studietaak 8 (10%)

Question 1

Fallacy

Answer 1

a defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone

Non-Sequitur (= it does not follow) (another name for fallacy

Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument.
Andersom: if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both).

Question 2

in distinguishing formal from informal fallacies

Answer 2

remember that formal fallacies occur ONLY in deductive arguments (if an argument is inductive, it cannot contain a formal fallacy)

• informal fallacies are those that can be detected only by examining the content of the argument.

Question 3

There are 22 informal fallacies, divided into 5 groups

Answer 3

1) fallacies of relevance
* fallacy of appeal to force - “Ad Baculum” Fallacy
* appeal to pity - “Argumentum Ad Misericordian”
* appeal to people - “Argumentum Ad Populum”
* argument against person - “Argumentum ad Hominem”

2) Fallacies of Weak Induction

3) Fallacies of Presumption

4) Fallacies of Ambiguity

5) Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

Question 4

Fallacies of Relevance

Answer 4

share the common characteristic that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion
* the premises may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does not follow logically
* in a good argument –> premises provide genuine evidence for conclusion
* in an argument + fallacy of relevance, the connection between premises and conclusion is emotional

Question 5

Fallacy of Relevance - fallacy of Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum”

Answer 5

person is told implicitly or explicitly that harm will come if one doesn’t accept the conclusion

Question 6

Fallacy of Relevance - Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordian)

Answer 6

this fallacy occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merely invoking pity from the reader/listener
- sometimes arguments that evoke sympathetic are not fallacious, but arguments from compassion

Question 7

Fallacy of Relevance - appeal to the people (Argumentum ad Populum)

Answer 7

uses desires (like wanting to be loved, esteemed, admired, valued, recognized and accepted) to get the reader to accept a conclusion
- direct approach: arouse some kind of mob mentality (both oral + writing)
- indirect approach: arguer aims appeal not at the crowd as a whole, but individuals, focusing on some aspect of their relationship to the crowd

*bandwagon argument, appeal to vanity/snobbery

Question 8

Argument against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

Answer 8

this fallacy always involves 2 arguers. one of them advance (directly or implicitly) a certain argument and the other then responds by directing her attention not to the argument but the person herself:
1) ad hominem abusive (persoon aanvallen)
2) ad hominem circumstancial (mening descrediteren)
3) tu quoque (you too) (een Jij Bak) - first arguer is hypocritical or arguing in bad faith

reasons why Ad Hominem arguments are often effective:
1) close connection between truth and believability
2) they engage the emotions of readers and thereby motivate them to transfer their negative feelings about the arguer onto the argument

Question 9

In evaluating any argument there are always 2 issues to be considered

Answer 9

1) the quality of the reasoning
2) the truth of the premises

Question 10

Fallacy of Relevance - fallacy of accident

Answer 10

committed when a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Question 11

Fallacy of Relevance - Straw Man Fallacy

Answer 11

committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument is demolished.

Question 12

Fallacy of Relevance - Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi - Ignorance of the Proof)

Answer 12

all fallacies (tot zover) have been instances of cases where the premises of an argument are irrelevant to the conclusion. “Missing the Point” illustrates a special form of irrelevance –> this fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to the correct conclusion is drawn.

Question 13

Fallacy of Relevance - Red Herring Fallacy

Answer 13

committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader by changing the subject to a different, but sometimes subtly related one.
- in the Straw Man, the arguer begins by distorting an opponent’s argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument
- in the Red Herring, the arguer ignores the opponent’s argument (if there is one) and subtly changes the subject

also; Straw Man has 2 arguers

Question 14

Fallacy of Weak induction

Answer 14

occur not because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion (as is the case with the 8 fallacies of Relevance) but because the conclusion between premises and conclusion is not strong enough to support the conclusion

Question 15

Fallcy of Weak Induction - Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Answer 15

this fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility
- person might lack expertise
- be biased or prejudiced
- motive to lie or disseminate misinformation
- might lack the requisite ability to perceive or recall

In deciding whether a person is a qualified authority, one should keep two important points in mind:
1) the person might be an authority in more than one field
2) there are some areas in which practically no one can be considered an authority

Question 16

Fallacy of Weak Induction - appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam)

Answer 16

when the premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits an appeal to ignorance

2 exceptions:
1) if qualified researchers investigated a certain phenomenon within their range of expertise and fail to turn up any evidence that the phenomenon exists, the fruitless search by itself constitutes positive evidence about the question (given argument is inductively strong, but not deductively valid)
2) courtroom procedure (innocent until proven guilty)

Question 17

Fallacy of Weak Induction - Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)

Answer 17

a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations
- inductive generalization is an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group (plays role in racial + religious prejudice).

