DOCSLIB.ORG

Fall 2020 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fall 2020 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking Fall 2020 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking Instructor: Dr. Ryan MacPherson Schedule: Section A: (see Syllabus Supplement for M/W/F, 2:30–3:20 p.m. complete contact information) Honsey Hall 212 NEW ROOM NUMBER Websites: moodle.blc.edu / my.blc.edu / www.ryancmacpherson.com “... a very faulty syllogism in which there are four terms, no universal premise, no essential predication, no distributed middle, and many other faults, for logicians known full well that ‘an accidental term cannot be subsumed under a substantial term.’” Martin Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528), in Luther’s Works, 37:195. Catalog Description: This course focuses on the construction and evaluation of logical arguments, with applications to civic awareness and involvement. Attention is devoted to formal logical analysis, including syllogisms and basic symbolic logic, as well as effective written communication. Relation to Students’ Curricular Needs: ▪ fulfills General Education Core Requirement Objective #3a: Personal Responsibility and Goal 3C ▪ required for the Minor in Philosophy ▪ elective for the B.A. in Computer Science (either PHIL201 or else MATH152 Calculus II) ▪ elective for the B.A. in Legal Studies (either PHIL201 or else COMM230 Argument and Advocacy) ▪ elective for the B.A. in Liberal Arts (Philosophy Concentration) ▪ elective for the Minor in Legal Studies ▪ elective for the Minor in Psychology ▪ elective for the Paralegal Certificate Required Texts: ▪ Kreeft, Peter. Socratic Logic. 3.1 ed. South Bend, Ind.: St. Augustine’s Press, 2014. ISBN-10: 9781587318085. ISBN-13: 978-1587318085. $40.00. ▪ Minetor, Randi. Robert’s Rules of Order in Action: How to Participate in Meetings with Confidence. Berkeley: Zephyros Press, 2015. ISBN-10: 1623156211. ISBN-13: 978-1623156213. $12.99. ▪ Wilson, Douglas, and N.D. Wilson. The Amazing Dr. Ransom’s Bestiary of Adorable Fallacies: A Field Guide for Clear Thinkers. Moscow, Ida.: Canon Press, 2015. ISBN-10: 1-591281873. ISBN-13: 978-1591281870. $20.00. ▪ Instructional Packet for PHIL 201 (available on moodle.blc.edu) Objectives of the College (OCs) Pertinent to This Course: 1. Recognize that the historic Christian faith professes that God the Holy Trinity is the source of all knowledge and truth, and that His wisdom is most clearly revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. especially: … D. Reflect on how your course of study is shaping you for a life of Christian vocation in the family, church, and society. 2. Demonstrate intellectual, creative, and problem-solving skills. A. Identify and correctly frame problems using appropriate content, theories, and methods. B. Work both collaboratively and independently to produce innovative applications of knowledge, creative expressions, or new insights connected to bodies of knowledge from various fields. C. Gather relevant information on an issue to formulate a defensible conclusion, new idea, or rev. 08/20/20 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking Page 2 of 9 Bethany Lutheran College, Fall 2020 Ryan C. MacPherson, Ph.D. connections among ideas. D. Analyze quantitative and qualitative data using logical reasoning skills. E. Articulate a message effectively in oral and written forms. 3. Demonstrate an understanding of personal and public responsibility. especially: … B. Reflect upon your involvement as an engaged citizen in different communities and cultures. C. Articulate how personal choices and stances impact you and others. 4. Develop habits of thinking that apply to a fulfilling life of learning. Especially: A. Apply content knowledge and skills flexibly to new situations, including professional and vocational contexts. Understanding Your Vocation (OC 4A) Your “vocation” is how your station in life serves as a channel of God’s blessings to the people around you. Each person has multiple, overlapping stations in life (child, sibling, spouse, parent, student, neighbor, employee, registered voter, etc.). As indicated in OC 4A, Bethany Lutheran College seeks to expand your vocational opportunities so that you might better serve others to the glory of God. Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs): Students will demonstrate an ability to: 1. Define terms clearly, and detect and correct ambiguity and other deficiencies in definitions they encounter. 2. Recognize whether a proposition is true, false, or currently undecidable by appealing to faith, intuition, experience, and/or reason. 3. Evaluate the logical form of arguments to determine their validity, and similarly construct valid arguments of one’s own. 4. Construct valid syllogisms and demonstrate their validity by appealing to Aristotle’s 6 Rules, Euler diagrams, and Venn diagrams. 5. Distinguish between inductive and deductive forms of reasoning, and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each of these two approaches to argumentation. 6. Recognize and correct approximately 50 kinds of fallacies, both formal and material. 