DOCSLIB.ORG

Read the Lesson, Make Five Annotations Using the Annotation Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read the Lesson, Make Five Annotations Using the Annotation Guide Name Date Subject Teacher English 12 Snow Day Packet Day 5 Directions: Read the lesson, make five annotations using the annotation guide. After, answer the questions that follow. You may circle or highlight the correct answers. This lesson will introduce you to the logical fallacy and explain how it works in an argument. We'll also discuss examples of common fallacies and the importance of identifying and avoiding them in effective arguments. Then test your knowledge with a quiz. What Is a Logical Fallacy? You've probably heard of Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and scientist, known as the father of logic. Among his vast contributions to the body of knowledge were in reasoning and fallacies: rhetoric , the study of argument and persuasive strategies, and logical fallacy refers to faulty reasoning or a breakdown in the logic of an argument. As writers, we try to avoid fallacies to prove our arguments; as readers, it's important to be able to identify fallacies to discover whether or not we are being misled or if we cannot trust the information we're receiving. While logical fallacies in arguments are often unintentional, writers can sometimes use them intentionally to mislead or manipulate an audience.There are various classifications of fallacies. A structural fallacy refers to a fault in the structure of the premises of an argument. A verbal fallacy is a fault or problem in the way the arguer is speaking or writing; for instance, a politician who is a powerful and emotional public speaker has the ability to captivate an audience with his or her energy and distract the audience from focusing on the actual words and meaning of the argument. And a material fallacy is a fault in the argument itself; for instance, using the example of one broken iPhone to claim that all iPhones are manufactured poorly is known as a hasty generalization. The rest of this lesson will focus on examples of material fallacies. Examples of Common Fallacies The best way to avoid logical fallacies in your writing and to avoid being misguided by them in your reading is to learn how to spot them in an argument. Here are some common material fallacies. It can be helpful to try to spot them in TV advertisements and billboards, especially political campaign ads. 1. Hasty Generalization : A general conclusion that a certain condition is always true based on one instance or observation. For example, John's iPhone broke after two weeks, so there must be something faulty in the general manufacture of iPhones. 2. Ad Hominem (Latin for 'To the man'): Attacking perceived faults of the person rather than his or her argument, resorting to name-calling and labeling. People generally resort to this tactic when they don't have a logical counter-argument. For example, you can't believe that President Smith is going to lower taxes. He's a pathological liar! 3. Appeal to Ignorance: Supporting a claim merely because there is no proof that it's wrong. For example, there's no concrete evidence that pigs can't fly, so they must be able to fly. 4. Appeal to Faith Relying on faith without solid evidence to support a claim. For example, Narnia is a real place because I really believe it exists, even though I've never seen it. I just have faith that it's real! 5. Appeal to Tradition : Pointing to traditional practices or what's always been done in the past to support a claim. For example, pointing to American slavery to justify racial discrimination. (This is similar to the 'two wrongs make a right' fallacy, which we'll talk about shortly). 6. False Authority: Relying on the evidence of a so-called expert. This is a popular tactic in advertising with celebrity endorsements because we look up to and trust the judgment of celebrities, often assuming that because they're wealthy, they have the best of everything. For example, David Beckham signs autographs with Sharpies, so obviously Sharpie is the most reliable pen on the market. 7. Argumentum Ad Baculum : The appeal to fear or a threat. Think email chain letters here. For example, if you don't send this to ten people right now, aliens are going to rob your bank account! 8. Bandwagon Fallacy : The belief that an argument is valid because a majority of people accept it. For example, everyone I know is voting for John Smoot, so he's obviously the best choice for president. 9. Slippery Slope: The belief that a change in procedure will have drastic, adverse consequences. For example, if students are given ten minutes rather than five minutes between classes, they'll just start skipping classes altogether. 10. Two Wrongs Make a Right : Justifying your actions by accusing someone else of doing the same thing. For example, missing curfew and justifying it with the argument that your sister does it all the time. 11. The Straw-Man Fallacy : Attacking an argument that doesn't exist. Think of the straw-man fallacy as kind of like a rhetorical scarecrow, set up to distract. This is a common tactic in debates, with opponents trying to disprove another's claims by attempting to refute them with more complicated and elaborate claims. For example: Person A- Medical marijuana is very effective in relieving pain in cancer patients. Person B- Legalizing marijuana is just going to continue to lead to a lazy and degenerate society. The problem is that person A isn't talking about generally legalizing marijuana, only about its medical properties. Person B is raising the broader issue of the general legalization of marijuana as a distraction from the main issue at hand: access to medical marijuana. Rather than disproving person As claim, person B tries to make the audience focus on a