Intentional Seekers Seek Truth
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From Logic to Rhetoric: a Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies
Current Issue From the Editors Weblog Editorial Board Editorial Policy Submissions Archives Accessibility Search Composition Forum 32, Fall 2015 From Logic to Rhetoric: A Contextualized Pedagogy for Fallacies Anne-Marie Womack Abstract: This article reenvisions fallacies for composition classrooms by situating them within rhetorical practices. Fallacies are not formal errors in logic but rather persuasive failures in rhetoric. I argue fallacies are directly linked to successful rhetorical strategies and pose the visual organizer of the Venn diagram to demonstrate that claims can achieve both success and failure based on audience and context. For example, strong analogy overlaps false analogy and useful appeal to pathos overlaps manipulative emotional appeal. To advance this argument, I examine recent changes in fallacies theory, critique a-rhetorical textbook approaches, contextualize fallacies within the history and theory of rhetoric, and describe a methodology for rhetorically reclaiming these terms. Today, fallacy instruction in the teaching of written argument largely follows two paths: teachers elevate fallacies as almost mathematical formulas for errors or exclude them because they don’t fit into rhetorical curriculum. Both responses place fallacies outside the realm of rhetorical inquiry. Fallacies, though, are not as clear-cut as the current practice of spotting them might suggest. Instead, they rely on the rhetorical situation. Just as it is an argument to create a fallacy, it is an argument to name a fallacy. This article describes an approach in which students must justify naming claims as successful strategies and/or fallacies, a process that demands writing about contexts and audiences rather than simply linking terms to obviously weak statements. -
ANTONY ANTONIOU (OSINT Security Analyst)
EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCE ACADEMY (EIA) E-BOOK No. 1, MAY 2013 ANTONY ANTONIOU (OSINT Security Analyst) OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION, THE FUTURE OF INTELLIGENCE Copyright: Research Institute for European and American Studies (RIEAS) EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCE ACADEMY E-BOOK No. 1 MAY 2013 OPEN SOURCE INFORMATION, THE FUTURE OF INTELLIGENCE ANTONY ANTONIOU (OSINT Security Analyst) Preface. People from ancient times to our days had understood the importance of information and the significant role that valid information can play in all fields of human activities (politics, economy, during wars etc). References to spies, and their methods – techniques and means that they used can be found in historical texts from antiquity until today, also known theorists of war have addressed and reported (in their writings), the importance of information and the necessity of an enemy misinformation (we will mention two of them of Carl Von Clausewitz1 and Sun - Tzu2). The intelligence services began to take shape during the Second World War. Pioneers at the “intelligence field” were the Germans (in espionage, cryptography - cryptology, propaganda and generally speaking at the development of the appropriate techniques – methods and instruments – means), followed by British. Americans because of their non-participation in the war had left behind in the development of techniques and means for collecting and processing information. This changed after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor3 and the American entry into the war4. The USA intelligence 1 Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (1 July 1780 – 16 November 1831): was a German-Prussian soldier and military theorist who stressed the "moral" (in modern terms, psychological) and political aspects of war. -
35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected]
Kennesaw State University DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University Sexy Technical Communications Open Educational Resources 3-1-2016 35. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Cherie Miller Kennesaw State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm Part of the Technical and Professional Writing Commons Recommended Citation Miller, Steve and Miller, Cherie, "35. Logic: Common Fallacies" (2016). Sexy Technical Communications. 35. http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/oertechcomm/35 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources at DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sexy Technical Communications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Kennesaw State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Logic: Common Fallacies Steve and Cherie Miller Sexy Technical Communication Home Logic and Logical Fallacies Taken with kind permission from the book Why Brilliant People Believe Nonsense by J. Steve Miller and Cherie K. Miller Brilliant People Believe Nonsense [because]... They Fall for Common Fallacies The dull mind, once arriving at an inference that flatters the desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that the notion from which the inference started was purely problematic. ― George Eliot, in Silas Marner In the last chapter we discussed passages where bright individuals with PhDs violated common fallacies. Even the brightest among us fall for them. As a result, we should be ever vigilant to keep our critical guard up, looking for fallacious reasoning in lectures, reading, viewing, and especially in our own writing. None of us are immune to falling for fallacies. -
Argument Content and Argument Source: an Exploration
Argument Content and Argument Source: An Exploration ULRIKE HAHN ADAM J.L. HARRIS ADAM CORNER School of Psychology Cardiff University Tower Building Park Place Cardiff CF10 3AT United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Argumentation is pervasive Résumé: L’argumentation est em- in everyday life. Understanding what ployée couramment dans la vie de tous makes a strong argument is therefore les jours. Il est donc dans notre intérêt of both theoretical and practical théorique et pratique de comprendre interest. One factor that seems ce qui rend un argument puissant. Un intuitively important to the strength of facteur qui semble intuitivement im- an argument is the reliability of the portant qui contribue à cette puissance source providing it. Whilst traditional est la fiabilité des sources d’infor- approaches to argument evaluation are mation employées dans un argument. silent on this issue, the Bayesian Quoique les approches traditionnelles approach to argumentation (Hahn & sur l’évaluation d’un argument soient Oaksford, 2007) is able to capture silencieuses sur ce sujet, l’approche important aspects of source reliability. bayesienne peut apporter quelques In particular, the Bayesian approach aspects importants sur l’évaluation de predicts that argument content and la fiabilité des sources: elle prédit que source reliability should interact to le contenu d’un argument et la fiabilité determine argument strength. In this d’une source devraient agir un sur paper, we outline the approach and l’autre pour déterminer la puissance then demonstrate the importance of d’un argument. Dans cet article nous source reliability in two empirical traçons les grandes lignes de cette studies. -
