DOCSLIB.ORG

Everyday Criticality : Questioning, Expertise, and the Embodiment of Critical Judgment Daniel Fisherman Montclair State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Everyday Criticality : Questioning, Expertise, and the Embodiment of Critical Judgment Daniel Fisherman Montclair State University Montclair State University Montclair State University Digital Commons Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects 5-2017 Everyday Criticality : Questioning, Expertise, and the Embodiment of Critical Judgment Daniel Fisherman Montclair State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Fisherman, Daniel, "Everyday Criticality : Questioning, Expertise, and the Embodiment of Critical Judgment" (2017). Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects. 39. https://digitalcommons.montclair.edu/etd/39 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Montclair State University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations and Culminating Projects by an authorized administrator of Montclair State University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EVERYDAY CRITICALITY: QUESTIONING, EXPERTISE, AND THE EMBODIMENT OF CRITICAL JUDGMENT A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of Montclair State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education by DANIEL FISHERMAN Montclair State University Upper Montclair, NJ 2017 Dissertation Chair: Mark Weinstein Copyright © 2017 by Daniel Fisherman. All rights reserved. ABSTRACT EVERYDAY CRITICALITY: QUESTIONING, EXPERTISE, AND THE EMBODIMENT OF CRITICAL JUDGMENT by Daniel Fisherman The development of critical disposition, and particularly the disposition to question assertions, has long been viewed as an essential goal of education. Its importance is expressed not only in numerous normative educational visions, but by contemporary policy documents, studies of teacher attitudes, and even popular educational literature. Indeed, the movement to educate for higher-order, critical thinking that has developed over the past four decades views questioning as perhaps the central activity of skilled cognition. As such, the disposition to question assertions – or what I have come to call “criticality” - transcends both the classroom and any specific academic or vocational discipline. It is essential to all good thinking, whether such thinking concerns scientific research, workplace decision making, or the navigation of everyday life. While there has been little conceptual analysis of criticality per se, there exists a substantial and relevant literature concerning the nature of critical disposition. In this dissertation, I analyze the two dominant conceptions in the literature as they relate to criticality, evaluating them with regard to both our held critical ideal of appropriate questioning, as well as a paradox that arises from the nature of the critical act itself – what I call the paradox of criticality. I argue that both conceptions fail to justify our iv critical ideal and offer little insight into how we can end the iterative questioning of critical behavior without paradoxically engaging in an “acritical” act. I propose that any understanding of criticality capable of supporting a commitment to appropriate questioning must view critical behavior as a form of judgment. With this in mind, I incorporate Hubert Dreyfus’ theory of expertise into a phenomenological analysis of critical recognition to develop a conception of criticality that views such recognition as an act of judgment that itself relies on the embodiment of previous judgment. I then turn to the literature on neurocognition and consciousness for empirical backing of this conception, arguing that both dual cognition and global workspace theory provide substantial justification for a commitment to it. I conclude with a discussion of the educational ramifications of the expertise conception and the role that didactic philosophy might play in an education for criticality. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For a 51-year-old individual with a family and a long career in technology, a seven-year journey towards a doctorate presents some daunting logistical, emotional, and yes, even cognitive challenges. That I have made it to this point is particularly gratifying given that this is not my first attempt at the degree. As such, I have more than a few friends, family, and mentors who I would like to thank. Pablo Tinio agreed to join my committee without knowing my work or ideas beforehand. Maughn Gregory and David Kennedy have long welcomed me into the P4C community, and helped me develop a theoretical foundation for my work with children. And in her criticisms of the critical thinking movement, Michele Knobel helped me recognize the importance of moving beyond the existing parameters of its discourse. Perhaps more than he knows, my graduate school partner, Igor Jasinski, played no small part in the development of this dissertation. His endless support and critique of my ideas gave me the opportunity to articulate and justify at an early stage the core of this work. Tyson Lewis showed me what it meant to engage in true study, leading me into corners of philosophy that pulled me out of my analytic comfort zone. His enthusiasm for being a philosopher revived in me the feelings that first attracted me to the discipline thirty years ago. Mark Weinstein reined me in when my thinking threatened to turn to fantasy. His spot-on critique, particularly when it came to my elaboration of criticality as a form of judgment, is responsible for whatever clarity this work exhibits. He is, in a substantial sense, the grandfather of this dissertation. vi My deepest gratitude and love goes to my wife, Jen, and children, Noam and Ava. It would have been easy for me to hole up at my desk for longer than was healthy, but having the opportunity to spend time playing Ultimate, watching Curb and Louis CK, playing games, cooking dinner, and helping my children to grow into loving and talented young adults has been a source of everyday happiness. More than anyone, Jen has inspired me to stick to my goal, patiently enduring many hours of discourse on a topic that was likely not her primary interest. Her questions, comments, and constant encouragement proved as valuable as any during my time producing this work. vii For my brother Gil, for whom questioning was, sadly, more a source of pain than joy. