Other Flashcards
Appeal to Consequences
argumentum ad consequentiam
judging the truth of a proposition by the desirability of its consequences
if P, then Q
Q is desirable/undesirable
therefore P is true/false
“If Trump wins, the consequences for our country are unthinkable; democracy in this nation would die. Therefore I have to believe that he will not win the election.”
Appeal to Consequences // Appeal to Force
argumentum ad baculum
a negative form of Appeal to Consequences, focused on avoiding negative (threatening) consequences
P or Q
Q is harmful
therefore P is true
“I am the king, and you should agree with it - anyone who doubts my right to rule will be exterminated”
Appeal to Consequences // Appeal to Force // IMPLIED CONSEQUENCES // Slippery Slope
The Thin End of the Wedge
Camel’s Nose
Domino Fallacy
the belief that a (perhaps seemingly-reasonable) proposition, once accepted, will increase the likelihood of (or perhaps force) a subsequent negative consequence
can be valid, if the links between propositions (and the overall probability) is demonstrated
P implies Q, which implies R
R is bad
therefore, P should be avoided
“If we allow Blacks and Whites to intermix, the next thing you know they’ll be intermarrying, and then the White race will become extinct!”
Appeal to Consequences // IMPLIED CONSEQUENCES // Greater Good Fallacy
an inverse of the Slippery Slope fallacy, with the ultimate conclusion being positive - and thereby justifying the proposed proposition
P implies Q, which implies R
R is good
therefore, P should be pursued
“I must assault this man to successfully join the gang, in order to gather intel for the security services so that they may eventually arrest them all.”
CATEGORY ERRORS // Fallacy of Composition
the false inference that what is true of the part is necessarily true of the whole
P is a part of Q
P has property x
therefore Q has property x
“This brick is light, therefore this house made of bricks is light.”
CATEGORY ERRORS // Fallacy of Division
Mereological Fallacy
falsely assuming that what is true for the whole is necessarily true for its parts
P is a part of Q
Q has property x
therefore P has property x
“Humanity is mostly male, therefore every human being is mostly male.”
FALLACIES OF COMPARISON // False Equivalence
‘comparing apples to oranges’
two subjects are portrayed as effectively identical/similar, based on false reasoning
set A contains P
set B contains P
therefore sets A and B are identical
“Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches - they’re the same!”
FALLACIES OF COMPARISON // False Analogy
an Argument from Analogy with a level of dissimilarity between objects that renders the analogy invalid
“Kidney beans are edible legumes; Castor beans are also legumes, so they must be edible too.”
FALLACIES OF COMPARISON // Incomplete Comparison
cf. Bare Assertion
making a comparative claim without sufficient information on what is compared against
A claims P is superior
“Our coffee is 20% tastier”
FALLACIES OF COMPARISON // Inconsistent Comparison
misrepresenting the qualities of an argument/person/element etc. through multiple comparisons that shift the property evaluated
P is superior to Q in relation to property x
P is superior to R in relation to property y
P is superior to S in relation to property z
therefore, P is superior to Q, R and S
“I am smarter than Kim Kardashian, more handsome than Steve Buscemi and richer than Lindsay Lohan. I’m better than all of them!”
FALLACIES OF UNINTENDED IMPLICATION // Homunculus Fallacy
explaining a concept by reference to the concept itself, in such a fashion as to introduce an infinite regress
P is explained by P’
which entails P’’
which entails P’'’…
‘Turtles, all the way down’
FALLACIES OF UNINTENDED IMPLICATION // Proving Too Much
reaching a conclusion which entails a another obviously absurd conclusion
A claims P
P implies absurdity
“A: all slavery is evil because some slaves were beaten by their masters!
B: some wives are beaten by their husbands…”
Moving the Goalposts
redefining the requirements to overcome a proposition in the face of objections
A claims P
B refutes P
A reformulates as P’
B refutes P’…
“A: To prove me wrong, you would have to demonstrate P!
B: I have demonstrated P.
A: Hah, not so easy! You would also have to demonstrate Q!
B: I have demonstrated Q.
A: I’m not changing my mind until you demonstrate R!”
Moving the Goalposts // No True Scotsman
dismissing relevant criticism by appeal to a ‘pure’ ideal/standard
A claims all P are Q
B refutes claim
A reformulates that all TRUE P are Q
“A: No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!
B: I’m a Scotsman, and I put sugar in my porridge.
A: Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!”
Moving the Goalposts // Special Pleading
holding to a general rule or principle, then making an unjustified exception (often in one’s own favour)
“Adultery is obviously wrong - unless I’m doing it, in which case its about sexual liberation and empowerment”