• this is why there is a need for randomness in sample

Question 18

Fallacy of Weak Induction - False Cause

Answer 18

this fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist

• whenever an argument is suspected of committing the false cause fallacy, the reader should be able to say that the conclusion should be able to say that the conclusion depends on the supposition that X causes Y, whereas X probably does not cause Y at all
• Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (after this, therefore on account of this)
• Non Causa Pro Causa (not the cause for the cause)
• Oversimplified Cause: occurs when a multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect, but the arguer selects just one of these causes and represents it as if it were the sole cause
• Oversimplified Cause Fallacy is usually motivated by self-serving interests
• Instances of the fallacy can resemble either the Post Hoc or the Non Causa Pro Causa varieties in that the alleged cause can occur either prior to or concurrently with the effect

Question 19

Fallacy of Weak Induction - Gambler’s Fallacy

Answer 19

committed whenever the conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of choice are causally related (events must be -nearly- independent)

Question 20

Fallacy of Weak Induction - Slippery Slope

Answer 20

the fallacy of slippery slope is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place

Question 21

Fallacy of Weak Induction - Weak Analogy

Answer 21

this fallacy effects inductive arguments from analogy (an argument from analogy is an argument in which the conclusion depends on the existence of an analogy, or similarity between 2 things or situations
* fallacy of weak analogy is committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn

Question 22

Open Science

Answer 22

deze beweging streeft er naar om de werkwijze van de moderne wetenschap aan te scherpen (Kuhniaanse Paradigma verschuiving)

Question 23

Drogredenering

Answer 23

wanneer een bepaalde bewering of conclusie niet voldoende gerechtvaardigd wordt door de premissen (maar hoeven niet persé tot onjuiste conclusies te leiden)

Question 24

2 voorbeelden van formele drogredeneringen

Answer 24

• ontkennen antecedent
• bevestigen van consequent

Formeel, omdat de redenering door de vorm waarin die gegoten is, los van de specifiekere inhoud, logisch gezien niet valide is

De essentie van informele drogredenering is dat we deze enkel kunnen herkennen door de inhoud van de redenering te bestuderen

Question 25

Relevantie Drogredeneringen

Answer 25

op basis van inhoudelijke irrelevante premissen wordt een conclusie getrokken (psychologisch relevant ipv logisch relevant)

Question 26

Stropop Drogreden b

Answer 26

bepaald gedachtegoed verkeerd weergeven, deze vervolgens bekritiseren om uiteindelijk te concluderen dat de betreffende theorie niet coherent is.

Question 27

De sterkste methode om tot relatief sterke inductieve generalisaties te komen, is door een correct gebruik van statistische technieken

Answer 27

omvang van de steekproef + representatieve steekproef voor betreffende populatie = sterke inductie

Question 28

Relevantie Drogredenen

Answer 28

1) Argumentum Ad Baculum (argument v.d. stok)
2) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (beroep op medelijden)
3) Argumentum ad Populum (populistische drogreden)
4) Argumentum ad Hominem (persoonlijke aanval)
5) Accident (negeren uitzondering)
6) Straw Man (stropop)
7) Ignoratio Elechni (irrelevante conclusie)
8) Red Herring (rookgordijn)

Question 29

Zwakke Inductieve Redeneringen

Answer 29

1) Argumentum ad Verecundiam (berooep op veronderstelde authoriteit)
2) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument v.d. onwetendheid)
3) Hasty Generalization
4) False Cause (verkeerde oorzaak)
5) Slippery Slope (hellend vlak)
6) Weak Analogy (zwakke analogie)