7. Lead a meeting according to Roberts’s Rules of Order (as chairperson) and keep clear and accurate records of the same (as secretary). Assessment: Class Participation 10 93.34 –100.00 A Quizzes 10 90.00 – 93.33 A– 20 20 86.67 – 89.99 B+ 83.34 – 86.66 B Fallacy Presentation #1 6 80.00 – 83.33 B– Fallacy Presentation #2 6 76.67 – 79.99 C+ 12 12 73.34 – 76.66 C 70.00 – 73.33 C– Meeting Chairperson #1 4 66.67 – 69.99 D+ 63.34 – 63.66 D Meeting Chairperson #2 4 60.00 – 63.33 D– Meeting Secretary #1 5 00.00 – 59.99 F Meeting Secretary #2 5 18 18 Exams I–V (@10 ea.) 50 50 50 Total 100 rev. 08/20/20 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking Page 3 of 9 Bethany Lutheran College, Fall 2020 Ryan C. MacPherson, Ph.D. Fallacy Reports (OC 6): Each student will present two Fallacy Reports, following a rubric that guides the student in defining a fallacy, contrasting it to other fallacies, distinguishing it from proper reasoning, and so forth. The student also will select three study questions from the assigned reading concerning that fallacy and lead a class discussion aiming to discover the correct answers to those questions. Students will be evaluated according to a rubric (see course packet). Chairperson and Secretary under Roberts’s Rules of Order (OC 7): Every class session will be run according to Roberts’s Rules of Order in order that students may master the art of logically coordinating a group discussion. Each student will serve twice as chairperson and twice as secretary throughout the semester. For the first few sessions, the instructor will model how this is to be done. The instructor also will supply an agenda for each session. Each student’s performance as chairperson and secretary will be evaluated according to a rubric (see course packet). Quizzes and Exams (assessment of CLOs 1–7): The course is divided into five parts. During each part, study questions, class discussion exercises, and quizzes serve as formative assessment tools, providing frequent feedback to students during the learning process. At the conclusion of each part, a written exam provides summative assessment. The exams may consist of multiple-choice, true/false, matching, short-answer questions, and essay questions. Each summative assessment will focus primarily on the part of the course that was just completed, but some questions may require students to recall historical developments discussed during previous parts of the course. Assessment V will in this respect be more comprehensive than the preceding assessments, plus it also will include a set of questions specifically designed to provide a comprehensive review of the semester’s material, including a review geography quiz, as noted below. Students should prepare for the exams daily by: ▪ completing the assigned readings and study questions/worksheets on time ▪ paying attention to lectures ▪ participating in class discussions ▪ taking notes from both the lectures and the class discussions ▪ reviewing their notes periodically Syllabus Supplement This syllabus contains information unique to this class. In addition, a syllabus supplement (available at moodle.blc.edu) contains information that is common to all classes taught by Dr. MacPherson. Students are required to read both the class-specific syllabus and the common syllabus supplement in order to understand all of the procedures and expectations of the course in which they are enrolled. The syllabus supplement includes topics such as the following: • Contact Info • Cell Phones, Tablets, Laptops, etc. • Online Resources • A Note about Masks in the Classroom • Bethany Gmail Account • Students with Disabilities • HyFlex vs. Online Only • Development of Writing Skills • Attendance and Class Participation • Plagiarism Policy • Importance of Turning in Assignments on • Writing Center Time • History Resource Room • Importance of Taking Exams as Scheduled • Recording and Privacy rev. 08/20/20 PHILOSOPHY 201: Logic and Critical Thinking Page 4 of 9 Bethany Lutheran College, Fall 2020 Ryan C. MacPherson, Ph.D. SCHEDULE OF ASSIGNMENTS (see the last page for calendar dates) The instructor reserves the right to modify this schedule during the course of the semester should unusual circumstances arise. Generally, students can be confident that this schedule will be followed closely. INTRODUCTION (3 lessons) 1. Readings: None Discussion: What is truth? Can animals think? Can computers think? What is the role of logic in a liberal arts education? What about in the “real world”? Scheduling: Each student will be assigned for two specific Fallacy Reports and to serve twice each as Chairperson and as Secretary throughout the semester. Handouts: Syllabus, Course Packet 2. Readings: Socratic Logic, Introduction, sec. 1, pp. 1–9 (introduction to logic); Bestiary, xi–xvi (introduction to fallacies); Socratic Logic, pp. 68–71 (overview of fallacies); Robert’s Rules, chap. 1 (structure) Reminder: Complete the “Lesson 2” section of “Study Questions for Introduction.” Report 2A: Bestiary, #1 (Ad Hominem), #2 (Tu Quoque); Socratic Logic, III.2A (Ad Hominem) Note: All students are expected to skim read every section assigned for a Fallacy Report. Each student will be assigned to present two reports, and therefore must carefully read those sections in preparation to teach the rest of the class.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Informal Fallacies 2