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1 1.1. The issue of criticality ...........................................................................................3 1.2. The core of the argument .....................................................................................11 1.3. The structure of the dissertation ..........................................................................13 1.4. A note on theoretical perspective ........................................................................16 Chapter 2: What is Everyday Criticality? ..........................................................................18 2.1. Defining criticality ..............................................................................................18 2.2. Everyday criticality and the concept of demand .................................................37 Chapter 3: Everyday Criticality as an Educational Aim ....................................................47 3.1. Potential limits of everyday criticality ................................................................47 3.2. Visions of everyday criticality as an aim of education .......................................52 3.2.1. Popular visions ..........................................................................................52 3.2.2. Acaademic visions ....................................................................................58 3.3. Articulating an ideal of everyday criticality ........................................................65 Chapter 4: Two Conceptions of Critical Disposition .........................................................84 4.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................84 4.2. Constraints on the concept of disposition ............................................................86 4.3. Critical disposition as mental motivation ............................................................96 4.4. A critique of mental motivation ........................................................................101 4.5. Critical disposition and sensitivity ....................................................................113 4.6. Recognition and the critique of sensitivity ........................................................121 4.7. Criticality as a form of judgment ......................................................................124 Chapter 5: The Phenomenology of Criticality .................................................................130 5.1. Criticality as recognition ...................................................................................130 5.2. Theoretical considerations regarding the use of phenomenology .....................132 ix 5.3. Perceived questionability and the phenomenology of criticality ......................142 5.4. Expertise theory - linking critical recognition to critical judgment ..................151 5.5. Revisiting criticality as a form of judgment ......................................................164 5.6. The remaining challenge ...................................................................................172 Chapter 6: Cognitive Science, The Frame Problem, and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center
    Logical Fallacies Moorpark College Writing Center Ad hominem (Argument to the person): Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. We would take her position on child abuse more seriously if she weren’t so rude to the press. Ad populum appeal (appeal to the public): Draws on whatever people value such as nationality, religion, family. A vote for Joe Smith is a vote for the flag. Alleged certainty: Presents something as certain that is open to debate. Everyone knows that… Obviously, It is obvious that… Clearly, It is common knowledge that… Certainly, Ambiguity and equivocation: Statements that can be interpreted in more than one way. Q: Is she doing a good job? A: She is performing as expected. Appeal to fear: Uses scare tactics instead of legitimate evidence. Anyone who stages a protest against the government must be a terrorist; therefore, we must outlaw protests. Appeal to ignorance: Tries to make an incorrect argument based on the claim never having been proven false. Because no one has proven that food X does not cause cancer, we can assume that it is safe. Appeal to pity: Attempts to arouse sympathy rather than persuade with substantial evidence. He embezzled a million dollars, but his wife had just died and his child needed surgery. Begging the question/Circular Logic: Proof simply offers another version of the question itself. Wrestling is dangerous because it is unsafe. Card stacking: Ignores evidence from the one side while mounting evidence in favor of the other side. Users of hearty glue say that it works great! (What is missing: How many users? Great compared to what?) I should be allowed to go to the party because I did my math homework, I have a ride there and back, and it’s at my friend Jim’s house.
