DOCSLIB.ORG

Unacceptable Premises Formal Fallacies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Today’s Agenda Fallacies Informal Fallacies Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Formal Fallacies Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Slippery Slope Irrelevant False Dilemma Premises Begging the Question Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/Two Wrongs Genetic Fallacy Appeal to Ignorance Straw House Vocabulary Appeal to Emotion Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Slippery Slope Irrelevant False Dilemma Fallacious justPremises means based on a mistakenBegging the Question belief. Fallacies are defective arguments — argumentsAd Hominem/Against based on mistaken the Person beliefs — that occur withTu Quoque/Two such frequency Wrongs that they have names. ThereGenetic are two Fallacy types of fallacies — formal andAppeal informal to Ignorance. Straw House Fallacies Appeal to Emotion Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Slippery Slope Irrelevant We won’t spend too much time on FormalFalse Dilemma Begging the Question fallacies, but Premisesremember Modus Ponens (the valid formal argument), it has an opposite: Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/Two WrongsAffirming the Modus Ponens Genetic Fallacy Consequent If P ->Appeal Q to Ignorance If P -> Q P Straw House Q Formal thereforeAppeal Q to Emotion therefore P Fallacies Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Formal fallacies are defective becauseSlippery of their Slope Irrelevant formal structure. The defect in affirmingFalse the Dilemma Begging the Question consequent extendsPremises from what an if then statement does and doesn’t tell us. Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/Two WrongsAffirming the Modus Ponens Genetic Fallacy Consequent If P ->Appeal Q to Ignorance If P -> Q P Straw House Q Formal thereforeAppeal Q to Emotion therefore P Fallacies Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Slippery Slope Irrelevant Our focus will be on informal fallacies.False Just likeDilemma Begging the Question the differencePremises between deductive and inductive arguments, the difference between formal and Ad Hominem/Against the Person informal fallacies is about the content not the Tu Quoque/Two Wrongs structure ofGenetic the argument. Fallacy There are a lot of informalAppeal fallacies. to IgnoranceWe’re going to talk about just a few. Straw House Informal Appeal to Emotion Fallacies Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Fallacies Formal Fallacies Unacceptable Informal Fallacies Premises Irrelevant Premises Unacceptable Premises Hasty Generalization False Analogy Slippery Slope Irrelevant False Dilemma Premises Begging the Question Specifically we are going to focus on a couple ofAd important Hominem/Against categories theof informal Person fallacy: IrrelevantTu Quoque/Two premise fallacies Wrongs and Unacceptable premise fallaciesGenetic. Fallacy Appeal to Ignorance Straw House Informal Appeal to Emotion Fallacies Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Recall that Irrelevant premise fallacies introduce information that should not be considered in evaluating the conclusion at hand. It turns out that we can often be fooled into being persuaded by this irrelevant Irrelevant information. Premises Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Ad Hominem or Against the Person attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. No matter what your political beliefs bad Irrelevant tanner is not a good Premises argument against a presidential candidate. Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Two Wrongs or Tu Quoque attacks/defends some claim on the grounds that some antagonist has used the same strategy. My mom keeps hassling me about Irrelevant smoking, but she smoked for 20 Premises years. Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Genetic Fallacy is like the ad hominem except the attack is against the group some person is from or a group that supports a claim. How could this Irrelevant man be a murderer?! He’s an orphan!!! Premises Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Straw House is an argument that attacks a weaker claim than the one given. After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded Irrelevant by saying that he was surprised that Will hates Premises our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending. Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises AppealIrrelevant to Ignorance Premises StrawUnacceptable House Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Emotion False Analogy Appeal to Popularity Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Appeal to Emotion tries to sway you via your emotions rather than your reason. Irrelevant Premises Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Irrelevant Premises Fallacies Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/TwoFormal Wrongs Fallacies Unacceptable GeneticInformal Fallacy Fallacies Premises StrawIrrelevant House Premises AppealUnacceptable to Emotion Premises Hasty Generalization Appeal to Popularity False Analogy Slippery Slope False Dilemma Begging the Question Appeal to Popularity tries to sway you via your desire to conform. Irrelevant Premises Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Unacceptable Premises Fallacies Hasty Generalization Formal FallaciesFalse Analogy Informal SlipperyFallacies Slope IrrelevantFalse Premises Dilemma UnacceptableBegging Premises the Question Irrelevant UnacceptablePremises premise fallacies rely on premises that are technically relevant to their conclusionsAd Hominem/Against but that are theunsuccessful Person support for theirTu conclusions. Quoque/Two The Wrongs are unsuccessful in ways that areGenetic obvious. Fallacy They should not be allowed Appealbecause to of Ignorance their obvious shortcomings. Straw House Unacceptable Appeal to Emotion Premises Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Unacceptable Premises Fallacies Hasty Generalization Formal FallaciesFalse Analogy Informal SlipperyFallacies Slope IrrelevantFalse Premises Dilemma UnacceptableBegging Premises the Question Hasty GeneralizationIrrelevant is a failed enumerative induction. YouPremises aren't allowed to generalize based on the amount of information you have. Ad Hominem/Against the Person Tu Quoque/Two Wrongs Genetic Fallacy Appeal to Ignorance Straw House Unacceptable Appeal to Emotion Premises Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Unacceptable Premises Fallacies Hasty Generalization Formal FallaciesFalse Analogy Informal SlipperyFallacies Slope IrrelevantFalse Premises Dilemma UnacceptableBegging Premises the Question Irrelevant False Analogy is a failed argumentPremises by analogy. Those rely on a high level of relevant Ad Hominem/Against the Person similarity. If you don’t Tu Quoque/Two Wrongs have that, yourGenetic Fallacy analogy Appealwill fail. to Ignorance Straw House Unacceptable Appeal to Emotion Premises Appeal to Popularity Argument Toolkit, Part 2 Unacceptable Premises Fallacies Hasty Generalization Formal FallaciesFalse Analogy Informal SlipperyFallacies Slope IrrelevantFalse Premises Dilemma UnacceptableBegging Premises the Question Irrelevant Slippery SlopePremises arguments assert inevitable conclusions when there
Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1