    Ashford University - Ed Tech | Informal_Fallacies_2 JUSTIN Hi, everybody. This is going to be a continuation of the informal logical fallacy HARRISON: discussion. The next one we're going to be talking about is the relativist fallacy. This is a common one that you see. Even in intellectual circles, you see really smart people falling into this fallacy. Well, I guess you can be consistent, but it's very hard to be consistent. The relativist fallacy occurs when you say that, for example, different cultures have different beliefs so what's right in one culture or what's right for one group is right and good. And then something that's opposite in another group is considered right and good. And those two things are right and good for both cultures or groups or whatever it might be. Well, there are different types of relativism, but cultural relativism would say things like, well, we can't judge other cultures because their actions are right based on their own definitions of what is right. And our definitions of what is right and wrong are different. Therefore, what they believe is right is right and what we believe is right is right. And hopefully you can see the problem with this is that-- let's say that we're confronting a culture that subjugates women. And in that culture, it is right or morally acceptable to gang rape a woman, which is actually-- this happens in the world-- when she's been accused of some crime-- often a crime that she didn't commit, but she's just been accused of it.
    [Show full text]
  • 10 Fallacies and Examples Pdf
    10 fallacies and examples pdf Continue A: It is imperative that we promote adequate means to prevent degradation that would jeopardize the project. Man B: Do you think that just because you use big words makes you sound smart? Shut up, loser; You don't know what you're talking about. #2: Ad Populum: Ad Populum tries to prove the argument as correct simply because many people believe it is. Example: 80% of people are in favor of the death penalty, so the death penalty is moral. #3. Appeal to the body: In this erroneous argument, the author argues that his argument is correct because someone known or powerful supports it. Example: We need to change the age of drinking because Einstein believed that 18 was the right age of drinking. #4. Begging question: This happens when the author's premise and conclusion say the same thing. Example: Fashion magazines do not harm women's self-esteem because women's trust is not damaged after reading the magazine. #5. False dichotomy: This misconception is based on the assumption that there are only two possible solutions, so refuting one decision means that another solution should be used. It ignores other alternative solutions. Example: If you want better public schools, you should raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have the best schools #6. Hasty Generalization: Hasty Generalization occurs when the initiator uses too small a sample size to support a broad generalization. Example: Sally couldn't find any cute clothes in the boutique and couldn't Maura, so there are no cute clothes in the boutique.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2002 PROFILES in FAITH in THIS ISSUE 1 Profiles in Faith: John Calvin (1509–1564) John Calvin by Art Lindsley by Dr
    KKNOWINGNOWING A Teaching Quarterly for Discipleship of Heart and Mind C.S. LEWIS INSTITUTE OINGOING &D&D Summer 2002 PROFILES IN FAITH IN THIS ISSUE 1 Profiles in Faith: John Calvin (1509–1564) John Calvin by Art Lindsley by Dr. Art Lindsley Scholar-in-Residence 3 C.S. Lewis Feature Article: C.S. Lewis on Freud and Marx by Art Lindsley 6 A Conversation with: Ravi Zacharias 8 Review & Reflect: Two Giants and the he mere mention of John Calvin’s maintains, “Calvin is the man who, next to St. Giant Question: a name (born July 10, 1509 in Noyon, Paul, has done the most good to mankind.” review of Dr. France – died May 27, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, En- Armand Nicholi’s T book The Ques- 1564 in Geneva, Switzerland) glish preacher, asserts, “The T tion of God produces strong reactions both longer I live the clearer does it ap- by James Beavers pro and con. Erich Fromm, 20th “Taking into pear that John Calvin’s system is century German-born American the nearest to perfection.” 12 Special Feature psychoanalyst and social phi- account all his Basil Hall, Cambridge profes- Article: losopher, says that Calvin “be- sor, once wrote an essay, “The Conversational longed to the ranks of the failings, he Calvin Legend,” in which he ar- Apologetics greatest haters in history.” The gues that formerly those who by Michael must be Ramsden Oxford Dictionary of the Christian depreciated Calvin had at least Church maintains that Calvin reckoned as one read his works, whereas now 24 Upcoming Events was “cruel” and the “unopposed the word “Calvin” or “Calvin- dictator of Geneva.” On the other of the greatest ism” is used as a word with hand, Theodore Beza, Calvin’s negative connotations but with successor, says of Calvin, “I have and best of men little or no content.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallaciesposter16x24.Pdf
    Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or Presuming a claim to be necessarily wrong because a to attack. things means that one is the cause of the other. compelling argument. fallacy has been committed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, guilt, and more. It is entirely possibly to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes Though a valid, and reasoned, argument may sometimes have an emotional coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine rational debate. correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause. aspect, one must be careful that emotion doesn’t obscure or replace reason. justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments. After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep’s brains with chopped liver and brussels Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.
