DOCSLIB.ORG

Strawman Slippery Slope False Cause Ad Hominem Appeal to Emotion Tu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strawman Slippery Slope False Cause Ad Hominem Appeal to Emotion Tu PAGE 2 your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: strawman false cause appeal to the fallacy fallacy emotion Misrepresenting someone’s Presuming that a real or Presuming that because a claim argument to make it perceived relationship between Manipulating an emotional has been poorly argued, or a easier to attack. things means that one is the response in place of a valid or fallacy has been made, that it is After Bob said that we should be nice cause of the other. compelling argument. necessarily wrong. to kittens, Will says Bob wants to be Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows Luke didn’t want to eat his sheep brains Recognising that Amanda had mean to puppies! how temperatures have been rising over with chopped liver and brussels sprouts, committed a fallacy in arguing that Everyone boos Bob who is clearly the past few centuries, whilst at the same but his father told him to think about the we should eat healthy food because a a mean jerk for wanting to hurt time the numbers of pirates have been poor, starving children in a third world nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said poor, cute puppies. decreasing; thus pirates cool the world country who weren’t fortunate enough we should therefore eat bacon double and global warming is a hoax. to have any food at all. cheeseburgers every day. yourfallacy.is/strawman yourfallacy.is/false-cause yourfallacy.is/appeal-to-emotion yourfallacy.is/the-fallacy-fallacy your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: slippery slope ad hominem tu quoque personal incredulity Asserting that if we allow Attacking your opponent’s Avoiding having to engage A to happen, then Z will character or personal traits with criticism by turning it back Saying that because one finds consequently happen too, in an attempt to undermine on the accuser - answering something difficult to understand therefore A should not happen. their argument. criticism with criticism. that it’s therefore not true. Colin asserts that if we allow children to After Sally presents an eloquent and The blue candidate accused the red Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human play video games, then the next thing compelling case for a more equitable candidate of committing the tu quoque and with effusive disdain asked Richard if you know we’ll be living a in a post- taxation system, Sam asks the audience fallacy. The red candidate responded by he really thought we were stupid enough apocalyptic zombie wasteland with no whether we should believe anything accusing the blue candidate of the same, to believe that a fish somehow turned money for guard rails to protect people from a woman who isn’t married and after which ensued an hour of back and into a human through just, like, random from slippery slopes. probably eats her own boogers. forth criticism with not much progress. things happening over time. yourfallacy.is/slippery-slope yourfallacy.is/ad-hominem yourfallacy.is/tu-quoque yourfallacy.is/personal-incredulity Get a high quality physical deck or find more Creative Commons resources at schoolofthought.org/shop Published under a Creative Commons BY-NC attribution & non-commercial license 2018 by School of Thought – a non profit organization. BACKS : please note that your laser printer will probably not print backs’ position exactly matched so good luck! Single-sided is likely much easier (omit these pages if you want single-sided) PAGE 5 yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is Get a high quality physical deck or find more Creative Commons resources at schoolofthought.org/shop Published under a Creative Commons BY-NC attribution & non-commercial license 2018 by School of Thought – a non profit organization. PAGE 3 your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: special pleading loaded question burden of proof ambiguity Moving the goalposts to create Asking a question that has an Saying that the burden of proof Using double meanings exceptions when a claim is assumption built into it so that lies not with the person making or ambiguities of shown to be false. it can’t be answered without the claim, but with someone language to mislead or Edward Johns claimed to be psychic, appearing guilty. else to disprove. misrepresent the truth. but when his ‘abilities’ were tested Grace and Helen were both romantically Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this When the judge asked the defendant under proper scientific conditions, they interested in Brad. One day, with Brad very moment, in orbit around the Sun why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he magically disappeared. sitting within earshot, Grace asked between the Earth and Mars, and that said that he shouldn’t have to pay them Edward explained this saying that in an inquisitive tone whether Helen because no one can prove him wrong because the sign said ‘Fine for parking one had to have faith in his abilities was having any problems with a his claim is therefore a valid one. here’ and so he naturally presumed that it for them