of hasty generalization frequently occurs when someone tries to derive a statement about all or most members of a population from a statement about a tiny sample of the population
- good reasoning can be based on small samples if an appropriate error margin or confidence level is built into it
- e.g. kin 2292 student are super polite, all kinds of students must be
- is a wrong statement - not homogeneous
14
Q
generalizing from exceptional cases
A
- generalizing from exceptional cases is a fallacy where a general sttement or rule is made based on a atypical supporting case
- the fallacy of biased sample occurs when a speaker or writer bases a generaliation about a large population on an atypical or skewed sample, such as assuming most americans think the president should be impeached based on a survery of tea party members
- some people trust the reports of friends over more reliable statisical information, which can be problematic
- the self-selection falacy occurs when someone generalizes from a self-selected sample, such as assuming the opinions of respondents to an online survey reflect the opinions of the general population
15
Q
accident
A
- the accident fallacy assumes that a general statement automatically applies to a particular case, which may not be true
- the fallacy has various unnamed varieties, and here are some examples:
- it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving; therefore, a police oficer committed a crime when he used his cell phone while driving. however, police officers may have intensive training and handling a car in challenging conditions
- the right to free speech does not include the right to issue threats, even though some rights have limitations where there is a compelling social interest - you saw your friend you hadn’t/t seen in 5 years at Masonville mall, so now you should see a old friend everytime you go there
