DOCSLIB.ORG

Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 discourse. For example, The New York Times la- beled the tweets of Donald Trump between 2015 People debate on a variety of topics on online and 2020 and found thousands of insults addressed platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. De- to his adversaries. If made in an argument, an in- bates can be lengthy, with users exchanging sult is an ad hominem fallacy: an attack on the a wealth of information and opinions. How- ever, conversations do not always go smoothly, opponent rather than on their argument. In pri- and users sometimes engage in unsound argu- vate conversations, other types of fallacies might mentation techniques to prove a claim. These be more prevalent, for example, appeal to tradition techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are or appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition dismisses persuasive arguments that provide insufficient calls to improve gender equality by stating that or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In “women have always occupied this place in soci- this paper, we study the most frequent falla- ety”. Appeal to nature is often used to ignore calls cies on Reddit, and we present them using to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community by stat- the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta- tion. We construct a new annotated dataset of ing “gender is binary”. The underlying premises fallacies, using user comments containing fal- of such arguments are “traditions are correct” and lacy mentions as noisy labels, and cleaning the “what occurs in nature is good”. data via crowdsourcing. Finally, we study the Creating a dataset of fallacious arguments is task of classifying fallacies using neural mod- difficult, given that there are over 100 types of els. We find that generally the models perform fallacious arguments (Scalambrino, 2018). There better in the presence of conversational con- have been several attempts to create comprehensive text.We have released the data and the code at github.com/sahaisaumya/informal_ datasets: Habernal et al.(2017) proposed a game fallacies. in which players add fallacies in the hope of foul- ing other participants, in Habernal et al.(2018a) 1 Introduction ad hominem fallacies are found using a subred- dit’s rule violations, while in Da San Martino et al. Argumentation plays a critical part in our lives as (2019) fallacies are annotated together with other it helps us make decisions and reason about the propaganda techniques in news articles. However, world around us. Studies (Sanders et al., 1994) our work is the first to propose a viable solution have shown that learning how to argue increases the for finding fallacious arguments belonging to many ability to identify weak arguments and decreases different fallacy types. the tendency to use verbal aggressiveness. Fallacies In this work, we study fallacies in public discus- are weak arguments that seem convincing, however, sions on online forums. Our salient contributions their evidence does not prove or disprove the argu- are: i) we align informal fallacies mentioned on ment’s conclusion. Fallacies are usually divided Reddit within the pragma-dialectic theory of argu- into formal and informal, where the former can mentation (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1995); be easily described using logical representations, ii) we design a methodology for mining and label- while for the latter, an analysis of the content is ing easily fallacies in online discussions; iii) we more appropriate. Fallacies are prevalent in public construct a large and balanced dataset of fallacious Part of this work was done while the first author was an arguments; iv) finally, we evaluate several neural intern at Inria, France. models on the task of predicting fallacious argu- 644 Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pages 644–657 August 1–6, 2021. ©2021 Association for Computational Linguistics ments, and we find that taking into consideration Douglas Walton (Walton, 2005). A scheme con- additional conversational context is important for sists of a conclusion, a set of premises, and a set this task. of critical questions. The critical questions should be answered in order to prove that the premises 2 Background support the conclusion, hence the argument is not a fallacy. For example, the scheme for an argu- 2.1 Fallacies in Argumentation Theory ment from expert opinion (Walton, 2005) has the Humans use argumentation when they evaluate the premises E is an expert in domain D, E asserts validity of new ideas, or they want to solve a dif- that A is known to be true, A is within D and the ference of opinion. An argument contains: i) a conclusion therefore, A may plausibly be taken to proposition called claim, conclusion or standpoint, be true. Some critical questions for this scheme to be validated; ii) the premises called also evi- are: i) Trustworthiness: Is E personally reliable as dence, which are the backing propositions; iii) an a source? ii) Backup Evidence: Is E’s assertion inference relation between the evidence and con- based on evidence? Argumentation schemes have clusion that validates or disproves the conclusion. two main drawbacks: first, for each new fallacy, a A fallacy is a flawed argument, where the inference new scheme should exist or be defined; and sec- relation or the premises are incorrect. Fallacies are ond, in the context of labeling an existing argument, generally divided into formal and informal falla- many of the critical questions might be unanswer- cies. Formal fallacies are arguments that can be able as none of the parties discussed them. easily represented as invalid logical formulas, such as denying the antecedent, which is a wrong appli- 2.2 Related Work cation of modus tollens. Although many informal fallacies can be also represented as invalid argu- An initial effort for creating an extensive dataset of ments, informal fallacies are easier to describe and fallacies was made in Habernal et al.