Task 3 Flashcards
fallacies of relevance - in general
- premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion
- psychologically relevant
- connection between premises and conclusion is emotional
appeal to force/ ad baculum/fallacy of the stick
- Harm will come if one does not accept the conclusion
- E.g.: ‘Sesame street is the best show on TV, and if you don’t believe it, I’m going to call my big brother over here and he’s going to beat you up.’
appeal to pity
- Evoking pity from the reader or listener toward the arguer or toward some third party
- Arguments from compassion: arguments that attempt to evoke sympathetic feelings but are not fallacious
appeal to people
- Uses desires
- Direct approach: excites emotions and enthusiasm of the crowd -> aroused mob mentality, used by nearly every propagandist and demagogue
- Indirect approach: aims appeal not at crowd as a whole but at one or more individuals separately -> focusing on some aspect of their relationship to crowd, advertising industry
argument against the person
- 2 arguers, second arguer directs attention to the first person himself
- Ad hominem abusive: verbally abusing the first person
- Ad hominem circumstantial: discredit opponents argument by alluding to certain circumstances -> show that opponent is predisposed
- Tu quoque: second arguer makes first appear hypocritical/arguing in bad faith -> citing feature in life/behavior of first arguer that conflict with their conclusion (How dare you argue that I should stop doing X, why, you do X yourself)
accident
-A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover
straw man
- Arguer distorts opponent’s argument for purpose of more easily tackling it
- > demolishes the argument
- > then concludes that opponent’s real argument has been demolished
missing the point
- Premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaguely related to correct conclusion, is drawn
- Conclusion is irrelevant to the premises
red herring
- Arguer diverts attention of reader by changing subject to a different, but sometimes related one
- Arguer must change original subject of the argument without reader/listener noticing it
appeal to unqualified authority
- Cited authority/witness lacks credibility
- There are areas in which practically no one can be considered an authority (politics, morals, religion)
appeal to ignorance
-Premises of an argument state that nothing has been proved, and conclusion then makes a definite assertion about the thing
- BUT if qualified researchers investigate a certain phenomenon and fail to turn up any evidence -> this fruitless search itself constitutes positive evidence about the question
- Sometimes the mere ability to see and report what one sees is sufficient
hasty generalization
- When there is reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group
- If sample is either too small or not randomly selected
- Converse accident (bc accident proceeds from general to particular)
false cause
-Link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist
false cause - post hoc ergo propter hoc
just because one event precedes another, the first event causes the second
false cause - non causa pro causa
what is taken to be the cause of something is not really the cause at all
oversimplified cause
multitude of causes is responsible for a certain effect but the arguer selects just one of these causes
gamblers fallacy
conclusion of an argument depends on the supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related
slippery slope
- Variety of false cause fallacy
- Conclusion rests on an alleged chain reaction and there is not sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place
weak analogy
-Analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn
begging the question
-Petitio principii
-Leaves out a premise that is needed to support the stated conclusion
-3 possible ways:
1-leaving a possibly false key premise out of the argument while creating the illusion that nothing more is needed to establish the conclusion
2-conclusion of an argument merely restates a possibly false premise in slightly different language -> premise supports conclusion, and conclusion reinforces premise
3-circular reasoning in a chain of inferences having a first premise that is possibly false
-Arguments are normally valid , but unsound
complex question
- Two/more questions are asked in the guise of a single question and a single answer is then given to both of them
- Intended to trap respondent into acknowledging something that he/she might otherwise not want to acknowledge
- Need to be distinguished from leading questions -> answer is in some ways suggested in the question -> do not attempt to trick respondent into admitting something
False dichotomy
- Disjunctive (either..or..) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available
- Arguer eliminates the undesirable alternative, leaving desirable one as conclusion
- Often valid, but unsound
- If one of the alternatives in disjunctive premise is true, no fallacy is committed
suppressed evidence
- Inductive argument ignores evidence
- Advertisements (neglects to mention certain negative features of the product)
- Ignoring important events that have occurred with the passage of time
- Quote passages out of context (from Bible, the Consitution..) to support a conclusion that the passage was not intended to support
- Leaves out a premise that requires a different! conclusion
equivocation
- When conclusion depends on word/phrase that is used, either explicitly/implicitly, in two different sense in the argument
- reaktive words such as good, bad, light, difficult, easy..
- Invalid or have a false premise -> unsound
- In political speech: ‘equal opportunity’, ‘gun control’, ‘national security’ etc.
amphiboly
- Arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation
- Usually arises from a mistake in grammar or punctuation
- Involves a statement
composition
- Conclusion depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the part of something onto the whole
- Cannot be discovered by mere inspection of the form of an argument
- Detecting the fallacy requires general knowledge of the situation and nature of the attribute being transferred
division
- reverse of composition -> from whole to part
- can be confused with accident
- can only occur when the ‘whole’ is a class
- if premises contain a general statement, accident is committed. If they contain a class statement, fallacy is division
Argumentum ad consequentiam
Rejecting a (descriptive) position on the ground of undesired consequences (evaluative)
Generalizing, after a successful Defence
-concluding, after a successful Defence, that the position is valid, disregarding the role and status of the antagonist’s concessions
Hasty generalization vs composition
Hasty generalization:
- distributed to each and every member of the class
- e.g. ‘Fleas are small’
Composition:
- about a class as a whole, not attributed to the individual flea
- e.g. “ Fleas are numerous”
Shifting the burden of proof - argumentum ad ignorantiam
Antagonist has to show why the protagonist’s position is wrong
Generalizing the failure of a Defence - argumentum ad ignorantiam
-concluding that a position is correct because the opposite has not been defended successfully
Exaggerated modesty
-manipulating the audience by charming them with a posture of modesty
Populist fallacy
- a large number of people believing something is seen as a sign that it is true
Argumentum ad verecundiam -
Evading (umgehen) the burden of proof
-personally guaranteeing the validity of position
Ethical fallacy
-trotting out one’s own qualities instead of offering arguments in support of a position
Declaring a position to be unassailable
-prohibiting or preventing a position from being called into question
Denying a shared principle
-calling a proposition into question that is clearly a shared principle