to work. fungal infection. would be fine to park there. yourfallacy.is/special-pleading yourfallacy.is/loaded-question yourfallacy.is/burden-of-proof yourfallacy.is/ambiguity your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: the gambler’s bandwagon appeal composition/ fallacy to authority division Appealing to popularity or Believing that ‘runs’ occur the fact that many people do Using the opinion or position Assuming that what’s true about to statistically independent something as an attempted of an authority figure, one part of something has to be phenomena such as form of validation. or institution of authority, applied to all, or other, parts of it. roulette wheel spins. Shamus pointed a finger at Sean and in place of an actual argument. Daniel was a precocious child and had a Red had come up six times in a row on asked him to explain how so many liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms the roulette wheel, so Greg knew that it Unable to defend his argument that people could believe in leprechauns if the Earth is flat, Bob said that his friend are invisible, and that he was made was close to certain that black would be they’re only a silly old superstition. Sean of atoms and therefore invisible too. next up. Suffering an economic form of Terry was a qualified botanist who also wondered how so many people could believed the Earth to be flat, and had Unfortunately, despite his thinky skills, he natural selection with this thinking, he believe in things based on popularity. lost the game of hide-and-go-seek. soon lost all of his savings. even seen it from up in a tree. yourfallacy.is/the-gamblers-fallacy yourfallacy.is/bandwagon yourfallacy.is/appeal-to-authority yourfallacy.is/composition-division Get a high quality physical deck or find more Creative Commons resources at schoolofthought.org/shop Published under a Creative Commons BY-NC attribution & non-commercial license 2018 by School of Thought – a non profit organization. BACKS : please note that your laser printer will probably not print backs’ position exactly matched so good luck! Single-sided is likely much easier (omit these pages if you want single-sided) PAGE 5 yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is yourfallacy.is Get a high quality physical deck or find more Creative Commons resources at schoolofthought.org/shop Published under a Creative Commons BY-NC attribution & non-commercial license 2018 by School of Thought – a non profit organization. PAGE 4 your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: no true scotsman genetic black-or-white begging the question Making what could be called Judging something good or bad Where two alternative states an appeal to purity as a way to on the basis of where it comes are presented as the only A circular argument in which dismiss relevant criticisms or from, or from whom it comes. possibilities, when in fact the conclusion is included flaws of an argument. Accused on the 6 o’clock news of more possibilities exist. in the premise. corruption and taking bribes, the senator Angus declares that Scotsmen do not put Whilst rallying support for his plan to The word of Zorbo the Great is flawless said that we should all be very wary of sugar on their porridge, to which Lachlan fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, and perfect. We know this because it the things we hear in the media, because points out that he is a Scotsman and puts the Supreme Leader told the people they says so in The Great and Infallible Book we all know how very unreliable the sugar on his porridge. Furious, like a true were either on his side, or on the side of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things media can be. Scot, Angus yells that no true Scotsman of the enemy. that are Definitely True and Should Not sugars his porridge. Ever Be Questioned. yourfallacy.is/no-true-scotsman yourfallacy.is/genetic yourfallacy.is/black-or-white yourfallacy.is/begging-the-question your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: your fallacy is: appeal to nature anecdotal the texas middle ground sharpshooter Making the argument that Using personal experience or Saying that a compromise, or because something is ‘natural’ an isolated example instead of Cherry-picking data clusters to middle point, between two it is therefore valid, justified, a valid argument, especially suit an argument, or finding a extremes is the truth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
    The Fine Art of Baloney Detection Carl Sagan The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called “sciences as one would.” For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless in short are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections colour and infect the understanding. Francis Bacon, Novum Organon (1620) My parents died years ago. I was very close to them. I still miss them terribly. I know I always will. I long to believe that their essence, their personalities, what I loved so much about them, are—really and truly—still in existence somewhere. I wouldn’t ask very much, just five or ten minutes a year, say, to tell them about their grandchildren, to catch them up on the latest news, to remind them that I love them. There’s a part of me—no matter how childish it sounds—that wonders how they are. “Is everything all right?” I want to ask. The last words I found myself saying to my father, at the moment of his death, were “Take care.” Sometimes I dream that I’m talking to my parents, and suddenly—still immersed in the dreamwork—I’m seized by the overpowering realization that they didn’t really die, that it’s all been some kind of horrible mistake.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of LIFESTYLE ACTIVISM from New Left to Occupy