    [Show full text]
  • 35 Fallacies
    THIRTY-TWO COMMON FALLACIES EXPLAINED L. VAN WARREN Introduction If you watch TV, engage in debate, logic, or politics you have encountered the fallacies of: Bandwagon – "Everybody is doing it". Ad Hominum – "Attack the person instead of the argument". Celebrity – "The person is famous, it must be true". If you have studied how magicians ply their trade, you may be familiar with: Sleight - The use of dexterity or cunning, esp. to deceive. Feint - Make a deceptive or distracting movement. Misdirection - To direct wrongly. Deception - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead. Fallacious systems of reasoning pervade marketing, advertising and sales. "Get Rich Quick", phone card & real estate scams, pyramid schemes, chain letters, the list goes on. Because fallacy is common, you might want to recognize them. There is no world as vulnerable to fallacy as the religious world. Because there is no direct measure of whether a statement is factual, best practices of reasoning are replaced be replaced by "logical drift". Those who are political or religious should be aware of their vulnerability to, and exportation of, fallacy. The film, "Roshomon", by the Japanese director Akira Kurisawa, is an excellent study in fallacy. List of Fallacies BLACK-AND-WHITE Classifying a middle point between extremes as one of the extremes. Example: "You are either a conservative or a liberal" AD BACULUM Using force to gain acceptance of the argument. Example: "Convert or Perish" AD HOMINEM Attacking the person instead of their argument. Example: "John is inferior, he has blue eyes" AD IGNORANTIAM Arguing something is true because it hasn't been proven false.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dilemma Wikipedia Contents
    False dilemma Wikipedia Contents 1 False dilemma 1 1.1 Examples ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Morton's fork ......................................... 1 1.1.2 False choice .......................................... 2 1.1.3 Black-and-white thinking ................................... 2 1.2 See also ................................................ 2 1.3 References ............................................... 3 1.4 External links ............................................. 3 2 Affirmative action 4 2.1 Origins ................................................. 4 2.2 Women ................................................ 4 2.3 Quotas ................................................. 5 2.4 National approaches .......................................... 5 2.4.1 Africa ............................................ 5 2.4.2 Asia .............................................. 7 2.4.3 Europe ............................................ 8 2.4.4 North America ........................................ 10 2.4.5 Oceania ............................................ 11 2.4.6 South America ........................................ 11 2.5 International organizations ...................................... 11 2.5.1 United Nations ........................................ 12 2.6 Support ................................................ 12 2.6.1 Polls .............................................. 12 2.7 Criticism ............................................... 12 2.7.1 Mismatching ......................................... 13 2.8 See also
    [Show full text]
  • Some Common Fallacies of Argument Evading the Issue: You Avoid the Central Point of an Argument, Instead Drawing Attention to a Minor (Or Side) Issue
    Some Common Fallacies of Argument Evading the Issue: You avoid the central point of an argument, instead drawing attention to a minor (or side) issue. ex. You've put through a proposal that will cut overall loan benefits for students and drastically raise interest rates, but then you focus on how the system will be set up to process loan applications for students more quickly. Ad hominem: Here you attack a person's character, physical appearance, or personal habits instead of addressing the central issues of an argument. You focus on the person's personality, rather than on his/her ideas, evidence, or arguments. This type of attack sometimes comes in the form of character assassination (especially in politics). You must be sure that character is, in fact, a relevant issue. ex. How can we elect John Smith as the new CEO of our department store when he has been through 4 messy divorces due to his infidelity? Ad populum: This type of argument uses illegitimate emotional appeal, drawing on people's emotions, prejudices, and stereotypes. The emotion evoked here is not supported by sufficient, reliable, and trustworthy sources. Ex. We shouldn't develop our shopping mall here in East Vancouver because there is a rather large immigrant population in the area. There will be too much loitering, shoplifting, crime, and drug use. Complex or Loaded Question: Offers only two options to answer a question that may require a more complex answer. Such questions are worded so that any answer will implicate an opponent. Ex. At what point did you stop cheating on your wife? Setting up a Straw Person: Here you address the weakest point of an opponent's argument, instead of focusing on a main issue.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Lie” Feedback Responses
