Problem 3 Flashcards
Fallacy
Refers to a defective pattern of arguing in an argument
ex.: mistakes in reasoning, creation of an illusion
‘it doesn’t follow’
Formal fallacy
Refers to a fallacy that may be identified merely by examining the form/structure of the argument
–> found exclusively in deductive arguments
Informal fallacy
Refers to a fallacy that may be identified merely by examining the content of the argument
Fallacies of relevance
Refers to fallacies where the connection between premise + conclusion is emotional
–> various form of emotional appeal
Appeal to force
Fallacy of relevance
Telling the opposing party that some harm will come if he/she doesn’t accept the conclusion
–> threat, agreeing because frightened doesn’t mean the argument is true
Appeal to pity
Fallacy of relevance
Involve evoking pity from the opposing party
–> agreeing due to compassion doesn’t make the argument true
Appeal to the people
Fallacy of relevance
Using peoples needs to be loved, esteemed + valued to accept a conclusion
–> direct vs indirect approach
a) Bandwagon argument
b) Appeal to vanity
c) Appeal to snobbery
Bandwagon argument
Suggesting that one will be left out of the group if you don’t agree
Appeal to vanity
Associating the product to someone who is admired
–> if you use it you will also be admired
Appeal to snobbery
Associating the product to someone who is rich
Argument against the person/ Ad hominem
Fallacy of relevance
a) abusive
- -> involves directing ones attention to the opposing party itself rather than the opposing party’s argument
b) circumstantial
- -> by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent
c) tu quoque/you too
- -> hypocritical or arguing in bad faith by citing features in the life or behavior of the first arguer that conflict with the latter conclusion
Straw man
Fallacy of relevance
Distorting the opponents argument to attack it more easily
ex.:
A: This is the 3rd bowl of cereal you’re eating
B: Are you suggesting I’m fat ?!
Red Herring
Fallacy of relevance
Diverting the opponents attention to a slightly different but subtle related subject, by ignoring the opponents argument
–> then drawing the conclusion based on the different subject
Missing the point
Fallacy of relevance
When the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, only vaguley related to the correct conclusion is drawn
Fallacies of weak induction
Connection between premise + conclusion isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion
Appeal to unqualified authority
Fallacy of weak induction
Using a citation of an authority who lacks credibility
Appeal to ignorance
Fallacy of weak induction
Occurs when the premise of an argument states that it hasn’t been proved/no evidence for it
–> therefore one must conclude that it is BS
ex.: No evidence for astrology - so non-sense
Hasty generalizations
Fallacy of weak induction
Drawing a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence of one member of it
–> neither small nor large sample guarantees its typicality
Slippery slope
Fallacy od weak induction
Suggesting that the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction
BUT: there is no sufficient reason to think the chain reaction will actually take place
ex.: if you are willing to eat horse meat you will also eat hamsters and dogs
Weak analogy
Fallacy of weak induction
Occurs when the analogy isn’t strong enough to support the conclusion
ex.: can’t compare australia to switzerland
False cause
Fallacy of weak induction
Occurs when the link between the premise + conclusion is false/not related at all
–> premise doesn’t support the conclusion
ex.: Every time the team lost the cheerleaders wore black, should thus not wear black anymore
Fallacies of presumption
Occurs when the premise already presumes what they try to prove
Begging the question/Circular reasoning
Fallacy of presumption
Presuming that the premise provides adequate support for the conclusion, when they don’t
ex.: iPhone is the best smartphone because apple makes the best smartphones
False dichotomy
Fallacy of presumption
Refers to an “either .. or “ statement, suggesting only either option is available
–> when in fact others also may be or these 2 are even unlikely
Fallacy of ambiguity
Occurs when there is ambiguity in the premise or conclusion
Equivocation
Fallacy of ambiguity
Occurs when the conclusion results from a word/phrase that was use in 2 different senses
ex. :
1. We have a duty to do what is right
2. we have a right to speak out
3. we have a duty to speak out
Amphiboly
Fallacy of ambiguity
Involves misinterpreting an ambiguous statement, then drawing a false conclusion due to this
Fallacies of grammatical analogy
Refer to arguments that are grammatically analogous/the same to other arguments
–> when logically they are not
Composition
Fallacy of grammatical analogy
Drawing a conclusion by wrongly transferring attributes from parts of something onto the whole
ex.: Mia likes ice cream and fish thus she’ll like ice cream topped with fish
Division
Fallacy of grammatical analogy
Drawing a conclusion by wrongly transferring attributes of the whole onto its parts
ex.: Airplane was made in seattle so every component of the airplane was made in seattle
Name the 7 factors of when premises are acceptable.
- Supported by a cogent sub argument
- Supporten elsewhere
- -> another person - Common knowledge
- -> known by everyone - Testimony
- Claim is known A priori to be tue
- -> claims that are knowable w/o experience
ex.: no one can steal his own property
- Proper authority
- -> expert makes claim in his field - Accepting premises provisionally
- -> cannot say if its acceptable or unacceptable
Name the 5 factors of when the premises are unacceptable
- Easy refutability/Counterexample
- Claim is known A priori to be false
- -> ex.: there was time before time began - Inconsistency between premises
- Vagueness or ambiguity
- Fallacies
ARG-Method
Is used to evaluate the premises of an argument + the way in which the premises are related to the conclusion
–> then the argument is cogent
Name the basic elements of a cogent argument meaning the ARG conditions.
A. The premise is acceptable
–> good reason to believe its true
R. The premise is relevant to its conclusion
–> provides evidence to support it
G. Premises provide good ground for the conclusion
–> sufficient reason
