TASK 3 - FALLACIES + EVALUATION OF INFO Flashcards
fallacy
= defect in argument consisting in something other than false premises alone
- comprise mistakes in reasoning or creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument look good) –> unsound/uncogent
formal fallacy
= identified by examining FORM or STRUCTURE of an argument (only for deductive with identifiable form)
informal fallacy
= identified by examining the CONTENT
fallacies of relevance
= arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion
fallacies of relevance
- appeal to force (argument ad baculum)
= threatens someone to accept conclusion; poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person implicitly/explicitly that some harm will come to him if he does not accept the conclusion
- always involves threat to physical/psychological well-being
fallacies of relevance
- appeal to pity (argument ad misericordiam)
= attempt to support a conclusion by evoking pity from the reader/listener
≠ arguments from compassion = evoke compassion on behalf of some person + supply info why person is deserving help
fallacies of relevance
- appeal to the people (argument ad populum)
= use desires (want to be loved, admired…) to get reader/listener to accept a conclusion
appeal to the people
- direct approach
= addressing a large group of people, excite emotions of crowd to win acceptance for conclusion
- evoke mob mentality (= large group)
appeal to the people
- indirect approach
= aim appeal to one or more individuals by focusing on some aspect of their relationship with the crowd
1) bandwagon argument = left behind/out if you do not support conclusion
2) appeal to vanity = associate conclusion with someone who is admired, so you will also accept it
3) appeal to snobbery = similar to 2
fallacies of relevance
- appeal against the person (argument ad hominem)
= response to an argument is directed at the person itself, not the argument
- place other person in bad light (2 arguers)
appeal against the person
- ad hominem abusive
= second person responds by verbal abusing
appeal against the person
- ad hominem circumstantial
= second person attempts to discredit opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent’s judgment
- ‘of course you would say that, just look at the circumstances’
appeal against the person
- tu quoque (you too)
= second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical
- ‘how dare you say that, when you do it yourself’
fallacies of relevance
- accident
= when a general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to cover
- general rule is cited in premises –> wrongly applied to specific case in conclusion
fallacies of relevance
- straw man fallacy
= distort opponent’s argument to be able to more easily attack it + to conclude that original argument has been demolished (2 arguers)
- exaggerate first person’s argument + make it look more extreme
fallacies of relevance
- missing the point (ignoratio elenchi)
= when the premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but at the end a different conclusion, vaguely related to the correct conclusion –> support a conclusion but not the one that is drawn
- ignorance of proof: ignorant of logical implications of the premises –> draws conclusion that misses the point entirely
- not introducing new things
fallacies of relevance
- red herring
= divert attention of reader by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one + then draw a conclusion about this different subject OR merely presume that some conclusion has been drawn
(a) change subject without reader noticing it
(b) change subject to eye-catching topic that guarantees distraction (sex)
- generate new premises changing subject
- may be more on purpose
fallacies of weak induction
= connection between premises + conclusion not strong enough; evidence is not good enough to cause a reasonable person to believe conclusion
fallacies of weak induction
- appeal to unqualified authority (argument ad verecundiam)
= cited authority/witness lacks credibility
fallacies of weak induction
- appeal to ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam)
= premise states that nothing has been proven one way –> conclusion is that it has to be the other way (definite)
- usually involves something incapable of being proven
- exceptions: research + courtroom (innocent until proven guilty)
fallacies of weak induction
- hasty generalisations (converse accident)
= sample probably is not representative of the group/population
fallacies of weak induction
- false cause
= link between premises and conclusion depend on some imagined causal connection that probably doesn’t exist
1) temporal succession: just because one event precedes another, first event causes second
2) not the cause of the cause
3) oversimplified cause: more causes than the one stated
4) gambler’s fallacy: conclusion depends on supposition that independent events in a game of chance are causally related
fallacies of weak induction
- slippery slope
= conclusion depends on alleged chain reaction –> not sufficient evidence that that will actually happen
- often attempts to trump up support or put down argument of opposition
fallacies of weak induction
- weak analogy
= analogy is not strong enough to support drawn conclusion
fallacies of presumption
= premises presume/suppose what they purport to prove
fallacies of presumption
- begging the question (petitio principii)
= create illusion that inadequate premise provide adequate support for conclusion by
- presumes that premises provide adequate support for the conclusion when in fact they do not
- request for the source: actual source of support for conclusion is not apparent –> beg the question where the support comes from
begging the question
1. miss premise
= leaving out possibly false key premise
begging the question
2. restate premise
= restating false premise in slightly different language
begging the question
3. circular reasoning
= first premise, possibly false –> conspiracy
fallacies of presumption
- complex question
= two/more questions are asked in a single question + single answer is given to them both
- presumes that a question can be answered by a simple yes/no when a more sophisticated answer is needed
≠ leading question = answer is in some way suggested in the question
fallacies of presumption
- false dichotomy
= disjunctive “either…or…” premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available –> eliminate undesirable alternative
- presumes that ‘either…or’ statement presents jointly exhaustive alternatives when in fact it does not
fallacies of presumption
- suppressed evidence
= ignores important piece of evidence
- presumes that no important evidence has been overlooked
fallacies of ambiguity
= occurrence of some form of ambiguity in either the premises or the conclusion
fallacies of ambiguity
- equivocation
= conclusion of argument depends on fact that word/phrase is used in two different senses in the argument
- AMBIGUOUS WORD
fallacies of ambiguity
- amphiboly
= misinterpret AMBIGUOUS STATEMENT, then draws conclusion based on faulty interpretation
fallacies of grammatical analogy
= grammatically analogous to other arguments that are good in every respect
fallacies of grammatical analogy
- composition
= erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts of something to the whole
- from parts to the whole
fallacies of grammatical analogy
- division
= the opposite of composition
- from whole to parts
ARG conditions
= basic elements of a cogent argument
- cogent argument = if the premises of an argument are rationally acceptable and are ordered so as to provide rational support for the conclusion
ARG
- A
= Acceptable premises
- reasonable + acceptable to whom the argument is addressed to believe these premises + to yourself
- good reason to accept the premises + no good evidence indicating that the premises are false
ARG
- R
= Relevant premises for the conclusion
- premises state evidence, offer reasons that support the conclusion, or can be arranged into a demonstration from which the conclusion can be derived
ARG
- G
= premises provide Good Grounds for the conclusion
- premises give sufficient reason to make it rational to accept the conclusion
CRAAP test
= evaluate sources
- answer the questions
- rank each of the 5 parts from 1 to 10 (1 = unreliable, 10 = excellent)
- add up the scores to give you an idea of the quality of the resource
CRAAP
- C
= Currency
- when was the information published/posted?
- has the information been revised or updated?
- is the information (also links) current or out of date for your topic?
CRAAP
- R
= Relevance
- does the information relate to your topic or answer your question?
CRAAP
- A
= Authority
- who is the authority/publisher…?
- are the author’s organisations given?
- contact information, qualifications…
CRAAP
- A
= Accuracy
- is the information supported by evidence?
- has the information been reviewed?
- can you verify any of the information in another source?
CRAAP
- P
= Purpose
- what is the purpose of the information?
- is the info a fact, an opinion or propaganda?