bigger issue and forget about listening to person A. Lesson Summary A logical fallacy is an argument that appears on the surface to be reasonable but in reality is weak or faulty and misleading. There are a few subcategories of fallacies: the structural fallacy , the verbal fallacy and the material fallacy (the last of which was the focus of this lesson). Logical fallacies are most often accidental or unintentional, based on a misinterpretation of information or the need for more evidence. Sometimes, however, logical fallacies are used cleverly to mislead or manipulate an audience - a common tactic in advertising and politics. Common material fallacies include the hasty generalization, the straw-man fallacy, the bandwagon fallacy and the two wrongs make a right fallacy . Note: It's important to remember that these categories are used generally to organize argumentative fallacies. Some fallacies might fall into more than one category. For example, if you decide that Sharpies are the best pen on the market because David Beckham uses them, this is both a false reliance on an authority figure and a hasty generalization because you're basing your conclusion on one example. Learning Outcomes When you are finished, you should be able to: ● Explain what a logical fallacy is and why they are important to identify ● Describe the three classifications of fallacies ● Recite some examples of common material fallacies Assessment 1. What is a logical fallacy? ● Faulty reasoning or logic in an argument ● Plagiarism in research ● None of these answers is correct ● A logical, well-researched argument 2. Which of the following is NOT a material fallacy? ● The bandwagon fallacy ● The hasty generalization ● The verbal fallacy ● The straw-man fallacy 3. 'Lowering the drinking age to 18 will just lead to the legalization of drugs and a degenerate generation of young people!' This is an example of which fallacy? ● False authority ● The straw-man fallacy ● The slippery slope ● Two wrongs make a right 4. 'The Tooth Fairy is real because nobody has proven she doesn't exist.' This is an example of which fallacy? ● Appeal to faith ● Appeal to tradition ● Appeal to ignorance ● Appeal to fear 5. Which of the following is not an example of a common logical fallacy? ● The illogical thesis ● Ad hominem ● Hasty generalization ● Bandwagon fallacy .
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]
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Appeal to Tradition Fallacy Example in Media
    Appeal To Tradition Fallacy Example In Media Alonso bulldogging properly. Smith remains calendered after Stearn forsakes authentically or required any reshipments. Synoptistic and choreographic Taddeo inculcated some tuckahoes so where'er! In deciding whether the writer simply dismissing my belief because generations have read and example in to appeal tradition can have a world was Unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be not arrogant to discussion. What fallacies appeal to tradition has made or fallacious generalizations to tradition. Caesar, not to suit him. The analysis by appealing to continually support this century, andrea dworkin has evolved successfully by. While this tradition. The fallacy often needs to support his past and reporter is used in? Yet people made explicit materials have learned a to tradition. Just as Apollo was born on the Mediterranean island Delos, Napoleon was born on the Mediterranean island Corsica. Or, are least other investors can secure not buying the stock at what current price. As appeals held that appropriately employ to best with little respect. Defining markets through examples were biased ideal or appeal to tradition to cheat if too few carefully lined up? That present ambiguous problem of a fugitive goes unnoticed allows the illusion that an argument is via real deduction. The awareness has to appeal tradition fallacy in? The permission of ai systems is true because of loud, andrea and fallacy in? Do we want to sensitive to be easy free country? Aristotle argued instead observed in government for information. The similarities between people around in persuasive because a topic for president, this is simplified some old argument theorists quarrel with.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilitarianism in the Age of Enlightenment
    UTILITARIANISM IN THE AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT This is the first book-length study of one of the most influential traditions in eighteenth-century Anglophone moral and political thought, ‘theological utilitarianism’. Niall O’Flaherty charts its devel- opment from its formulation by Anglican disciples of Locke in the 1730s to its culmination in William Paley’s work. Few works of moral and political thought had such a profound impact on political dis- course as Paley’s Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785). His arguments were at the forefront of debates about the constitution, the judicial system, slavery and poverty. By placing Paley’s moral thought in the context of theological debate, this book establishes his genuine commitment to a worldly theology and to a programme of human advancement. It thus raises serious doubts about histories which treat the Enlightenment as an entirely secular enterprise, as well as those which see English thought as being markedly out of step with wider European intellectual developments. niall o’flaherty is a Lecturer in the History of European Political Thought at King’s College London. His research focuses on eighteenth- and nineteenth-century moral, political and religious thought in Britain. He has published articles on William Paley and Thomas Robert Malthus, and is currently writing a book entitled Malthus and the Discovery of Poverty. ideas in context Edited by David Armitage, Richard Bourke, Jennifer Pitts and John Robertson The books in this series will discuss the emergence of intellectual traditions and of related new disciplines. The procedures, aims and vocabularies that were generated will be set in the context of the alternatives available within the contemporary frameworks of ideas and institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument
    The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument <http://www.orsinger.com/PDFFiles/constructing-a-persuasive-argument.pdf> [The pdf version of this document is web-enabled with linking endnotes] Richard R. Orsinger [email protected] http://www.orsinger.com McCurley, Orsinger, McCurley, Nelson & Downing, L.L.P. San Antonio Office: 1717 Tower Life Building San Antonio, Texas 78205 (210) 225-5567 http://www.orsinger.com and Dallas Office: 5950 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, Texas 75225 (214) 273-2400 http://www.momnd.com State Bar of Texas 37th ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE August 1-4, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 11 © 2011 Richard R. Orsinger All Rights Reserved The Role of Reasoning in Constructing a Persuasive Argument Chapter 11 Table of Contents I. THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSUASION.. 1 II. PERSUASION IN ARGUMENTATION.. 1 III. BACKGROUND.. 2 IV. USER’S GUIDE FOR THIS ARTICLE.. 2 V. ARISTOTLE’S THREE COMPONENTS OF A PERSUASIVE SPEECH.. 3 A. ETHOS.. 3 B. PATHOS.. 4 C. LOGOS.. 4 1. Syllogism.. 4 2. Implication.. 4 3. Enthymeme.. 4 (a) Advantages and Disadvantages of Commonplaces... 5 (b) Selection of Commonplaces.. 5 VI. ARGUMENT MODELS (OVERVIEW)... 5 A. LOGIC-BASED ARGUMENTS. 5 1. Deductive Logic.. 5 2. Inductive Logic.. 6 3. Reasoning by Analogy.. 7 B. DEFEASIBLE ARGUMENTS... 7 C. THE TOULMIN ARGUMENTATION MODEL... 7 D. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS.. 8 E. ARGUMENTATION SCHEMES.. 8 VII. LOGICAL REASONING (DETAILED ANALYSIS).. 8 A. DEDUCTIVE REASONING.. 8 1. The Categorical Syllogism... 8 a. Graphically Depicting the Simple Categorical Syllogism... 9 b. A Legal Dispute as a Simple Syllogism.. 9 c.
    [Show full text]
  • Doctoraat FINAAL .Pdf
    Here be dragons Here Exploring the hinterland of science Maarten Boudry Here be dragons Exploring the hinterland of science Maarten Boudry ISBN978-90-7083-018-2 Proefschrift voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Doctor in de Wijsbegeerte Promotor: Prof. dr. Johan Braeckman Supervisor Prof. dr. Johan Braeckman Wijsbegeerte en moraalwetenschap Dean Prof. dr. Freddy Mortier Rector Prof. dr. Paul Van Cauwenberghe Nederlandse vertaling: Hic sunt dracones. Een filosofische verkenning van pseudowetenschap en randwetenschap Cover: The image on the front cover is an excerpt of a map by the Flemish cartographer Abraham Ortelius, originally published in Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (1570). ISBN: 978-90-7083-018-2 The author and the promoter give the authorisation to consult and to copy parts of this work for personal use only. Every other use is subject to the copyright laws. Permission to reproduce any material contained in this work should be obtained from the author. Faculty of Arts & Humanities Maarten Boudry Here be Dragons Exploring the Hinterland of Science Proefschrift voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Doctor in de Wijsbegeerte 2011 Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been written without the invaluable help of a number of people (a philosopher cannot help but thinking of them as a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions). Different parts of this work have greatly benefited from stimulating discussions with many colleagues and friends, among whom Barbara Forrest, John Teehan, Herman Philipse, Helen De Cruz, Taner Edis, Nicholas Humphrey, Geerdt Magiels, Bart Klink, Glenn Branch, Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, Michael Ruse, Steve Zara, Amber Griffioen, Johan De Smedt, Lien Van Speybroeck, and Evan Fales.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking
    PHI 1100: Ethics & Critical Thinking Sessions 23 & 24 May 5th & 7th, 2020 Evaluating Arguments: Sufficient Evidence, Reasonable Inferences, Respectful Argumentation 1 A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. Ø Here are four basic criteria which will all be satisfied by a good argument: I. The premises are true. II. The premises provide sufficient evidence to believe that the conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. IV. It demonstrates the author’s respect for their readers/listeners. So far, we have discussed fallacies that involve: • the use of language to present false or misleading evidence • the use of statistics to present false or misleading evidence, insufficient evidence, or to make faulty inferences – This week we’ll go into more detail about fallacies involving the use of language to present 2 insufficient evidence or to make faulty inferences. A good argument persuades readers/listeners by giving us adequate reason to believe that its conclusion is true. III. The conclusion follows logically from the truth of the premises. • Fallacies that fail to satisfy this criterion of a good argument make faulty inferences: – they draw a conclusion that isn’t guaranteed (or extremely likely) to be true even if the premises are true. Ønon sequitur (Latin for ‘it doesn’t follow’) = when an argument draws a conclusion that just isn’t supported by the reasoning they have provided. ]P1] Dorothy is wearing red shoes today. [C] Obviously, red is Dorothy’s favorite color. » Many of the fallacies we’ll consider this week can be classified as subtypes of non sequiturs, • which draw particular types of conclusions from particular types of inadequate evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 1. What Is a Slippery-Slope Argument (SSA)?
