DOCSLIB.ORG

Fundamental Methods of Logic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fundamental Methods of Logic Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel d University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Philosophy Faculty Books Philosophy 2017 Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Knachel, Matthew, "Fundamental Methods of Logic" (2017). Philosophy Faculty Books. 1. http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Books by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FUNDAMENTAL METHODS OF LOGIC Fundamental Methods of Logic Matthew Knachel UWM Libraries University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee This book is published by the UW-Milwaukee Library Digital Commons and is available free of charge at this site: http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For details, visit this site: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode Cover Art by Dan Williams Recommended citation: Knachel, Matthew, "Fundamental Methods of Logic" (2017). Philosophy Faculty Books. 1. http://dc.uwm.edu/phil_facbooks/1 ISBN: 978-0-9961502-2-4 For my girls, Rose and Alice Preface There’s an ancient view, still widely held, that what makes human beings special—what distinguishes us from the “beasts of the field”—is that we are rational. What does rationality consist in? That’s a vexed question, but one possible response goes roughly like this: we manifest our rationality by engaging in activities that involve reasoning—making claims and backing them up with reasons, acting in accord with reasons and beliefs, drawing inferences from available evidence, and so on. This reasoning activity can be done well and it can be done badly—it can be done correctly or incorrectly. Logic is the discipline that aims to distinguish good reasoning from bad. Since reasoning is central to all fields of study—indeed, since it’s arguably central to being human—the tools developed in logic are universally applicable. Anyone can benefit from studying logic by becoming a more self-aware, skillful reasoner. This covers a variety of topics at an introductory level. Chapter One introduces basic notions, such as arguments and explanations, validity and soundness, deductive and inductive reasoning; it also covers basic analytical techniques, such as distinguishing premises from conclusions and diagramming arguments. Chapter Two discusses informal logical fallacies. Chapters Three and Four concern deductive logic, introducing the basics of Aristotelian and Sentential Logic, respectively. Chapters Five and Six concern inductive logic. Chapter Five deals with analogical and causal reasoning, including a discussion of Mill’s Methods. Chapter Six covers basic probability calculations, Bayesian inference, fundamental statistical concepts and techniques, and common statistical fallacies. The text is suitable for a one-semester introductory logic or “critical thinking” course. The emphasis is on formal techniques and problem solving rather than analytical writing, though exercises of the latter sort could easily be incorporated. A note on tone, style, and content. This book is written by an American teacher whose intended audience is American undergraduates; it is based on my lectures, developed over many years. Like the lectures, it assumes that some members of the intended audience lack an antecedent interest in the subject and may have trouble developing and maintaining enthusiasm to study it. It tries to compensate for this by adopting a casual style, using first- and second-person constructions, and by shamelessly trafficking in cultural references, lame jokes, and examples involving American current events. The result is a logic textbook with a somewhat unusual tone and a sometimes- narrow cultural perspective. Neither familiarity with the relevant cultural references, nor amusement at the lame jokes, is a prerequisite for understanding the material, but I thought it prudent to offer an apologia at the outset. Caveat lector. An acknowledgment of debts. The following books have influenced my teaching, and hence the present work: Virginia Klenk’s Understanding Symbolic Logic, John Norton’s How Science Works, Ian Hacking’s Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic, Darrell Huff’s How to Lie with