Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking.



Similar documents
CONSTRUCTING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT

What is a fallacy? Fallacies of Relevance Defective Induction Fallacies of Presumption Ambiguity Summary. Logic 2: Fallacies Jan.

What Is Circular Reasoning?

8 THE TWISTED THINKING OF LOGICAL FALLACIES (CHAPTER 5)

Reviewfrom Last Class

Arguments and Methodology INTRODUCTION

Organizing an essay the basics 2. Cause and effect essay (shorter version) 3. Compare/contrast essay (shorter version) 4

Informal Fallacies informal fallacies fallacy fallacy of relevance fallacy of presumption Common fallacies of relevance ad hominem

Chapter 5: Fallacies. 23 February 2015

A. Arguments are made up of statements, which can be either true or false. Which of the following are statements?

KOREAN WAR PROPAGANDA

A Few Basics of Probability

PHILOSOPHY Higher First edition published September 2006

Course Description. Required Textbook

DISCRETE MATH: LECTURE 3

Lecture 2: Moral Reasoning & Evaluating Ethical Theories

Basic Proof Techniques

DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE REASONING

Philosophical argument

Handout #1: Mathematical Reasoning

Science and Scientific Reasoning. Critical Thinking

specification AS/A Level GCE GCE Critical Thinking version 3 September 2013

Acceptance Page 2. Revision History 3. Introduction 14. Control Categories 15. Scope 15. General Requirements 15

Mathematical Induction

3. Mathematical Induction

Same-Sex Marriage: Breeding Ground for Logical Fallacies

Read this syllabus very carefully. If there are any reasons why you cannot comply with what I am requiring, then talk with me about this at once.

Fuld Skolerapport for Søhusskolen, i Odense kommune, for skoleår 2013/2014 for klassetrin(ene) 9. med reference Tilsvarende klassetrin i kommunen

Fuld Skolerapport for Hunderupskolen, i Odense kommune, for skoleår 2013/2014 for klassetrin(ene) 7. med reference Tilsvarende klassetrin i kommunen

def: An axiom is a statement that is assumed to be true, or in the case of a mathematical system, is used to specify the system.

CRITICAL THINKING REASONS FOR BELIEF AND DOUBT (VAUGHN CH. 4)

How To Write A Winning Brief: The Elements Of Written Advocacy

Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God S. Clarke

CHAPTER 3. Methods of Proofs. 1. Logical Arguments and Formal Proofs

1.2 Forms and Validity

Claims of Fact, Value, and Policy. A multidisciplinary approach to informal argumentation

Teaching Critical Thinking Skills to English for Academic Purposes Students

Writing an Argument. The Writer:

HOW TO WRITE A CRITICAL ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY. John Hubert School of Health Sciences Dalhousie University

Critical Thinking and Reasoning

Patriotic Appeals This tool involves using patriotic language or symbols to appeal to people s national pride.

GLOBAL GOAL 1: THE STUDENT WILL ACQUIRE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. Instructional Learning objectives: The student will be able to...

INDUCTIVE & DEDUCTIVE RESEARCH APPROACH

Quine on truth by convention

MSPB HEARING GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction Pre-Hearing Preparation Preparation of Witness Preparation of Documents...

Support Materials for Core Content for Assessment. Reading

CRITICAL THINKING. Induction v Deduction. Enumerative Induction and Inductive Generalization Sample Size Representativeness Mean, Median, Mode,

Statistical tests for SPSS

Mathematical goals. Starting points. Materials required. Time needed

Arguments and Dialogues

Philosophy 104. Chapter 8.1 Notes

Slippery Slopes and Vagueness

SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION General Division Employment Insurance

Deductive reasoning is the application of a general statement to a specific instance.

1. T F What many teachers refer to as source credibility was called ethos by Aristotle.

In an article titled Ethical Absolutism and the

THEOLOGICAL BOOK CRITIQUE FOUR VIEWS ON HELL

Accentuate the Negative: Homework Examples from ACE

Writing learning objectives

INCIDENCE-BETWEENNESS GEOMETRY

Logical Fallacies in Attacks Against the Bible: Eleven Examples

Inductive Reasoning. Definition. Basing a conclusion on specific examples. Examples: All crows are black. The sun will rise tomorrow.

