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”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Fallacy of Many Questions
Loaded Question
Complex Question
a question that contains an implicit controversial assumption; the questioner’s desired facts are presupposed within the question
P is controversial
A asks a question assuming P is true
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Judgemental Language
insulting, pejorative language that prejudices an audience against a conclusion; conversely, positive language that promote a positive image, encouraging acceptance
A claims P
A includes value-charged words in the claim
“These highly-sensible proposals offer a return to normality for our ailing nation.”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Poisoning the Well
a speaker asserts negative properties of an upcoming arguer, pre-emptively discrediting their argument
A ‘introduces’ B
A employs negative rhetoric/fallacies against B/B’s proposition
“My opponent will now argue against my position; as you hear his words, keep in mind that he is a convicted felon and a known liar!”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Poisoning the Well // Blessing the Well
the inverse of Poisoning: priming an audience in favour of an upcoming arguer/argument
A ‘introduces’ B
A employs positive rhetoric/fallacies against B/B’s proposition
“Allow me to introduce to you a war hero, a man who fought for his country; a masterful thinker and moral leader of this country…”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Proof by Verbosity
Proof by Intimidation
overwhelming the audience with complex language, concepts and length to dazzle and intimidate them into accepting your premise
“The lecturer defended his claim with references to Plato, Cicero, Chinese mysticism and the esoteric writings of pre-Islamic apothecaries, then threw out about a dozen five-syllable words. After that, no-one dared doubt he must be right!”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Proof by Verbosity // Shotgun Argumentation
defending a proposition with a lengthy series of arguments, often in an attempt to overwhelm the arguer against answering all objections
A claims P
A defends P with Q, R, S, P’, Q’, R’, S’
“A: Your essay failed to reach to minimum word count.
B: That’s because my computer was broken for a week, and I had a bad cramp in my hand, and a roommate lost my textbooks, and you were unavailable for office consultation on Tuesday, and my other classes gave double assignment, and my girlfriend broke up with me.”
RHETORICAL DEVICES // Style over Substance
an argument is delivered with style and flair, and is thereby more persuasive and taken as true
A claims P
A presents P with style
therefore P is true
“If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit!”