(2017). The understand without resorting to logical representa- authors created a platform for educative games, tions (Hansen, 2020). where players learn how to become better debaters. In this work, we follow the pragma dialectic New fallacies are added to the platform by play- theory of argumentation. The theory developed ers that try to earn points by fouling other partici- by van Eemeren and Grootendorst(1995) views pants with invalid arguments. A follow-up on this argumentation as a complex speech act. The dialec- work (Habernal et al., 2018a) mentioned a dataset tical aspect is represented by two parties who try of only around 300 arguments created via the plat- to resolve a difference of opinion by engaging in a form, thus showing the need of finding other meth- discussion, each party making a move towards res- ods for creating larger datasets of fallacies. olution. The pragmatic aspect describes the moves Ad hominem fallacies in conversations have in the discussion as speech acts, more precisely as been addressed in (Habernal et al., 2018b). The the illocutionary acts introduced by Searle(1979). authors used the subreddit ChangeMyView, which van Eemeren and Grootendorst(1995) also devel- is a forum for civilized discussions, “a place to post oped ten rules which should guide argumentative an opinion you accept may be flawed, in an effort discussions. The goal of the rules is to further the to understand other perspectives on the issue”. The understanding of the difference of opinions and to dataset of fallacies consists of comments that were create a fruitful discussion. For example, a rule removed by the moderators as they violated the states that parties must not prevent each other from rule of not being rude or hostile, hence committing advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on an ad hominem fallacy. standpoints, while a second rule asks that a party Fallacious arguments are often made in the dis- may defend a standpoint only by advancing argu- semination of propaganda. In Da San Martino et al. mentation relating to that standpoint. An argument (2019), the authors annotate journal articles with 18 that prevents the resolution and thus violates one propaganda techniques, out of which 12 techniques of the rules is a fallacy. In our work, we align fre- are fallacies. Although an important resource in quent fallacies on Reddit with these rules, with the the study of fallacies, their labelling method and goal of formalizing their definitions. dataset have a few drawbacks. First, the dataset Another well-known model that considers fal- is highly unbalanced with 6 fallacies having a fair lacies is the argumentation scheme introduced by number of mentions: name-calling (1294), appeal 645 to fear and prejudice (367), flag-waving (330), Submission title: What is something massively outdated that humanity has yet to upgrade? causal oversimplification (233), appeal to authority Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/b3nwm6/ (169), black and white fallacy (134), and 6 fallacies Comment by user1 having less than 100 mentions: whataboutism (76), The 5-day work week reductio ad hitlerum (66), red herring (48), band- Comment by user2 wagon (17), labeling, obfuscation or intentional I know a lot of people don't like it, but a 9 to 5 office job is vagueness (17), straw men (15). Second, the task a pretty big step up from slavery, feudalism and indentured servitude. Though I do agree with studies saying that of finding the correct label for a span of text from a working for less than 8 hours a day is more productive.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Learning to Spot Common Fallacies
    LEARNING TO SPOT COMMON FALLACIES We intend this article to be a resource that you will return to when the fallacies discussed in it come up throughout the course. Do not feel that you need to read or master the entire article now. We’ve discussed some of the deep-seated psychological obstacles to effective logical and critical thinking in the videos. This article sets out some more common ways in which arguments can go awry. The defects or fallacies presented here tend to be more straightforward than psychological obstacles posed by reasoning heuristics and biases. They should, therefore, be easier to spot and combat. You will see though, that they are very common: keep an eye out for them in your local paper, online, or in arguments or discussions with friends or colleagues. One reason they’re common is that they can be quite effective! But if we offer or are convinced by a fallacious argument we will not be acting as good logical and critical thinkers. Species of Fallacious Arguments The common fallacies are usefully divided into three categories: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises, and Formal Fallacies. Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of relevance offer reasons to believe a claim or conclusion that, on examination, turn out to not in fact to be reasons to do any such thing. 1. The ‘Who are you to talk?’, or ‘You Too’, or Tu Quoque Fallacy1 Description: Rejecting an argument because the person advancing it fails to practice what he or she preaches. Example: Doctor: You should quit smoking. It’s a serious health risk.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fallacy of Composition and Meta-Argumentation"
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation" Michel Dufour Sorbonne-Nouvelle, Institut de la Communication et des Médias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Dufour, Michel, "Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta- argumentation"" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 49. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/49 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro’s “The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation” MICHEL DUFOUR Department «Institut de la Communication et des Médias» Sorbonne-Nouvelle 13 rue Santeuil 75231 Paris Cedex 05 France [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION In his paper on the fallacy of composition, Maurice Finocchiaro puts forward several important theses about this fallacy. He also uses it to illustrate his view that fallacies should be studied in light of the notion of meta-argumentation at the core of his recent book (Finocchiaro, 2013). First, he expresses his puzzlement. Some authors have claimed that this fallacy is quite common (this is the ubiquity thesis) but it seems to have been neglected by scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 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 ..................................................
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]