    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
  • Fallacies Are Deceptive Errors of Thinking

    Fallacies Are Deceptive Errors of Thinking

    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. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 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. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 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. LogiCola R Pages 51–60 Appeal to authority: Appealing in an improper way to expert opinion.
  • Real Life Examples of Genetic Fallacy

    Real Life Examples of Genetic Fallacy

    Real Life Examples Of Genetic Fallacy Herrick demythologise his actin reblossom piano, but ornithological Morly never recurving so downstream. Delbert is needs telegenic after doubling Ferdy reests his powwows nationwide. Which Ignatius bushel so gracefully that Thurston affiances her batswings? Hence, it no not philosophy or department that interested him, but political debate. This pouch of reasoning is generally fallacious. In while, she veered in from opposite direction. If we know that something good Reverend is an evangelical Christian, who dogmatically clings to something literal expression of Scripture, of plumbing this any color our judgment about her arguments against evolutionary theory. So, capital punishment is wrong. He received his doctorate in developmental psychology from Harvard University and toward his postdoctoral work at distant City University of New York. Such an interesting book! The rifle of Thompson may express relevant to sir request for leniency, but said is irrelevant to any book about the defendant not available near a murder scene. Slothful induction is then exact inverse of the hasty generalization fallacy above. Some feature are Americans. Safest Antidepressant in each Health? The point is however make progress, but in cases of begging the rope there though no progress. This fallacy is, fool, one among the most incorrectly understood. And physics can only inductively justify the intellectual tools one needs to do physics. These two ways one who worshipped numbers increase in question is that may fall for yourself think of real life examples of genetic fallacy is so far more different than as! These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies respectively.
  • Britain in Psychological Distress: the EU Referendum and the Psychological Operations of the Two Opposing Sides

    Britain in Psychological Distress: the EU Referendum and the Psychological Operations of the Two Opposing Sides

    SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, HUMANITIES AND ARTS DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN STUDIES MASTER’S DEGREE OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Britain in psychological distress: The EU referendum and the psychological operations of the two opposing sides By: Eleni Mokka Professor: Spyridon Litsas MIPA Thessaloniki, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 5 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………. 6 CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS ………….. 7 A. Definition and Analysis …………………………………………………………… 7 B. Propaganda: Techniques involving Language Manipulation …………………….. 11 1. Basic Propaganda Devices ……………………………………………………... 11 2. Logical Fallacies ……………………………………………………………….. 20 C. Propaganda: Non-Verbal Techniques …………………………………………… 25 1. Opinion Polls …………………………………………………………………… 25 2. Statistics ………………………………………………………………………… 32 CHAPTER TWO: BRITAIN‟S EU REFERENDUM ………………………………. 34 A. Euroscepticism in Britain since 70‟s ……………………………………………... 34 B. Brexit vs. Bremain: Methods, Techniques and Rhetoric …………………………. 43 1. Membership, Designation and Campaigns‟ Strategy …………………………… 44 1.a. „Leave‟ Campaign …………………………………………………………… 44 1.b. „Remain‟ Campaign …………………………………………………………. 50 1.c. Labour In for Britain ………………………………………………………… 52 1.d. Conservatives for Britain ……………………………………………………. 52 2. The Deal ………………………………………………………………………… 55 3. Project Fear …………………………………………………………………..…. 57 4. Trade and Security; Barack Obama‟s visit ……………………………………... 59 3 5. Budget and Economic Arguments ……………………………………………… 62 6. Ad Hominem
  • Logical Reasoning

