DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER 9 Problems in Critical Reading-Evaluating Arguments CHAPTER 9: PROBLEMS in CRITICAL READING EVALUATING ARGUMENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER 9 Problems in Critical Reading-Evaluating Arguments CHAPTER 9: PROBLEMS in CRITICAL READING EVALUATING ARGUMENTS CHAPTER 9 Problems in Critical Reading-Evaluating Arguments CHAPTER 9: PROBLEMS IN CRITICAL READING EVALUATING ARGUMENTS Inductive and deductive reasoning The Toulmin method of analyzing arguments Problems with arguments Emotional appeals in arguments Common logical fallacies Detecting bias The new media INDUCTIVE REASONING An inductive argument (specific to general) is built upon a set of facts derived from observation or experience that serve as evidence and that lead to a conclusion. Inductive arguments are sometimes called probability arguments because the conclusion is only probable, not certain. Consider this example: Evidence: In 2008 a majority of teenagers aged 12 to 17 used social networking websites. Evidence :The popular networking sites MySpace and Facebook are used by both high school and college students as well as by adults. Evidence :The growth of Club Penguin, a social networking website that caters to children and preteens, has been phenomenal. Conclusion: Social networking websites will continue to gain in popularity. Although the conclusion is a reasonable one given the three pieces of evidence, it, too, is only a claim of probability because its truth remains to be proved in the future. DEDUCTIVE REASONING Unlike an inductive argument, which moves from specific to general, a deductive argument moves from general to specific; in other words, it moves from reason to conclusion or to specific application with certainty. Consider this example: Premise 1:Things that harm the environment should be banned. Premise 2 :Nonbiodegradable plastic bags are harmful to the environment. Conclusion: Therefore, these plastic shopping bags should be banned As long as the argument follows the prescribed form of the syllogism, it is logically valid; further, if the premises are true, that is, if they consist of an acceptable claim, and not a generalization, then the argument is considered to be sound or reliable. THE TOULMIN METHOD The Toulmin method breaks an argument into these parts—the claim, the qualifier, the warrant, the backing and grounds, and the reservation. The claim is the writer’s argument or proposition and that claims can be classified into three types—fact, value, or policy. The qualifier is a way of showing the probability of the argument, and involves the use of words like often, mostly, certain, sometimes, and so forth. The warrant is the same as the assumptions upon which the argument rests. The backing and grounds is the evidence—the support (whether facts, reasons, the testimony of, statistical data, and so forth) that makes the reader more likely to accept the claim. The reservation is just another word for the refutation. PROBLEMS WITH ARGUMENTS (HASTY GENERALIZATIONS) A hasty generalization is an all-inclusive statement and is made “in haste,” without allowing for exceptions and qualifiers. For example: If you’re in the market to buy a dog, don’t get a Shetland collie. All Shelties are nervous and high-strung. My friend, Pamela Gentile, has a Sheltie, and that dog yaps at every little sound and even when the phone rings. He jumps all over people, too. This generalization stems from an observation of only one Shetland collie and leaves no room for exceptions. (Notice that instead of using a qualifier in this argument, the writer uses “all”—an automatic red flag alert for the critical reader.) Producing even one calm Shetland collie negates the argument. A careful writer might qualify this statement by saying, “some,” “often,” “the one Shetland I have observed,” and so forth. STEREOTYPING Stereotyping is similar to the hasty generalization, except that it results in generalizations about people because of their gender, age, ethnic background, race, attire, or other characteristics. For example; In my college math classes I have observed there are more Asians than any other group. This must be because Asians are really good in math, and that makes it hard for the rest of us who have to struggle just to pass. This stereotype places all Asian students into a category based on a supposedly shared characteristic. If the observation is true—that math classes tend to have more Asians than members of other races—there may be other reasons to account for this fact besides the questionable assertion of inherent ability. INCORRECT SAMPLING Inductive arguments often include a sampling of a larger group, which, if done incorrectly, can produce a flawed conclusion. Consider the results of this study based on a sample: In 2000 a team of scientists at the University of California at Berkeley published a study in the science journal Nature saying that differences in finger lengths might yield clues to sexual orientation. In brief, the researchers found that lesbians had more “masculine” hands than heterosexual women. Supposedly, the index fingers of lesbians—unlike those of heterosexual women—are significantly shorter than their ring fingers. The researchers concluded that “homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women.” (Quoted in Carl T. Hall, “Finger Length Points to Sexual Orientation,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2000.) This article was picked up by the national media and had women all over the country measuring their index fingers. However, the method of sampling was problematic: The scientists had set up booths at gay pride events in Berkeley and San Francisco. Then they offered willing participants a free $1 lottery ticket if they agreed to have their hands measured and to answer a detailed questionnaire. The team examined the hands of 720 adults. APPEALS IN ARGUMENT Writers of argumentative