Archive for March, 2007

CCT, March 19, 2007

Thursday, March 22nd, 2007
  • Deductive argues from the whole top the parts. (the funnel is upside down)
  • Beware of these unspoken premises that are too common to us all.
    • It is true if I believe it (simple-minded)
    • It is true if we believe it (group thinking)
  • Majore categories of fallacies
    • Formal - mistakes in reasoning resulting from failure to follow the rules for the formal structure of valid arguments. Such arguments “break form” by breaking the rules of logic.
    • Informal - mistakes in reasoning due to carelessness regarding the relevance of ideas unclear use of language, and use of expression of material
  • Argumentum Ad Hominem
    • Appeal to the man (making the argument)
    • Also known as “the genetic fallacy.”
    • Attempts to rebut a claim by criticizing it’s source, irrelevant attack on the person, not his or her claim
    • Eg. You can’t take him serious, because he’s a liberal.
  • Straw Man
    • Attempt to refute by exaggerating or distorting or misrepresenting via setting up a parallel case that is easier to burn down.
    • E.g. Attempting to refute Darwinism, Bishop Wilberforce asked, “Is it credible that all favorable varieties of turnips are tending to become man?”
  • Argumentum Ad Populum
    • Appeal to the crowd/popular view
    • Also known as group think or crowd think.
    • Seeks to strengthen a claim by appealing to the passions, prejudices of the listeners
    • Eg. “Look around - everyone in a gym can see that the refs are biased against us!”
  • Argumentum Ad Baculum
    • Appeal to force
    • Employs threat/intimidation and tools to force persuasion
    • E.g. “If you don’t shut up, I’m going to get my big brother to come over and beat you up.”
  • Petito Principii
    • Begging the question
    • Occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, so the question goes “begging” - unanswered.
    • E.g. “what is the reason for the rising divorce rate?” / “the rate is rising because more marriages are breaking up”
  • Argumentum Ad Ignorance
    • Appeal to ignorance
    • Affirms the truth of something by claiming a lack of evidence to the contrary
    • E.g. “you can’t argue for life after death because there is no evidence of anyone returning from the dead to tell us about it”
  • Post Hoc Ergo Properter Hoc
    • Argument from false cause
    • A claim w/out sufficient evidence. Because A is before B, therefore A caused B.
  • Slippery Slope
    • Claim made without sufficient evidence that one event will necessarily domino into some other more disastrous event
    • E.g. If university campuses provide free condoms, promiscuity will become the norm, male-female relationships will become corrupt and the institution of marriage will die.
  • Red Herring Smokescreen
    • Also called “attention span fallacy”
    • Failing to answer a question by sending the question off target’ drawing a smoked herring across the path to confuse hunting dogs
    • E.g. “did you bet on reds games when you were a player?” / “everyone makes mistakes, even me.”
  • Hasty Generalization
    • Also known as “over generalization” (cp to “sensible generalization”)
    • Tends to draw conclusions that are applied to most/all and based on minimal anecdotal or slim empirical evidence
    • Don’t say, “all/most”
  • Argument from Outrage
    • Also the “rush limbaugh fallacy”
    • Cases attempted based on disgust, sharp insults and high decibel level. Distorts a person/position with a flurry of sarcasm
  • False analogy
    • attempts to explain relatively unfamiliar or opaque ideas by referring to something different but more familiar. “This is that.”
    • E.g. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs
  • Changing the Story
    • Also known as “fuzzing up” or spin, spin, spin!
    • generally diverting the issue to an effort to cloud it up, cover over, blur or spin the issue in an effort to redirect the argument
    • E.g. “what has become your original justification for the war.” / “saddam hussein was a bad man, and the world is a better place without him”
  • False Dichotomy
    • Generally the mistaken assumption that there are only two possible solutions to a problem
    • this fallacy is designed to paint an opponent into a corenr and even force a specific decision
    • E.g. “It was lies or lives.”