    2016 Two More Chains Fall Issue “The Big Lie” Feedback Responses Do you agree or disagree Please elaborate on why you What’s the next step? How do we bring opposing with “The Big Lie” agree or disagree. views together? concepts? Why? 1. (Respondent selected “Other” for job position.) [No Input] Learn how to read wildfires. Agree. Underestimating potential leads to Based on “Personal Experience.” accidents. 2. Firefighter I have over 33 years’ experience working We need to discuss revising the entry level training programs to Agree. for All Risk Fire Departments in California include this information and focus more on the intent of the Fire Based on “Personal Experience.” including CAL FIRE. Qualified as DIVS, Orders (not just memorizing) what they really mean—and how to SOFR, STCR, FAL1 to name a few. mitigate risk to acceptable levels before we engage. Through this experience and studies I What happened to S-133 and S-134? Have these course been have long ago formed the following eliminated and if so why? opinions: With the risk management process, we seek to mitigate risk, but cannot always remove risk. Therefore, manage the risk and decide if the mitigations are acceptable before we engage. I also agree that there is a culture to memorize and recognize the Standard Fire Orders, but in practice the culture does not fully support following the orders or complying with the intent of the orders. With this type of culture, we often set ourselves up for the opportunity to experience catastrophic results. 1 Do you agree or disagree Please elaborate on why you What’s the next step? How do we bring opposing with “The Big Lie” agree or disagree.
    [Show full text]
  • Slanters and Pseudo-Reasoning Cheat Sheet
    You all better get an ‘A’ now that you can cheat sheet Arguments An argument is valid (or logical) if the conclusion is supported by the premises An argument is deductively valid if the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion (i.e. if it is impossible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are true) An argument is inductively valid (or strong) if the truth of the premises make the conclusion more likely to be true than false. An argument is well-founded if the premises are true or likely to be true. An argument is sound if the premises are true and the argument is deductively valid An argument is cogent if the premises are well-founded and the argument is strong. Truth-Functional Logic ~P: P is not true (‘not P’) P & Q: P and Q are both true (‘P and Q’) P ∨ Q: either P is true or Q is true (or both) (‘P or Q’) P → Q: if P is true then Q is true (‘If P then Q’ or ‘Q if P’ or ‘P only if Q’) P ↔ Q: P is true if and only if Q is true (‘P if and only if Q’ or ‘if P then Q, and if Q then P’) P ⇔ Q: P is logically equivalent to Q Valid truth-functional inference rules Modus Modus Chain Disjunctive Argument Conditional Proof Ponens Tollens Argument P ∨ Q P P → Q P → Q P → Q ~P (or ~Q) : P ~Q Q → R Q (or P) Q Q ~P P → R P → Q Simplification Conjunction Double DeMorgan Implication Negation P & Q P ~(P ∨ Q) ⇔ ~P & ~Q P → Q ⇔ ~P ∨ Q P (or Q) Q P ⇔ ~~P ~(P & Q) ⇔ ~P ∨ ~Q P & Q Invalid truth-functional inferences Affirming the Consequent: If P then Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies
    Christ-Centered Critical Thinking Lesson 7: Logical Fallacies 1 Learning Outcomes In this lesson we will: 1.Define logical fallacy using the SEE-I. 2.Understand and apply the concept of relevance. 3.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of relevance. 4.Define, understand, and recognize fallacies of insufficient evidence. 2 What is a logical fallacy? Complete the SEE-I. S = A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. E = E = I = 3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9VE5tseuFk/T5FSHiJnu7I/AAAAAAAABIY/Ws7iCn-wJNU/s1600/Logical+Fallacy.JPG The Concept of Relevance The concept of relevance: a statement for or against another statement. A statement is relevant to a claim (i.e. another statement or premise) if it provides some reason or evidence for thinking the claim is either true of false. Three ways a statement can be relevant: 1. A statement is positively relevant to a claim if it counts in favor of the claim. 2. A statement is negatively relevant to a claim if it counts against the claim. 3. A statement is logically irrelevant to a claim if it counts neither for or against the claim. Two observations concerning the concept of relevance. 1. Whether a statement is relevant to a claim usually depends on the context in which the statement is made. 2. A statement can be relevant to a claim even if the claim is false. 5 Fallacies of Relevance • Personal attack or ad hominem • Scare tactic • Appeal to pity • Bandwagon argument • Strawman • Red herring • Equivocation http://www.professordarnell.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fallacies.jpg • Begging the question 6 When a person rejects another person’s argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the argument of claim he or she commits an ad hominem fallacy or personal attack.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowing the Answer to a Loaded Question THEORIA FINAL