and persuasive prose often use emotional and manipulative appeals. An appeal is something that makes an argument attractive, worth considering, or plausible. Appeals can be legitimate or illegitimate. An illegitimate appeal seeks to control our emotions by spurious means, meaning that the writer plays on emotions irrelevant to the argument. In other words, the appeal diverts us from the real argument. EMOTIONAL APPEALS: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY A writer who uses the appeal to authority allows the claim to rest solely on the fact that a supposed authority is behind it. The authority may not be identified or may be highly biased. Linus Pauling, a chemist from Stanford University who won both the Nobel Prize for science and the Nobel Peace Prize, believed that massive doses of Vitamin C could prevent cancer. The fact that a famous scientist believes something doesn’t make it so, nor in this case did the rest of the scientific and medical community accept his theory. Also Pauling EMOTIONAL APPEALS: APPEAL TO FEAR The appeal to fear arouses fear about what will happen if we adopt (or fail to adopt) a certain course. Probably the most relevant and current example is the War on Terror, a term deliberately chosen to keep the public in a high state of fear and anxiety. The Bush administration used the War on Terror to justify governmental intrusions that the public might otherwise find unacceptable (some provisions of the Patriot Act, like warrantless wiretapping and investigating the books certain people borrow from the library, are only two examples). EMOTIONAL APPEALS: APPEAL TO PATRIOTISM The appeal to patriotism suggests that an argument is worth holding out of loyalty to one’s country or to one’s political party or some other group to which we belong. The appeal implies the accusation that going against the country or group’s policies is wrong. If you were a true American patriot, you would support American foreign policy. Common bumper sticker during the Vietnam War: “America: Love it or leave it.” If my union tells its members to vote for a certain candidate, it must be right. EMOTIONAL APPEAL : APPEAL TO SYMPATHY OR PITY Should we accept an argument simply because we feel sorry for someone? An appeal to sympathy or pity asks us to suspend our critical judgment because we pity a victim of sad circumstances or because we can identify with someone else’s troubles. The fact that Emma Jones hasn’t paid her rent for six months is no reason for her landlord to evict her. Her husband died, she recently found out that she suffers from high blood pressure, and she has three children to support on her salary as a Wal-Mart sales clerk. EMOTIONAL APPEAL: APPEAL TO PREJUDICE Like the appeal to fear, the appeal to prejudice inflames negative feelings, beliefs, or stereotypes about racial, ethnic, or religious groups or about gender or sexual orientations. Emotion replaces reasoned discourse. Of course the federal government should build a fence along the Mexican border. Illegal immigrants sneak across the border now and take jobs away from Americans who are out of work, and then once they’re here their children automatically become American citizens. EMOTIONAL APPEAL: APPEAL TO TRADITION An appeal to tradition asks us to accept a practice because it has always been done that way or because it represents some long-standing venerable tradition. The Roman Catholic Church has forbidden women to become priests for nearly 2,000 years. Why should the Church abandon this practice now? The Democratic party has always stood up for the little guy. That’s why I’m a Democrat. OTHER MANIPULATIVE APPEALS BANDWAGON APPEAL The bandwagon appeal rests on the assumption that everyone likes to be on the winning side or to do what everyone else is doing. It’s an appeal to popularity. If everybody is doing it, it must be good. The origin of this metaphorically named appeal comes from the fact that lots of people ride on the bandwagon at a parade. Eighty percent of Mapleton residents support the petition for the city to build a new football stadium. That’s why I’m voting yes on Measure 11 on the November ballot.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online
    Breaking Down the Invisible Wall of Informal Fallacies in Online Discussions Saumya Yashmohini Sahai Oana Balalau The Ohio State University, USA Inria, Institut Polytechnique de Paris, France [email protected] [email protected] Roxana Horincar Thales Research & Technology, France [email protected] Abstract more appropriate. Fallacies are prevalent in public discourse. For example, The New York Times la- People debate on a variety of topics on online beled the tweets of Donald Trump between 2015 platforms such as Reddit, or Facebook. De- bates can be lengthy, with users exchanging and 2020 and found thousands of insults addressed a wealth of information and opinions. How- to his adversaries. If made in an argument, an in- ever, conversations do not always go smoothly, sult is an ad hominem fallacy: an attack on the and users sometimes engage in unsound argu- opponent rather than on their argument. In pri- mentation techniques to prove a claim. These vate conversations, other types of fallacies might techniques are called fallacies. Fallacies are be more prevalent, for example, appeal to tradition persuasive arguments that provide insufficient or appeal to nature. Appeal to tradition dismisses or incorrect evidence to support the claim. In calls to improve gender equality by stating that this paper, we study the most frequent falla- cies on Reddit, and we present them using “women have always occupied this place in soci- the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta- ety”. Appeal to nature is often used to ignore calls tion. We construct a new annotated dataset of to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community by stat- fallacies, using user comments containing fal- ing “gender is binary”.