    THE RISE OF LIFESTYLE ACTIVISM From New Left to Occupy NIKOS SOTIRAKOPOULOS The Rise of Lifestyle Activism Nikos Sotirakopoulos The Rise of Lifestyle Activism From New Left to Occupy Nikos Sotirakopoulos Loughborough University United Kingdom ISBN 978-1-137-55102-3 ISBN 978-1-137-55103-0 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-55103-0 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016947743 © Th e Editor(s) (if applicable) and Th e Author(s) 2016 Th e author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identifi ed as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Th is work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and trans- mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Th e publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [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]
  • Diversion Tactics
    Diversion Tactics U N D E R S T A N D I N G M A L A D A P T I V E B E H A V I O R S I N R E L A T I O N S H I P S Toxic people often engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Abusive people may employ these tactics to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions. Here are 20 diversionary tactics toxic people use to silence and degrade you. 1 Diversion Tactics G A S L I G H T I N G Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment. When someone gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sound of Silence ​By Maury Brown
    The Sound of Silence by Maury Brown ​ Number of players: Minimum: 2, Maximum: 12 ​ 2 players: storyteller and silencer are opposite each other. 3 players: storyteller is the point of a triangle and silencers are at 10 and 2 o’clock facing each other. 4-6 players (optimal): storyteller at center, silencers circle around them; storyteller turns to face each as they speak. 7+ players: two storytellers, in groups of 2-6 configured as above. Background: This is a game about communication and trying to be heard. Players will play the roles of people trying to tell their stories,​ and of people responding in various ways that oppress or silence the storyteller, sometimes in well-meaning ways. It’s an exploration of privilege, agonistic rhetoric, and the Enlightenment separation of emotion from reason. It codifies emotional abuse into a set of mechanics that are used strategically against the storyteller. Many of you will play the roles of authority figures and abusers who use manipulative and domineering tactics to control conversations and silence dissent. They do so for the purpose of maintaining the status quo, a position they vigorously defend as best for society (if not themselves). The result is to keep those who are oppressed or marginalized in their place. This may feel very uncomfortable and difficult. We will debrief following the game to discuss how it felt to be both silenced and the silencer. Setup: the game is played in rounds, where the role of the storyteller(s) switches until each player has been both a storyteller and​ a silencer.
    [Show full text]
  • On Appeals to Nature and Their Use in the Public Controversy Over Genetically Modified Organisms Andrei Moldovan
    Document generated on 09/25/2021 12:45 a.m. Informal Logic On Appeals to Nature and their Use in the Public Controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms Andrei Moldovan Volume 38, Number 3, 2018 Article abstract In this paper I discuss appeals to nature, a particular kind of argument that has URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1057048ar received little attention in argumentation theory. After a quick review of the DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i3.5050 existing literature, I focus on the use of such arguments in the public controversy over the acceptabil-ity of genetically-modified organisms in the See table of contents food industry. Those who reject this biotechnology invoke its unnatural character. Such arguments have re-ceived attention in bioethics, where they have been analyzed by distinguishing different meanings that “nature” and Publisher(s) “natural” might have. I argue that in many such appeals to nature the main deficiency of these arguments is semantic, in particular, that these words Informal Logic cannot be assigned a determi-nate meaning at all. In doing so, I rely on semantic externalism, a widely accepted theory of linguistic meaning. ISSN 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Moldovan, A. (2018). On Appeals to Nature and their Use in the Public Controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms. Informal Logic, 38(3), 409–437. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i3.5050 Copyright (c), 2018 Andrei Moldovan This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online.