    Knowing the Answer to a Loaded Question Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen Aarhus University [email protected] Forthcoming in Theoria Abstract Many epistemologists have been attracted to the view that knowledge-wh can be reduced to knowledge-that. An important challenge to this, presented by Jonathan Schaffer, is the problem of ‘convergent knowledge’: reductive accounts imply that any two knowledge-wh ascriptions with identical true answers to the questions embedded in their wh-clauses are materially equivalent, but according to Schaffer, there are counterexamples to this equivalence. Parallel to this, Schaffer has presented a very similar argument against binary accounts of knowledge, and thereby in favor of his alternative contrastive account, relying on similar examples of apparently inequivalent knowledge ascriptions, which binary accounts treat as equivalent. In this article, I develop a unified diagnosis and solution to these problems for the reductive and binary accounts, based on a general theory of knowledge ascriptions that embed presuppositional expressions. All of Schaffer’s apparent counterexamples embed presuppositional expressions, and once the effect of these is taken into account, it becomes apparent that the counterexamples depend on an illicit equivocation of contexts. Since epistemologists often rely on knowledge ascriptions embedding presuppositional expressions, the general theory of them presented here will have ramifications beyond defusing Schaffer’s argument. 1. Introduction In recent years, considerable work has been devoted to understanding the nature of knowledge-wh ascriptions, i.e. ascriptions of knowledge in which the complement clause is an interrogative wh-clause, instead of a declarative that-clause. Traditionally, epistemologists have devoted more attention to knowledge-that ascriptions, in part because it has been assumed that knowledge-wh could be understood in terms of, or be reduced to, knowledge-that.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Reasoning and Writing
    CRITICAL REASONING AND WRITING Noah Levin Golden West College Book: Critical Reasoning and Writing (Levin et al.) Cross Library Transclusion template('CrossTransclude/Web',{'Library':'chem','PageID':170365}); TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1: INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING, REASONING, AND LOGIC What is thinking? It may seem strange to begin a logic textbook with this question. ‘Thinking’ is perhaps the most intimate and personal thing that people do. Yet the more you ‘think’ about thinking, the more mysterious it can appear. Many people believe that logic is very abstract, dispassionate, complicated, and even cold. But in fact the study of logic is nothing more intimidating or obscure than this: the study of good thinking. 1.1: PRELUDE TO CHAPTER 1.2: INTRODUCTION AND THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS- THE TROLLEY PROBLEM 1.3: TRUTH AND ITS ROLE IN ARGUMENTATION - CERTAINTY, PROBABILITY, AND MONTY HALL 1.4: DISTINCTION OF PROOF FROM VERIFICATION; OUR BIASES AND THE FORER EFFECT 1.5: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1.6: DIAGRAMMING THOUGHTS AND ARGUMENTS - ANALYZING NEWS MEDIA 1.7: CREATING A PHILOSOPHICAL OUTLINE 2: LANGUAGE - MEANING AND DEFINITION Rational people ought to concede he was right about one thing: many disagreements stem from linguistic problems. To resolve this, we simply (though it’s not actually simple) must use language clearly and precisely. If we eliminate all linguistic issues, then we’re left with the more meaningful philosophical problems, and real arguments can now happen since we know exactly what we’re talking about. 2.1: TECHNIQUES OF DEFINING- “SEMANTICS” VS “SYNTAX” AND AVOIDING MORE AMBIGUITY 2.2: CRITERIA FOR FRAMING DEFINITIONS- IT’S ALL ABOUT CONTEXT AND AUDIENCE 2.3: DEFINING TERMS APPROPRIATELY 2.4: COGNITIVE AND EMOTIVE MEANING - ABORTION AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 2.5: FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE AND PRECISION IN SPEECH 2.6: DEFINING TERMS- TYPES AND PURPOSES OF DEFINITIONS 3: INFORMAL FALLACIES - MISTAKES IN REASONING What is a fallacy? Simply put, a fallacy is an error in reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Logical Fallacies Summed up 1:23:20