    Logical Reasoning

    updated: 11/29/11 Logical Reasoning Bradley H. Dowden Philosophy Department California State University Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 USA ii Preface Copyright © 2011 by Bradley H. Dowden This book Logical Reasoning by Bradley H. Dowden is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. That is, you are free to share, copy, distribute, store, and transmit all or any part of the work under the following conditions: (1) Attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author, namely by citing his name, the book title, and the relevant page numbers (but not in any way that suggests that the book Logical Reasoning or its author endorse you or your use of the work). (2) Noncommercial You may not use this work for commercial purposes (for example, by inserting passages into a book that is sold to students). (3) No Derivative Works You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. An earlier version of the book was published by Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California USA in 1993 with ISBN number 0-534-17688-7. When Wadsworth decided no longer to print the book, they returned their publishing rights to the original author, Bradley Dowden. If you would like to suggest changes to the text, the author would appreciate your writing to him at [email protected]. iii Praise Comments on the 1993 edition, published by Wadsworth Publishing Company: "There is a great deal of coherence. The chapters build on one another. The organization is sound and the author does a superior job of presenting the structure of arguments.
  • ATP 2-33.4 Intelligence Analysis

    ATP 2-33.4 Intelligence Analysis

    ATP 2-33.4 Intelligence Analysis JANUARY 2020 DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This publication supersedes ATP 2-33.4, dated 18 August 2014. Headquarters, Department of the Army This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online (https://armypubs.army.mil), and the Central Army Registry site (https://atiam.train.army.mil/catalog/dashboard). *ATP 2-33.4 Army Techniques Publication Headquarters No. 2-33.4 Department of the Army Washington, DC, 10 January 2020 Intelligence Analysis Contents Page PREFACE............................................................................................................. vii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... xi PART ONE FUNDAMENTALS Chapter 1 UNDERSTANDING INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS ............................................. 1-1 Intelligence Analysis Overview ........................................................................... 1-1 Conducting Intelligence Analysis ........................................................................ 1-5 Intelligence Analysis and Collection Management ............................................. 1-8 The All-Source Intelligence Architecture and Analysis Across the Echelons ..... 1-9 Intelligence Analysis During Large-Scale Ground Combat Operations ........... 1-11 Intelligence Analysis During the Army’s Other Strategic Roles ........................ 1-13 Chapter 2 THE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS PROCESS ..................................................
  • The Field of Logical Reasoning

    The Field of Logical Reasoning

    The Field of Logical Reasoning: (& The back 40 of Bad Arguments) Adapted from: An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments: Learn the lost art of making sense by Ali Almossawi *Not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only source on this topic… Disclaimer This is not the only (or even best) approach to thinking, examining, analyzing creating policy, positions or arguments. “Logic no more explains how we think than grammar explains how we speak.” M. Minsky Other Ways… • Logical Reasoning comes from Age-Old disciplines/practices of REASON. • But REASON is only ONE human characteristic • Other methods/processes are drawn from the strengths of other characteristics Other Human Characteristics: • John Ralston Saul (Unconscious Civilization, 1995) lists SIX Human Characteristics • They are (alphabetically, so as not to create a hierarchy): • Common Sense • Intuition • Creativity • Memory • Ethics • Reason Reason is not Superior • While this presentation focuses on the practices of REASON, it is necessary to actively engage our collective notions rooted in: • Common Sense (everyday understandings) • Creativity (new, novel approaches) • Ethics (relative moral high-ground) • Intuition (gut instinct) • Memory (history, stories) …in order to have a holistic/inclusive approach to reasonable doubt and public participation. However: • Given the west’s weakness for Reason and the relative dominance of Reason in public policy, we need to equip ourselves and understand its use and misuse. • Enter: The Field of Logical Reasoning vs. Logical Fallacy Appeal to Hypocrisy Defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error. What’s a Logical Fallacy? • ALL logical fallacies are a form of Non- Sequitur • Non sequitur, in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures

    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
  • Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation

    Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation

    South Carolina Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 4 Winter 1993 Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation Kevin W. Saunders University of Oklahoma Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin W. Saunders, Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, 44 S. C. L. Rev. 343 (1993). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Saunders: Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation INFORMAL FALLACIES IN LEGAL ARGUMENTATION KEVIN W. SAUNDERS" I. INTRODUCTION ............................ 344 II. VARIETIES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES ............... 345 A. Argumentum ad Hominem .... ............ B. Argumentum ad Misericordiam . ............ C. Argumentum ad Populum ..... ............ D. Argumentum ad Vericundiam .. ............ E. Ignoratio Elenchi .......... ............ F. Petitio Principii ........... ............ G. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ... ............ H. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ... ............ L Argumentum ad Terrorem .... ............ J. Argumentum ad Antiquitam ... ............ K. Accident and Hasty Generalization ........... L. Composition ............. ............ M. Division ............... ° . o ..° ° . N. Complex Question ......... ............° ° 0. Tu Quoque .............. ............° ° P. Ambiguity .............. ............ 1. Equivocation .........
  • Fallacies of Relevance1

    Fallacies of Relevance1

    1 Phil 2302 Logic Dr. Naugle Fallacies of Relevance1 "Good reasons must, of force, give place to better." —Shakespeare "There is a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons, and reasons that sound good." —Burton Hillis "It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it." —Arthur Schopenhauer Introduction: There are many ways to bring irrelevant matters into an argument and the study below will examine many of them. These fallacies (pathological arguments!) demonstrate the lengths to which people will go to win an argument, even if they cannot prove their point! Fallacies of relevance share a common characteristic in that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, the premises seem to be relevant psychologically, so that the conclusion seems to follow from the premises. The actual connection between premises and conclusion is emotional, not logical. To identify a fallacy of relevance, you must be able to distinguish between genuine evidence and various unrelated forms of appeal. FALLACIES THAT ATTACK I. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum ="argument toward the club or stick") "Who overcomes by force has overcome but half his foe." Milton. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is like hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde 1 NB: This material is taken from several logic texts authored by N.
  • The Value of Genetic Fallacies

    The Value of Genetic Fallacies

    The Value of Genetic Fallacies ANDREW C. WARD Division of Health Policy and Management University of Minnesota MMC 729 Mayo 8729 420 Delaware Minneapolis, MN 55455 U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract: Since at least the 1938 pub- Resume: Depuis au moins la publica- lication of Hans Reichenbach’s Expe- tion de Experience and Predication de rience and Predication, there has been Hans Reichenbach en 1938 il s’est widespread agreement that, when dis- grandement répandu un accord qu’il cussing the beliefs that people have, it est important de distinguer les contex- is important to distinguish contexts of tes de découvertes des contextes de discovery and contexts of justification. justification lorsqu’on discute des Traditionally, when one conflates the croyances des gens. Traditionnelle- two contexts, the result is a “genetic ment, lorsqu’on confond ces deux fallacy”. This paper examines genea- contextes, le sophisme «génétique» logical critiques and addresses the en résulte. Dans cet article on examine question of whether such critiques are les critiques basées sur la généologie fallacious and, if so, whether this viti- d’une position, les fondements de ces ates their usefulness. The paper con- critiques, et leurs utilités même si elles cludes that while there may be one or sont fallacieuses. Bien qu’elles puis- more senses in which genealogical sent être fallacieuses, on conclut que critiques are fallacious, this does not ceci n’élimine pas la valeur des cri- vitiate their value. tiques généalogiques. Keywords: argument, context of discovery, context of justification, deduction, genetic fallacy, induction, informal logic. 1. Introduction Since at least the 1938 publication of Hans Reichenbach’s Experi- ence and Predication, and implicit in Frege’s earlier rejection of psychologism, there has been a widespread view that, when dis- cussing the beliefs that people have, it is important to distinguish contexts of discovery and contexts of justification.1 It is true that 1 As Hoyningen-Huene, 1987: pp.
  • An Order-Based Theory of Morality

    An Order-Based Theory of Morality

    An Order-Based Theory of Morality by Peter Hotchin, BA (Hons) Deakin; MA Deakin; GradDipBusAdmin Swinburne Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Deakin University 16 May 2013 AN ORDER-BASED THEORY OF MORALITY CONTENTS PART I: PRELIMINARIES ......................................................................................................... 1 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 An Outline of the Argument ............................................................................................... 9 2: ENDS AND MEANS, GOOD AND RIGHT ......................................................................... 13 2.1 A Note on Moral Theory .................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Ends and Means............................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Morally Classifiable Behaviour ....................................................................................... 17 2.4 Moral Commendability and Condemnability ................................................................... 23 2.5 Further Objectives ........................................................................................................... 28 3: ORDER: AN INTRODUCTION