    [Show full text]
  • All of the Following Material Is Excerpted from Lynn Quitmann Troyka
    All of the following material is copied from section 5f of Lynn Quitmann Troyka. Simon and Schuster: Handbook for Writers 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall 1990. Pages 153-156 without written permission. Recognizing and Avoiding Logical Fallacies Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that lead to illogical statements. They tend to occur most often when ideas are being argued, although they can be found in all types of writing. Most logical fallacies masquerade as reasonable statements, but they are in fact attempts to manipulate readers by reaching their emotions instead of their intellects, their hearts rather than their heads. Most logical fallacies are known by labels; each indicates a way that thinking has gone wrong during the reasoning process. Hasty generalization A hasty generalization occurs when someone generalizes from inadequate evidence. If the statement “My hometown is the best place in the state to live” is supported with only two examples of why it is pleasant, the generalization is hasty. Stereotyping is a type of hasty generalization that occurs when someone makes prejudices, sweeping claims about all of the members of a particular religious, ethnic, racial, or political group: “Everyone from country X is dishonest.” Sexism occurs when someone discriminates against people on the basis of sex. False analogy A false analogy is a comparison in which the differences outweigh the similarities, or the similarities are irrelevant to the claim the analogy is intended to support. “Old Joe Smith would never make a good President because an old dog cannot learn new tricks.” Homespun analogies like this often seem to have an air of wisdom about them, but just as often they fall apart when examined closely.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalness and Unnaturalness in Contemporary Bioethics Anna Smajdor 57 Artikkel Samtale & Kritikk Spalter Brev
    ARTIKKEL SAMTALE & KRITIKK SPALTER BREV Meta-ethical and methodological considerations The is/ought distinction and the naturalistic fallacy FRA FORSKNINGSFRONTEN Nature appears in bioethics in a number of guises and con- There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has texts. At the most basic level, people may feel that it is mo- not been hailed as an insult to some god. But if every rally wrong to alter, distort or subvert natural processes. physical and chemical invention is a blasphemy, every NATURALNESS AND Leon Kass, for example, argues that an intuitive recoiling biological invention is a perversion. There is hardly one from interventions such as cloning that distort or frag- which, on first being brought to the notice of an observer ment the natural processes of reproduction, is a powerful from any nation which had not previously heard of their UNNATURALNESS IN indicator that such interventions are unethical (1998:3– existence, would not appear to him as indecent and un- 61). These are perhaps the most obvious occasions when natural. (Haldane 1924) nature plays an explicit role in informing moral reaso- CONTEMPORARY ning in bioethics. However, there are many other ways in Peter Singer and Deane Wells state categorically that “… which nature colours the concepts and themes employed there is no valid argument from ‘unnatural’ to ‘wrong’ in bioethical deliberation. For example, bioethicists may (2006:9-26). Similar views can be found in the work of BIOETHICS be concerned with the natural world, or nature, especially many bioethicists. A report on the ethics of grafting hu- in terms of our moral responsibility to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Ideas Questions to Ask Yourself When Evaluating What You Read
    Teaching Plan & Guideline for Chapter 5 Content: Evaluating Ideas Questions to ask yourself when evaluating what you read. Facts & opinions Keeping facts and opinions apart Exemplification Practice exercises The writer’s techniques Writer’s style Writer’s purpose Writer’s tone Writer’s mood Writer’s point of view Practice exercises Techniques that twist the truth – Propaganda techniques Types of propaganda techniques & Exemplifications Practice exercises Summing up Review test Test References Objectives: To provide experience that will result in students’ ability to think critically and to: 1. distinguish between facts and opinions and blending fact & opinion 2. evaluate the opinions an author presents, 3. recognize the writer’s techniques 4. identify and recognize an author’s (ironic) tone in order to find author’s purpose. 5. evaluate the role of tone in persuasive writing 6. recognize and evaluate bias or slanted writing in informative and persuasive writing 7. recognize, analyze, and decide if an author’s argument is effective or ineffective in reasoning. 