Statistics, and Irving Copi and Carl Cohen’s Introduction to Logic. The influence of those last two books is particularly profound, as I note throughout this text. I am indebted to all my logic viii teachers over the years: Kurt Mosser, Michael Liston, Mark Kaplan, Richard Tierney, Steve Leeds, Joan Weiner, Ken Manders, Mark Wilson, and Nuel Belnap. Thanks to J.S. Holbrook for sending me examples of fallacies. For extensive logistical support, I’m indebted to Kristin Miller Woodward; I also thank her for arranging financial support through the UW-Milwaukee Library and Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, who have undertaken a project to encourage the development and adoption of open textbooks. My logic students over the years also deserve acknowledgment, especially those who have recently served as guinea pigs, learning from earlier drafts of this book. Without student feedback, there would be no book. Finally, and most importantly, I could not have completed this project without my wife Maggie’s constant support and forbearance. Contents Chapter 1 - The Basics of Logical Analysis 1 I. What is Logic? 1 II. Basic Notions: Propositions and Arguments 2 III. Recognizing and Explicating Arguments 3 Paraphrasing 4 Enthymemes: Tacit Propositions 6 Arguments vs. Explanations 7 IV. Deductive and Inductive Arguments 10 Deductive Arguments 11 Inductive Arguments 15 V. Diagramming Arguments 18 Independent Premises 18 Intermediate Premises 19 Joint Premises 20 Chapter 2 - Informal Logical Fallacies 29 I. Logical Fallacies: Formal and Informal 29 II. Fallacies of Distraction 31 Appeal to Emotion (Argumentum ad Populum) 31 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) 32 Straw Man 33 Red Herring 34 Argumentum ad Hominem 36 III. Fallacies of Weak Induction 30 Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) 40 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority 42 Post hoc ergo propter hoc 43 Slippery Slope 44 Hasty Generalization 45 IV. Fallacies of Illicit Presumption 46 Accident 46 Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) 48 Loaded Questions 49 False Choice 51 Composition 52 Division 53 V. Fallacies of Linguistic Emphasis 53 Accent 54 Quoting out of Context 55 Equivocation 57 Manipulative Framing 59 x Chapter 3 – Deductive Logic I: Aristotelian Logic 68 I. Deductive Logics 68 II. Classes and Categorical Propositions 69 The Four Types of Categorical Proposition 71 Universal Affirmative (A) 71 Universal Negative (E) 74 Particular Affirmative (I) 74 Particular Negative (O) 76 A Note on Terminology 76 Standard Form for Sentences Expressing Categorical Propositions 77 III. The Square of Opposition 79 Contradictories 80 Contraries 81 Subcontraries 81 Subalterns 82 Inferences 83 IV. Operations on Categorical Sentences 84 Conversion 84 Obversion 86 Contraposition 87 Inferences 91 V. Problems with the Square of Opposition 96 Existential Import 97 Problems for the Square 97 Solution? 98 Boolean Solution 99 VI. Categorical Syllogisms 102 Logical Form 103 The Venn Diagram Test for Validity 104 Chapter 4 – Deductive Logic II: Sentential Logic 117 I. Why Another Deductive Logic? 117 II. Syntax of SL 120 Conjunctions 121 Disjunctions 121 Negations 121 Conditionals 122 Biconditionals 122 Punctuation – Parentheses 123 III. Semantics of SL 126 Negations (TILDE) 127 Conjunctions (DOT) 128 Disjunctions (WEDGE) 128 Biconditionals (TRIPLE-BAR) 129 Conditionals (HORSESHOE) 130 Computing Truth-Values of Compound SL Sentences 133 xi IV. Translating from English into SL 137 Tilde, Dot, Wedge 137 Horseshoe and Triple-Bar 140 V. Testing for Validity in SL 143 Logical Form in SL 143 The Truth Table Test for Validity 144 Chapter 5 – Inductive Logic I: Analogical and Causal Arguments 152 I. Inductive Logics 152 II. Arguments from Analogy 153 The Form of Analogical Arguments 153 The Evaluation of Analogical Arguments 156 Number of Analogues 157 Variety of Analogues 157 Number of Similarities 158 Number of Differences 158 Relevance of Similarities and Differences 159 Modesty/Ambition of the Conclusion 159 Refutation by Analogy 160 III. Causal Reasoning 163 The Meaning(s) of ‘Cause’ 164 Mill’s Methods 165 Method of Agreement 165 Method of Difference 166 Joint Method of Agreement and Difference 167 Method of Residues 167 Method of Concomitant Variation 168 The