    [Show full text]
  • Prestructuring Multilayer Perceptrons Based on Information-Theoretic
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1-1-2011 Prestructuring Multilayer Perceptrons based on Information-Theoretic Modeling of a Partido-Alto- based Grammar for Afro-Brazilian Music: Enhanced Generalization and Principles of Parsimony, including an Investigation of Statistical Paradigms Mehmet Vurkaç Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Vurkaç, Mehmet, "Prestructuring Multilayer Perceptrons based on Information-Theoretic Modeling of a Partido-Alto-based Grammar for Afro-Brazilian Music: Enhanced Generalization and Principles of Parsimony, including an Investigation of Statistical Paradigms" (2011). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 384. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.384 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Prestructuring Multilayer Perceptrons based on Information-Theoretic Modeling of a Partido-Alto -based Grammar for Afro-Brazilian Music: Enhanced Generalization and Principles of Parsimony, including an Investigation of Statistical Paradigms by Mehmet Vurkaç A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering Dissertation Committee: George G. Lendaris, Chair Douglas V. Hall Dan Hammerstrom Marek Perkowski Brad Hansen Portland State University ©2011 ABSTRACT The present study shows that prestructuring based on domain knowledge leads to statistically significant generalization-performance improvement in artificial neural networks (NNs) of the multilayer perceptron (MLP) type, specifically in the case of a noisy real-world problem with numerous interacting variables.
    [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]
  • The Irrational Atheist
    Praise for The Irrational Atheist “In a day when too few of the recently published ‘New Atheists’ get hoisted on their own petard, it is gratifying to see Vox Day undertake that assign- ment with warmth and enthusiasm.” —DOUGLAS WILSON , Christianity Today “Vox Day frags the New Atheism movement with the kind of logic and fact that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Onfray only claim to use. The impor- tant factor is that Day makes his challenging assertions without faith-based cross-waving.” —DR. JOHNNY WILSON , Editor-in-Chief, Computer Gaming World “The Vox is in the henhouse, with the scent of Dawkins’s blood in his nos- trils and a mouthful of Hitchens’s feathers! Harris, alas, doesn’t make it out of the book alive and the emergency team is still waiting to see if Dawkins will pull through after receiving one of the most visceral literary lobotomies ever inflicted in publishing. In the culture wars between New Atheism and The Rest of the World, The Irrational Atheist is ‘must-read’ material.” —IAN WISHART , Investigate Magazine “Day’s work is a healthy kick in the head to the comfortably numb. Using their own claims against them, he uses logic, reason, and rhetoric to reveal that atheists are the new fanatics, and that we should all—religious or ir- religious—be very wary of their schemes. G. K. Chesterton once remarked that without God, there would be no atheists; Day updates this by showing how atheism itself is an evolutionary dead-end. A provocative, gutsy, and in-your-face book, but eminently enjoyable reading.” —REA D MERCER SCHUCHAR D T , Assistant Professor of Communication, Wheaton College “In The Irrational Atheist, Vox Day plays the card that the atheists consid- er their trump—reason—against them in a devastating and highly enter- taining manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Thou Shall Not Commit Logical Fallacies
    Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier Presuming that a real or perceived relationship between Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid Presuming a claim to be necessarily wrong because a to attack. things means that one is the cause of the other. or compelling argument. fallacy has been committed. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, guilt, and more. It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes Though a valid, and reasoned, argument may sometimes have an emotional coherency for that claim, just as it is possible to make a claim that is true and but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine rational debate. correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause. aspect, one must be careful that emotion doesn’t obscure or replace reason. justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments. After Will said that we should be nice to kittens because they’re fluy and Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep brains with chopped liver and brussels Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should cute, Bill says that Will is a mean jerk who wants to be mean to poor the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have sprouts, but his father told him to think about the poor, starving children in a eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we defenseless puppies.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies: a Beginner’S Guide Which Logical Fallacy Would Be Your Favorite Pick from the List Below?