    CRITICAL THINKING – HANDOUT 12 – SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS 1. What is a Slippery-Slope Argument (SSA)? A slippery-slope argument (also known as a wedge argument) is an argument that contends that an action should not be performed because if the action were performed, it would lead (by a series of steps) to a negative, disastrous, or undesirable result. STRUCTURE OF A SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT 1 (premise) If A, then B. 2 (premise) If B, then C. 3 (premise) If C, then D (Disaster!) 4 (conclusion) Avoid D (Disaster), don’t allow A. Slippery-slope arguments (SSAs) are commonly used to reject policy reforms as they contend that a seemingly innocuous change in policy will lead, in a step-by-step fashion, to disastrous consequences. EXAMPLE #1 OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT P1 If you legalize marriage for same-sex couples, then men can legally marry men and women can legally marry women. P2 If men can legally marry men and women can marry women, then soon people will be able to legally marry animals. P3 If people are legally able to marry animals, then, not too long later, people will be able to legally marry inanimate objects. P4 But, people should not be allowed to legally marry inanimate objects. Just imagine if you die and are married to a pet rock. Who will inherit your life savings? Not people, but a pet rock. Ridiculous! C Since we don’t want to let pet rocks get inheritances, we should not allow the legalization of same-sex marriages. In addition to persuading individuals, SSAs can be used for humorous effect: EXAMPLE #2 OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT: FROM A DIRECTV COMMERCIAL 1 When your cable company puts you on hold, you get angry.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacy: a Defect in an Argument That Arises from a Mistake in Reasoning Or the Creation of an Illusion That Makes a Bad Argument Appear Good
    Fallacy: A defect in an argument that arises from a mistake in reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. There are two kinds of fallacy: • Formal fallacy: Detectable by analyzing the form of an argument • Informal fallacy: Detectable only by analyzing the content of an argument Fallacies of Relevance: The premises are not relevant to the conclusion: • Appeal to force: Arguer threatens the reader/ listener. • Appeal to pity: Arguer elicits pity from the reader/ listener. • Appeal to the people (Ad Populum): Arguer incites a mob mentality ( direct form) or appeals to our desire for security, love, or respect ( indirect form). This fallacy includes appeal to fear, the bandwagon argument, appeal to vanity, appeal to snobbery, and appeal to tradition. • Argument against the person (Ad hominems): -Arguer personally attacks an opposing arguer by verbally abusing the opponent ( ad hominem abusive) – Presenting the opponent as predisposed to argue as he or she does ( ad hominen circumstantial), or by – Presenting the opponent as a hypocrite ( tu quoque). For ad hominem to occur, there must be two arguers. • Accident: A general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover. • Straw man: Arguer distorts an opponent’s argument and then attacks the distorted argument. N ote: For this fallacy to occur, there must be two arguers. • Missing the point: Arguer draws a conclusion different from the one supported by the premises. N ote: Do not cite this fallacy if another fallacy fits. • Red herring: Arguer leads the reader/ listener off the track. Fallacies of Weak Induction: The premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they supply insufficient support for the conclusion: • Appeal to unqualified authority: Arguer cites an untrustworthy authority.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does It Mean to Say That Logic Is Formal?
    WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT LOGIC IS FORMAL? by John Gordon MacFarlane A.B., Philosophy, Harvard College, 1991 M.A., Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, 1994 M.A., Classics, University of Pittsburgh, 1997 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2000 i Robert Brandom, Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy (Director) Nuel Belnap, Alan Ross Anderson Distinguished Professor of Philosophy (Second Reader) Joseph Camp, Professor of Philosophy Danielle Macbeth, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Haverford College (Outside Reader) Kenneth Manders, Associate Professor of Philosophy Gerald Massey, Distinguished Service Professor of Philosophy ii WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SAY THAT LOGIC IS FORMAL? John Gordon MacFarlane, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2000 Much philosophy of logic is shaped, explicitly or implicitly, by the thought that logic is distinctively formal and abstracts from material content. The distinction between formal and material does not appear to coincide with the more familiar contrasts between a pri- ori and empirical, necessary and contingent, analytic and synthetic—indeed, it is often invoked to explain these. Nor, it turns out, can it be explained by appeal to schematic inference patterns, syntactic rules, or grammar. What does it mean, then, to say that logic is distinctively formal? Three things: logic is said to be formal (or “topic-neutral”) (1) in the sense that it provides constitutive norms for thought as such, (2) in the sense that it is indifferent to the particular identities of objects, and (3) in the sense that it abstracts entirely from the semantic content of thought.
    [Show full text]