PHILOSOPHY 101: CRITICAL THINKING

Inductive Reasoning Page 1 of 7. Inductive Reasoning

Structuring and Analyzing Arguments: The Classical, Rogerian, and Toulmin Models. Junior AP English

Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking

Math 3000 Section 003 Intro to Abstract Math Homework 2

WRITING PROOFS. Christopher Heil Georgia Institute of Technology

Writing an essay. This seems obvious - but it is surprising how many people don't really do this.

Philosophy 3: Critical Thinking University of California, Santa Barbara Fall 2011

Decision - administrative revocation

Microsoft Azure Multi-Factor authentication. (Concept Overview Part 1)

STEPS IN A TRIAL. Note to Students: For a civil case, substitute the word plaintiff for the word prosecution.

Cultural Relativism. 1. What is Cultural Relativism? 2. Is Cultural Relativism true? 3. What can we learn from Cultural Relativism?

Logic, Logic, Logic: Thinking about Thinking.

Lecture 2. What is the Normative Role of Logic?

Sentences, Statements and Arguments

3. Logical Reasoning in Mathematics

Reasoning and Decision Making

Discovery Devices. Rule 26 requires the automatic disclosure of a host of basic information regarding the case

The College Standard

Automata and Formal Languages

Writing = A Dialogue. Part I. They Say

Last time we had arrived at the following provisional interpretation of Aquinas second way:

Computer Programming Lecturer: Dr. Laith Abdullah Mohammed

Plato gives another argument for this claiming, relating to the nature of knowledge, which we will return to in the next section.

One natural response would be to cite evidence of past mornings, and give something like the following argument:

THE COST OF CAPITAL THE EFFECT OF CHANGES IN GEARING

Income-tax PAN S. 206AA TDS from Payments to Non-Residents

Answer Key for California State Standards: Algebra I

JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION: FALLACIES AND STANDARDS OF PROOF

Transcription:

Fallacies are deceptive errors of thinking. A good argument should: 1. be deductively valid (or inductively strong) and have all true premises; 2. have its validity and truth-of-premises be as evident as possible to the parties involved; 3. be clearly stated (using understandable language and making clear what the premises and conclusion are); 4. avoid circularity, ambiguity, and emotional language; and 5. be relevant to the issue at hand.

List of fallacies Circular (question begging): Assuming the truth of what has to be proved or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Ambiguous: Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appeal to emotion: Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. Beside the point: Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent s views.

Appeal to the crowd: Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Opposition: Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Genetic fallacy: Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Appeal to ignorance: Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Part-whole: Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole or vice versa.

Appeal to authority: Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion. Ad hominem (personal attack): Improperly attacking the person instead of the view. Pro-con: A one-sided appeal to advantages and disadvantages.

Black and white thinking: Oversimplifying by assuming that one of two extremes must be true. False stereotype: Assuming that members of a certain group are more alike than they are. Appeal to force: Using threats or intimidation to get a conclusion accepted. Complex question: Asking a question that assumes the truth of something false or doubtful.

18 fallacies AA AC AE AF AH AI AM BP BW appeal to authority appeal to the crowd appeal to emotion appeal to force ad hominem appeal to ignorance ambiguous beside the point black and white CI CQ FS GE OP PC PH PW SM circular complex question false stereotype genetic opposition pro-con post hoc part-whole straw man

Ad hominem: Improperly attacking the person instead of the view. Ambiguous: Changing the meaning of a term or phrase within the argument. Appeal to authority: Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion. Appeal to emotion: Stirring up emotions instead of arguing in a logical manner. Appeal to force: Using threats or intimidation to get a conclusion accepted. Appeal to ignorance: Arguing that a view must be false because no one has proved it. Appeal to the crowd: Arguing that a view must be true because most people believe it. Beside the point: Arguing for a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. Black and white: Oversimplifying by assuming that one of two extremes must be true.

Circular: Assuming the truth of what has to be proved or using A to prove B and then B to prove A. Complex question: Asking a question that assumes the truth of something false or doubtful. False stereotype: Assuming that members of a certain group are more alike than they are. Genetic fallacy: Arguing that your view must be false because we can explain why you hold it. Opposition: Arguing that a view must be false because our opponents believe it. Part-whole: Arguing that what applies to the parts must apply to the whole or vice versa. Post hoc: Arguing that, since A happened after B, thus A was caused by B. Pro-con: A one-sided appeal to advantages and disadvantages. Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent s views.