    Logical Fallacies: A Beginner’s Guide Which logical fallacy would be your favorite pick from the list below? Ad Hominem Attack: This is the best logical Appeal To Novelty: The Appeal to fallacy, and if you disagree with me, well, Novelty's a new fallacy, and it blows all your you’re an idiot. crappy old fallacies out the water! All the cool kids are using it: it's OBVIOUSLY the best. Appeal To Emotion: See, my mom, she had to work three jobs on account of my dad Appeal To Numbers: Millions think that this leaving and refusing to support us, and me fallacy is the best, so clearly it is. with my elephantitis and all, all our money went to doctor's bills so I never was able to Appeal to Pity: If you don't agree that get proper schooling. So really, if you look Appeal to Pity is the greatest fallacy, think deep down inside yourself, you'll see that my how it will hurt the feelings of me and the fallacy here is the best. others who like it! Appeal To False Authority: Your logical Appeal To Tradition: We've used Appeal to fallacies aren't logical fallacies at all because Tradition for centuries: how can it possibly be Einstein said so. Einstein also said that this wrong? one is better. Argumentum Ad Nauseam: Argumentum Appeal to Fear: If you don't accept Appeal ad nauseam is the best logical fallacy. to Fear as the greatest fallacy, then THE Argumentum ad nauseam is the best logical TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
    [Show full text]
  • Accent Accent Is a Form of Fallacy Through Shifting Meaning. in This Case, the Meaning Is Changed by Altering Which Parts Of
    FALLACIES Accent Accent is a form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example: "We should not speak ill of our friends" and "We should not speak ill of our friends" Be particularly wary of this fallacy on the net, where it's easy to misread the emphasis of what's written. Ad hoc As mentioned earlier, there is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it's an explanation. The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation: "I was healed from cancer." "Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer." "So, will He heal others who have cancer?" "Er... The ways of God are mysterious." Affirmation of the consequent This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true." To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for this implication. Here's an example: "If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online
    Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online Discussions Saumya Yashmohini Sahai Oana Balalau The Ohio State University, USA Inria, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France [email protected] [email protected] Roxana Horincar Thales Research & Technology, France [email protected] Abstract more appropriate. Fallacies are prevalent in public discourse. For example, The New York Times la- People debate on a variety of topics on online beled the tweets of Donald Trump between 2015 platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. De- bates can be lengthy, with users exchanging and 2020 and found thousands of insults addressed a wealth of information and opinions. How- to his adversaries. If made in an argument, an in- ever, conversations do not always go smoothly, sult is an ad hominem fallacy: an attack on the and users sometimes engage in unsound argu- opponent rather than on their argument. In pri- mentation techniques to prove a claim. These vate conversations, other types of fallacies might techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are be more prevalent, for example, appeal to tradition persuasive arguments that provide insufficient or appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition dismisses or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In calls to improve gender equality by stating that this paper, we study the most frequent falla- cies on Reddit, and we present them using “women have always occupied this place in soci- the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta- ety”. Appeal to nature is often used to ignore calls tion. We construct a new annotated dataset of to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community by stat- fallacies, using user comments containing fal- ing “gender is binary”.
    [Show full text]