Difficulty of Isolating Causes 169 Chapter 6 – Inductive Logic II: Probability and Statistics 175 I. The Probability Calculus 175 Conjunctive Occurrences 176 Disjunctive Occurrences 180 II. Probability and Decision-Making: Value and Utility 187 III. Probability and Belief: Bayesian Reasoning 193 IV. Basic Statistical Concepts and Techniques 202 Averages: Mean vs. Median 202 Normal Distributions: Standard Deviation, Confidence Intervals 203 Statistical Inference: Hypothesis Testing 206 Statistical Inference: Sampling 212 V. How to Lie with Statistics 218 Impressive Numbers without Context 218 Misunderstanding Error 219 Tricky Percentages 222 The Base-Rate Fallacy 223 Lying with Pictures 226 CHAPTER 1 The Basics of Logical Analysis I. What Is Logic? In Logic,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER XXX. of Fallacies. Section 827. After Examining the Conditions on Which Correct Thoughts Depend, It Is Expedient to Clas
    CHAPTER XXX. Of Fallacies. Section 827. After examining the conditions on which correct thoughts depend, it is expedient to classify some of the most familiar forms of error. It is by the treatment of the Fallacies that logic chiefly vindicates its claim to be considered a practical rather than a speculative science. To explain and give a name to fallacies is like setting up so many sign-posts on the various turns which it is possible to take off the road of truth. Section 828. By a fallacy is meant a piece of reasoning which appears to establish a conclusion without really doing so. The term applies both to the legitimate deduction of a conclusion from false premisses and to the illegitimate deduction of a conclusion from any premisses. There are errors incidental to conception and judgement, which might well be brought under the name; but the fallacies with which we shall concern ourselves are confined to errors connected with inference. Section 829. When any inference leads to a false conclusion, the error may have arisen either in the thought itself or in the signs by which the thought is conveyed. The main sources of fallacy then are confined to two-- (1) thought, (2) language. Section 830. This is the basis of Aristotle's division of fallacies, which has not yet been superseded. Fallacies, according to him, are either in the language or outside of it. Outside of language there is no source of error but thought. For things themselves do not deceive us, but error arises owing to a misinterpretation of things by the mind.
    [Show full text]
  • From Logic to Rhetoric: a Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies
    Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 32, Fall 2015 From Logic to Rhetoric: A Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies Anne-Marie Womack Abstract: This article reenvisions fallacies for composition classrooms by situating them within rhetorical practices. Fallacies are not formal errors in logic but rather persuasive failures in rhetoric. I argue fallacies are directly linked to successful rhetorical strategies and pose the visual organizer of the Venn diagram to demonstrate that claims can achieve both success and failure based on audience and context. For example, strong analogy overlaps false analogy and useful appeal to pathos overlaps manipulative emotional appeal. To advance this argument, I examine recent changes in fallacies theory, critique a-rhetorical textbook approaches, contextualize fallacies within the history and theory of rhetoric, and describe a methodology for rhetorically reclaiming these terms. Today, fallacy instruction in the teaching of written argument largely follows two paths: teachers elevate fallacies as almost mathematical formulas for errors or exclude them because they don’t fit into rhetorical curriculum. Both responses place fallacies outside the realm of rhetorical inquiry. Fallacies, though, are not as clear-cut as the current practice of spotting them might suggest. Instead, they rely on the rhetorical situation. Just as it is an argument to create a fallacy, it is an argument to name a fallacy. This article describes an approach in which students must justify naming claims as successful strategies and/or fallacies, a process that demands writing about contexts and audiences rather than simply linking terms to obviously weak statements.
