Lecture 7: Chapter 7 Flashcards
Relevance fallacy
- most common fallacy
- it means dismissing someones’ position by dismissing the person
- dismissing the argument because the person does not have credibility or the argument is not credible
inductive argument
- using something that is very general to make specific conclusion
deductive argument
- going from specific to general
- good: if it is true and valid
- bad: if the premise does not support the conclusion
types of ad hominem
1: poisoning the well
2: guilt by association
3: genetic fallacy
poisoning the well
- 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.
what is this an example of “when someone starts trash talking someone without actually addressing the arguement”
poisoning the well
guilt by association
- refers to the concept that a person is judged by the company they keep
- in logic, it is a version of arguementum ad hominem where a speaker tries to persuade us to dismiss a belief by telling us that someone we do not like has that belief
what is this an example of “ if someone is a friend of someone who has been lying, then you make the assumption that the friend is also lying”
guilt by association
genetic fallacy
- it is committed when a speaker/writer argues that the origin of a contention renders it false
- in summary, the Genetic Fallacy involves attacking the source of an idea rather than the idea itself
- dismissing something based on its origin
- occurs when we try to “refute” a claim (or urge others to do so) on the basis of its origin or its history
what is this an example of “father Jonathon’s views on abortion should be ignored because he’s a priest and priests are required to think that abortion is a mortal sin”
genetic fallacy
straw man
- when someone distorts or misrepresents an argument in order to dismiss it
- common mistake in arguments
- it is important to accurately represent the other person’s argument in order to have a productive discussion
-We get a straw man fallacy when a speaker or writer distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misrepresents an opponent’s position.
what is the difference between an ad hominem fallacy and straw man?
ad hominem attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself
principle of charity
- always representing the opposite position at its best
false dilemma (ignoring other alternatives)
- when someone presents a conclusion as the only alternative to something unacceptable, unattainable, or implausible
- the speaker ignores other options, making it a fallacy
- saying “its either this or that”
the perfectionist fallacy
- occurs when a speaker or writer ignores options between “perfection” and “nothing”
- its either 100% or 0% (if its 90% than they basically say that it does not matter)
what is this an example of “ arguing that a single english course will not make someone a great writer, so we should not take one at all”
the perfectionist fallacy
the line-drawing fallacy
- occurs when a speaker or writer assumes a clear line can be drawn between two things, or there’s no difference between them
what is this an example of “ either a clear line can be drawn between violent and nonviolent videos, or there is no distinction between them”
the line-drawing fallacy
misplacing the burden of proof
- is on the person making a claim to provide evidence to support it
- occurs when someone tires to shift the responsibility of providing evidence onto the other party
- generally falls on the side making the more outlandish claim or seeking to change something
appeal to ignorance
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
begging the question (assuming what you are trying to prove)
- 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
- key words: assuming, likely
what is this an example of “someone saying the president would not lie, so he must have told the truth about a specific topic “
begging the question
appeal to emotion
- occurs when a speaker or writer tires to support a contention by playing on our emotions rather than producing a real argument
- different types
- the argument from
outrage - scare tactics
- the appeal to pity
- the argument from
the argument from outrage
it attempt to convince us by making us angry rather than giving a relevant argument
- apart of an appeal to emotion
score tactics
- when a speaker or writer tries to scare us into accepting an irrelevant conclusion
- apart of appeal to emotion
ad hominem
- we commit this fallacy when we think that considerations about a person “refute” his or her assertions
- basically point to the person making the claim and accuse him or her of some flaw, evil deed, or other negative feature
the inconsistency ad hominem
- The fact that people change their minds has no bearing on the truth of what they say either before or after
- Sometimes a person’s claim seems inconsistent, not with previous statements but with that person’s behaviour.
- This type of reasoning, where we reject what somebody says because what he or she says seems inconsistent with what he or she does
slippery slope
- Such claims are fallacious when in fact there is no reason to think that X will lead to Y
- The slippery slope fallacy has considerable force because psychologically one item does often lead to another, even though logically it does no such thing.
types of misplacing the burden of proof
- 1: initial plausibility
- 2: affirmative/negative
-3: special circumstances
initial plausibility
- The general rule that most often governs the placement of the burden of proof is simply this: The less initial plausibility a claim has, the greater the burden of proof we place on someone who asserts that claim.
- i.e. we are quite naturally less skeptical about the claim that Charlie’s now-famous eighty-seven-year-old grandmother drove a boat across lake Michigan than we are about the claim that she swam across Lake Michigan
affirmative/negative
- Other things being equal, the burden of proof falls automatically on those supporting the affirmative side of an issue rather than on those supporting the negative side.
appeal to ignorance
- a burden-proof fallacy because it mistakenly places the requirement of proving their position on those who do not believe in ghosts.
special circumstances
- One important variety of special circumstances occurs when the stakes are especially high.