8. recognize circular reasoning or begging the question, special pleading, propaganda techniques, and how to guard against it. 138 Teaching Procedures and Activities. 1. Review the skills in the previous chapters, give examples from Supplementary Material for Teaching 2. Divide students into equal groups, have them discuss handouts on fact / opinion, writer’s techniques, propaganda techniques, circular reasoning, special pleading then each present in class with the help of teachers. 3. Students do practice exercises 4. Test drawn from the Supplementary Material for Teaching Teaching Materials 1. Supplementary Material for Teaching 2. Handouts 3. Reading materials, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHOOL BOARD BUSINESS MEETING Sept. 14, 2020 at 6:30 P.M
    DRAFT SCHOOL BOARD BUSINESS MEETING Sept. 14, 2020 at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING ROOM PRESENT: Ann C. Coker, Bermuda District; Ryan M. Harter, Matoaca District; Kathryn S. ​ Haines, Midlothian District; Dorothy L. Heffron, Vice Chair, Clover Hill District; Debbie G. Bailey, Chair, Dale District; Mervin B. Daugherty, Ed.D., Superintendent; Dr. Thomas Taylor, Deputy Superintendent; Dr. Sharon Pope, Chief Academic Officer; Dr. Lisa High, Chief of Schools; Bob Meister, Chief Financial Officer; Josh Davis, Chief Operations Officer; Wendell Roberts, School Board Attorney; Stephanie Frick, Assistant School Board Attorney; Tim Bullis, Executive Director of Communications and Community Engagement; Dr. Kimberly Hough, Executive Director of Human Resources and Talent Management; Dr. Joseph Tylus, Executive Director of Constituent Services; Brian Jones, Executive Director of Technology; Shawn Smith, Director of Government, Policy, and Media Relations; Dr. Morgan Debusk-Lane, Coordinator of Research and Evaluation; Nick Oyler, Coordinator of Student Health Services; and, Robert McDaniel, School Board Clerk. A. MEETING OPENING Mrs. Bailey called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. ​ Mr. Harter provided the invocation. ​ Mrs. Haines led the pledge of allegiance. ​ B. CONSENT AGENDA ● Agenda Adoption ● Approval of the Minutes ○ Aug. 11, 2020 Board Retreat ○ Aug. 11, 2020 Business Meeting ○ Aug. 25, 2020 Work Session ● Memo #101-20: Revisions to School Board Governance Handbook ● Memo #102-20: FY2021 - Acceptance of New Grants ● Memo #103-20: FY2021 Grant - Claude Moore Scholars ● Memo #104-20: Recommended Personnel Actions ● Memo #105-20: Appointment of Members to Advisory Committees ● Memo #106-20: Approval of Revisions to the Audit and Finance Committee Bylaws ● Memo #107-20: Approval of Revisions to the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee Bylaws ● Memo #108-20: Approval of Additional Budget Appropriation for Human Resources in FY2021 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Naturalizing Error
    Douglas Allchin & Alexander J. Werth The Naturalizing Error Douglas Allchin Minnesota Center for the Philosophy of Science University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN 55455 e-mail: [email protected] phone: 651.603.8805 Alexander J. Werth Department of Biology Hampden-Sydney College Hampden Sydney VA 23901 Abstract We describe an error type that we call the naturalizing error: an appeal to nature as a self-justified description dictating or limiting our choices in moral, economic, political, and other social contexts. Normative cultural perspectives may be subtly and subconsciously inscribed into purportedly objective descriptions of nature, often with the apparent warrant and authority of science, yet not be fully warranted by a systematic or complete consideration of the evidence. Cognitive processes may contribute further to a failure to notice the lapses in scientific reasoning and justificatory warrant. By articulating this error type at a general level, we hope to raise awareness of this pervasive error type and to facilitate critiques of claims that appeal to what is “natural” as inevitable or unchangeable. Keywords error types; naturalizing error; naturalistic fallacy; public understanding of science; social construction of science The Naturalizing Error Abstract We describe an error type that we call the naturalizing error: an appeal to nature as a self-justified description dictating or limiting our choices in moral, economic, political, and other social contexts. Normative cultural perspectives may be subtly and subconsciously inscribed into purportedly objective descriptions of nature, often with the apparent warrant and authority of science, yet not be fully warranted by a systematic or complete consideration of the evidence.
    [Show full text]