    [Show full text]
  • 334 CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES a Deductive Fallacy Is
    CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES A deductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact that conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. An inductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument is made more probable by its relationship with the premises of the argument, when in fact it is not. We will cover two kinds of fallacies: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. An argument commits a formal fallacy if it has an invalid argument form. An argument commits an informal fallacy when it has a valid argument form but derives from unacceptable premises. A. Fallacies with Invalid Argument Forms Consider the following arguments: (1) All Europeans are racist because most Europeans believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans and all people who believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans are racist. (2) Since no dogs are cats and no cats are rats, it follows that no dogs are rats. (3) If today is Thursday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. But, today is not Thursday. Therefore, I'm not a monkey's uncle. (4) Some rich people are not elitist because some elitists are not rich. 334 These arguments have the following argument forms: (1) Some X are Y All Y are Z All X are Z. (2) No X are Y No Y are Z No X are Z (3) If P then Q not-P not-Q (4) Some E are not R Some R are not E Each of these argument forms is deductively invalid, and any actual argument with such a form would be fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Aristotle's Fallacies
    mathematics Article Quantifying Aristotle’s Fallacies Evangelos Athanassopoulos 1,* and Michael Gr. Voskoglou 2 1 Independent Researcher, Giannakopoulou 39, 27300 Gastouni, Greece 2 Department of Applied Mathematics, Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, 22334 Patras, Greece; [email protected] or [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 July 2020; Accepted: 18 August 2020; Published: 21 August 2020 Abstract: Fallacies are logically false statements which are often considered to be true. In the “Sophistical Refutations”, the last of his six works on Logic, Aristotle identified the first thirteen of today’s many known fallacies and divided them into linguistic and non-linguistic ones. A serious problem with fallacies is that, due to their bivalent texture, they can under certain conditions disorient the nonexpert. It is, therefore, very useful to quantify each fallacy by determining the “gravity” of its consequences. This is the target of the present work, where for historical and practical reasons—the fallacies are too many to deal with all of them—our attention is restricted to Aristotle’s fallacies only. However, the tools (Probability, Statistics and Fuzzy Logic) and the methods that we use for quantifying Aristotle’s fallacies could be also used for quantifying any other fallacy, which gives the required generality to our study. Keywords: logical fallacies; Aristotle’s fallacies; probability; statistical literacy; critical thinking; fuzzy logic (FL) 1. Introduction Fallacies are logically false statements that are often considered to be true. The first fallacies appeared in the literature simultaneously with the generation of Aristotle’s bivalent Logic. In the “Sophistical Refutations” (Sophistici Elenchi), the last chapter of the collection of his six works on logic—which was named by his followers, the Peripatetics, as “Organon” (Instrument)—the great ancient Greek philosopher identified thirteen fallacies and divided them in two categories, the linguistic and non-linguistic fallacies [1].
    [Show full text]
  • 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
    Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • Argument Content and Argument Source: an Exploration
    Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration ULRIKE HAHN ADAM J.L. HARRIS ADAM CORNER School of Psychology Cardiff University Tower Building Park Place Cardiff CF10 3AT United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Argumentation is pervasive Résumé: L’argumentation est em- in everyday life. Understanding what ployée couramment dans la vie de tous makes a strong argument is therefore les jours. Il est donc dans notre intérêt of both theoretical and practical théorique et pratique de comprendre interest. One factor that seems ce qui rend un argument puissant. Un intuitively important to the strength of facteur qui semble intuitivement im- an argument is the reliability of the portant qui contribue à cette puissance source providing it. Whilst traditional est la fiabilité des sources d’infor- approaches to argument evaluation are mation employées dans un argument. silent on this issue, the Bayesian Quoique les approches traditionnelles approach to argumentation (Hahn & sur l’évaluation d’un argument soient Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture silencieuses sur ce sujet, l’approche important aspects of source reliability. bayesienne peut apporter quelques In particular, the Bayesian approach aspects importants sur l’évaluation de predicts that argument content and la fiabilité des sources: elle prédit que source reliability should interact to le contenu d’un argument et la fiabilité determine argument strength. In this d’une source devraient agir un sur paper, we outline the approach and l’autre pour déterminer la puissance then demonstrate the importance of d’un argument. Dans cet article nous source reliability in two empirical traçons les grandes lignes de cette studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument
    Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument • In an inductive argument, the conclusion follows from its premises with some likelihood. • Inductive arguments can be strong, weak, or somewhere between. • Ways to attack an inductive argument: • Introduce additional (contradictory) premises that weaken the argument. • Question the accuracy of the supporting premises. • Identify one (or more) logical fallacies in the argument. What is a Fallacy? • A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument. • Formal fallacy • A ‘formal fallacy’ is an error in the structure of an argument. • Formal fallacies are used to analyze deductive arguments for validity by means of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy • An ‘informal fallacy’ is an error in the content of an argument. • This is the type of fallacy that will be discussed in this presentation. • An argument with a fallacy is said to be ‘fallacious’. Formal and Informal Fallacies • Formal fallacy example: • All humans are mammals. All dogs are mammals. So, all humans are dogs. • This argument has a structural flaw. The premises are true, but they do not logically lead to the conclusion. This would be uncovered by the use of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy example: • All feathers are light. Light is not dark. So, all feathers are not dark. • The structure of this argument is actually correct. The error is in the content (different meanings of the word ‘light’.) It uses a fallacy called ‘Equivocation’. Lists of Fallacies • There are a great number of identified fallacies of the informal type. Following are some good websites that list them and provide definitions and examples.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims
    1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims In the previous tutorial we saw that the standard of acceptability of a statement (or premise) depends on the context. In certain contexts we may only require that a premise seem reasonable and in other contexts we may require a strict proof of the truth of a premise, yet other contexts will require something in between. We need to take this approach when we wish to determine if a premise meets the minimum level of acceptability given the context. Sometimes, however, premises commit fallacies which enables one to reject a premise outright. We will now examine some fallacies that, when committed, require us to reject a premise. 1.1 Some Particular Fallacies 1.1.1 Begging the Question A an argument begs the question when its premises presuppose, directly or indirectly, the truth of the conclusion. This must lead to the rejection of the premises involved in the fallacy since any reason for doubting the conclusion becomes a reason for doubting the premises. An example of an argument that begs the question is the following: The Bible frequently says that it is the word of God and the word of God must obviously be true. Therefore, whatever the Bible says is true. It is possible that the conclusion of this argument is true, but the premises do not support it since they presuppose it. The only way to accept the premises is if you already accept (or assume) the conclusion. One can see that arguments that beg the question argue in a circle.
    [Show full text]
  • On Arguments from Ignorance
    On Arguments from Ignorance MARTIN HINTON University of Łódź Department of English and General Linguistics Łódź, Poland [email protected] Abstract: The purpose of this paper is Résumé: Le but de cet article est dou- twofold: to give a good account of the ble: donner un bon compte rendu de argument from ignorance, with a pre- l'argument par l'ignorance, avec un sumptive argumentation scheme, and schème d'argumentation présomptif, et to raise issues on the work of Walton, soulever des questions sur certains the nature of abduction and the con- aspects de l’œuvre de Walton, la na- cept of epistemic closure. First, I offer ture des raisonnements abductifs et le a brief disambiguation of how the concept de fermeture épistémique. terms 'argument from ignorance' and Premièrement, j'offre une brève dé- 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' are sambiguïsation de la façon dont les used. Second, I show how attempts to termes «argument par l'ignorance» et embellish this form of reasoning by «argumentum ad ignorantiam» sont Douglas Walton and A.J. Kreider have utilisés. Deuxièmement, je montre been unnecessary and unhelpful. Last- comment les tentatives de Douglas ly, I offer a full and effective account Walton et de A.J. Kreider d'embellir of the argument from ignorance and cette forme de raisonnement ont été ni discuss the lessons of the analysis. nécessaires et ni utiles. Enfin, j'offre un compte-rendu complet et utile de l'argument par l'ignorance et je discute des leçons de l'analyse Keywords: argument from ignorance; argumentation scheme; Kreider; Walton 1. Introduction The argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam, itself needs little introduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and the Common Law Trial
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Law Faculty Scholarly Articles Law Faculty Publications Summer 1994 Logic and the Common Law Trial Richard H. Underwood University of Kentucky College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub Part of the Legal Profession Commons, and the Litigation Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Richard H. Underwood, Logic and the Common Law Trial, 18 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 151 (1994). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic and the Common Law Trial Notes/Citation Information American Journal of Trial Advocacy, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer 1994), pp. 151-199 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/261 Logic and the Common Law Trial Richard H. Underwoodt The only certain ground for discovering truth is the faculty of discriminat- ing false from true.... Otherwise, I can assure you, you will be led by the nose by anyone who chooses to do it, and you will run after anything they hold out to you, as cattle do after a green bough.' I. Introduction Throughout history, right up to the present day, there have been persistent, if somewhat contradictory, attempts by members of the legal guild to attribute to the practice of law some of the characteristics of religion and science.' Fortunately, references to the trial lawyer as "the priest in the [T]emple of [J]ustice" 3 have pretty much disappeared from the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 .........
    [Show full text]