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Logical Fallacies
    OneAvoiding of the easiest ways Logical to strengthen aFallacies paper that presents an argument is to free it from improper logical reasoning. Here’s a list of commonly used yet fallacious types of argument to be sure to avoid.* Reductio ad Absurdum/Slippery Slope: This type of argument assumes the truth of the opponent’s position, and draws out the consequences of it being true, looking for a contradiction or an undesirable, absurd consequence. It is possible for this argument to be valid, but the fallacy occurs when the opponent’s consequences become unrealistic. Let’s say we allow homosexuals to marry. Then we would also need to allow people to have multiple spouses. Then we’d need to allow people to marry dogs. Soon the institution of marriage will just be a joke. Straw Man: An argument in which a weak, generally inaccurate version of an opposing viewpoint is presented as a means of strengthening one’s own argument. Opponents of the war say that we can just have tea with the terrorists and everything will be okay. Obviously, this is wrong, so we need to bomb Iraq. False Dilemma: Also called a false dichotomy, this is an argument that falsely states or implies that only two options are available: the position being argued, or something undesirable. If we don’t teach people Christian values in schools, they will not learn morals. Therefore, we must teach people Christian values in schools. Affirming the Consequent: This is a formally invalid argument of the form “If A, then B; B; therefore A.” It confuses the idea that A can only be true when B is true for the idea that B can only be true if A is true.
    [Show full text]
  • So You Say: Demonstrated Facts V. Unsupported Assertions
    So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Prepared by: Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and W. Michael Gillette, Associate Justice (retired) Oregon Supreme Court Shareholder: Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt Prepared for: 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Copyright © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications Wilsonville, Oregon So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions © 2017 Ipse Dixit Publications 2017 National Association of Hearing Officials Professional Development Conference Page 1 So You Say: Demonstrated Facts v. Unsupported Assertions Toni Boone, Administrative Law Judge (retired) W. Michael Gillette, Association Justice, Oregon Supreme Court (retired) I. Burdens of Proof A. “Burden of Proof” Defined: 1. Duty placed upon a party to a civil or criminal action to prove or disprove a disputed fact. 2. “Burden of Proof” is also used as a synonym for “Burden of Persuasion” which is the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed fact. B. Preponderance of the Evidence Defined: 1. Evidence, as a whole, shows fact to be proved is more probable than not. 2. The existence of the fact at issue is more likely than not. 3. The greater weight of the credible evidence. 4. More evidence or more credible evidence than evidence offered in opposition to it. C. Clear and Convincing Evidence Defined: The existence of a particular fact is highly probable or reasonably certain. This standard may be used in some jurisdictions when the issue is whether a person was guilty of deceit or fraud—a matter that had to be proved at common law by clear and convincing evidence, rather than by a mere preponderance.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 a Great Big List of Fallacies
    Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense Appendix 1 A Great Big List of Fallacies To avoid falling for the "Intrinsic Value of Senseless Hard Work Fallacy" (see also "Reinventing the Wheel"), I began with Wikipedia's helpful divisions, list, and descriptions as a base (since Wikipedia articles aren't subject to copyright restrictions), but felt free to add new fallacies, and tweak a bit here and there if I felt further explanation was needed. If you don't understand a fallacy from the brief description below, consider Googling the name of the fallacy, or finding an article dedicated to the fallacy in Wikipedia. Consider the list representative rather than exhaustive. Informal fallacies These arguments are fallacious for reasons other than their structure or form (formal = the "form" of the argument). Thus, informal fallacies typically require an examination of the argument's content. • Argument from (personal) incredulity (aka - divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false. • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed so extensively that nobody cares to discuss it anymore. • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct. • Argumentum verbosium – See proof by verbosity, below. • (Shifting the) burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. • Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with (or assumes) what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
    [Show full text]