    Logical Fallacies Summed Up Good arguments are claims based on reasoning that is Clear, Accurate, Relevant and Sufficient. Fallacies of Glittering Generality A vague, richly emotive term with no clear meaning. Unclear Evidence Equivocation A critical word/term in the argument is not used consistently. Questionable Premise The argument’s claim is based on an unproved premise or premises. (Premises are reasoning/evidence.) Includes outright lies, etc. Begging the Question The very thing the controversy is about is assumed true. Fallacies of Complex Question Loaded question (includes a questionable premise). Evidence of Circular Argument Unproved propositions/claims are used to prove each other. Questionable Either-Or fallacy “False Choice:” limited alternatives are presented, when they are Accuracy not mutually exclusive or more options should be considered. Strawmanship A position is misrepresented in order to better attack it. Accent Evidence is distorted by a change in emphasis, it is taken out of context, or significant factors are not mentioned, etc. Irrelevant Argument Argument presented that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Non-Sequitur It does not follow (proof/reasoning irrelevant to the claim). Argument from Ignorance Arguing that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false (or vice-versa). Attempts to switch the burden of proof. Ad Hominem Fallacy Attacking the arguer instead of the argument/reasoning. Attacking a personal characteristic (character, competence, etc.) of • Ad Hominem Abusive an opponent instead of refuting the opponent’s reasoning. Because of an arguer’s personal stake in the matter, or a position • Ad Hominem Circumstantial taken previously, the arguer is attacked instead of the reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • What Are Logical Fallacies?
    What Are Logical Fallacies? According to the Purdue Writing Lab, “fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. Avoid these common fallacies in your own arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others.” Fallacies of Relevance • Appeal to Ignorance is an argument that relies on the audience’s lack of knowledge about a subject. • Appeal to Fear is an argument that relies on frightening the audience into an emotional response. • Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy in three ways: a) the authority is not an expert in the field being discussed, b) the authority is being misrepresented, or c) analysis of the authority’s claim is misleading. • Appeal to Pity is a logical fallacy that relies on the speaker appealing to the sympathy of his/her audience. • Ad Populum is an appeal to popular sentiment of the crowd. • Gambler’s Fallacy is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future. Fallacies of Inadequate Evidence • Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. • Hasty Generalization is an argument in which someone makes a broad claim based on too small of a sample size.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Fallacies
    List of fallacies For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common if>). The following fallacies involve inferences whose misconceptions. correctness is not guaranteed by the behavior of those log- ical connectives, and hence, which are not logically guar- A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric anteed to yield true conclusions. Types of propositional fallacies: which undermines an argument’s logical validity or more generally an argument’s logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. • Affirming a disjunct – concluding that one disjunct of a logical disjunction must be false because the These are commonly used styles of argument in convinc- other disjunct is true; A or B; A, therefore not B.[8] ing people, where the focus is on communication and re- sults rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be • Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an in- used whether the point being advanced is correct or not. dicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.[8] 1 Formal fallacies • Denying the antecedent – the consequent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be false because the antecedent is false; if A, then B; not A, therefore Main article: Formal fallacy not B.[8] A formal fallacy is an error in logic that can be seen in the argument’s form.[1] All formal fallacies are specific types 1.2 Quantification fallacies of non sequiturs. A quantification fallacy is an error in logic where the • Appeal to probability – is a statement that takes quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the something for granted because it would probably be quantifier of the conclusion.
    [Show full text]