Logical Fallacies, Long Lost Art of Rhetoric I Cheat Sheet by Jorgejuan007
Logical Fallacies, Long Lost Art of Rhetoric I Cheat Sheet by Jorge Juan (jorgejuan007) via cheatography.com/35958/cs/11445/ Definition Mindmap A fallacy is the use of invalid or faulty reasoning. Some fallacies are committed intenti onally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed uninten tio nally due to careles sness or ignorance Aristotle was the first to systema tize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument Richard Whately defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not" https:/ /en .wi kip edi a.or g/ wik i/L ist _of _fa lla cies Formal fallacies The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the Appeal to Takes something for granted because it would probably easiest person to fool probab‐ be the case Something can go wrong Richard P. Feynman ility (premise). Therefore, something will go wrong (invalid conclus ion) Types of Fallacies Argument Aka fallacy fallacy, assumes that if an argument is Formal An error in logic in the argument's form. from fallaci ous, then the conclusion is false If P, then Q. Non Sequiturs fallacy P is a fallacious argument. Therefore, Q Propositional fallacies is false Quantif ica tion fallacies Syllogi stic fallacies Informal Reasons other than structu ral, require examin‐ ation of the argument's content Faulty general iza tions Red herring fallacies Condi tional or Arguments disregard or confusion questio nable Other systems of classif ica tion The most famous are those of Francis Bacon and J. -
On the Shoulders of Giants.Pdf
On the Shoulders of Giants Tommy Jensen; Timothy L. Wilson Download free books at Tommy Jensen & Timothy L. Wilson On the Shoulders of Giants 2 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com On the Shoulders of Giants 1st edition © 2014 Tommy Jensen & Timothy L. Wilson & bookboon.com ISBN 978-87-403-0751-1 3 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com On the Shoulders of Giants Contents Contents Rediscovering intellectual efforts 8 Background to this book 11 Selection of contributors and giants 12 Acknowledgement 13 Contents of this book 14 1 Georges Bataille 19 On His Shoulders (And Other Parts of the Body of Knowledge) Alf Rehn and Marcus Lindahl 2 Zygmunt Bauman 31 The Holocaust and Organization Studies Tommy Jensen 4 Click on the ad to read more Download free eBooks at bookboon.com On the Shoulders of Giants Contents 3 Reinhard Bendix 47 Work and Authority in Industry Markus Kallifatides 4 Marta B. Calás and Linda Smircich 60 Seductive Poststructuralist Re-readings of Leadership Ulla Eriksson-Zetterquist 5 Richard M. Cyert and James G. March 74 An Eye-opener and a Lifelong Love Affair Rolf A. Lundin 360° 6 Peter F. Drucker 85 Father of Management and Grandfather of Marketing Timothy L. Wilson 360° thinking. 7 Henri Fayol 95 The Man Who Designed Modern Management Karin Holmblad Brunsson thinking. 360° thinking . 360° thinking. Discover the truth at www.deloitte.ca/careers Discover the truth at www.deloitte.ca/careers © Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. Discover the truth at www.deloitte.ca/careers © Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. © Deloitte & Touche LLP and affiliated entities. -
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. -
Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument
Inductive Arguments: Fallacies ID1050– Quantitative & Qualitative Reasoning Analyzing an Inductive Argument • In an inductive argument, the conclusion follows from its premises with some likelihood. • Inductive arguments can be strong, weak, or somewhere between. • Ways to attack an inductive argument: • Introduce additional (contradictory) premises that weaken the argument. • Question the accuracy of the supporting premises. • Identify one (or more) logical fallacies in the argument. What is a Fallacy? • A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning in an argument. • Formal fallacy • A ‘formal fallacy’ is an error in the structure of an argument. • Formal fallacies are used to analyze deductive arguments for validity by means of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy • An ‘informal fallacy’ is an error in the content of an argument. • This is the type of fallacy that will be discussed in this presentation. • An argument with a fallacy is said to be ‘fallacious’. Formal and Informal Fallacies • Formal fallacy example: • All humans are mammals. All dogs are mammals. So, all humans are dogs. • This argument has a structural flaw. The premises are true, but they do not logically lead to the conclusion. This would be uncovered by the use of symbolic logic. • Informal fallacy example: • All feathers are light. Light is not dark. So, all feathers are not dark. • The structure of this argument is actually correct. The error is in the content (different meanings of the word ‘light’.) It uses a fallacy called ‘Equivocation’. Lists of Fallacies • There are a great number of identified fallacies of the informal type. Following are some good websites that list them and provide definitions and examples. -
1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims
1 Chapter 6 (Part 2): Assessing Truth Claims In the previous tutorial we saw that the standard of acceptability of a statement (or premise) depends on the context. In certain contexts we may only require that a premise seem reasonable and in other contexts we may require a strict proof of the truth of a premise, yet other contexts will require something in between. We need to take this approach when we wish to determine if a premise meets the minimum level of acceptability given the context. Sometimes, however, premises commit fallacies which enables one to reject a premise outright. We will now examine some fallacies that, when committed, require us to reject a premise. 1.1 Some Particular Fallacies 1.1.1 Begging the Question A an argument begs the question when its premises presuppose, directly or indirectly, the truth of the conclusion. This must lead to the rejection of the premises involved in the fallacy since any reason for doubting the conclusion becomes a reason for doubting the premises. An example of an argument that begs the question is the following: The Bible frequently says that it is the word of God and the word of God must obviously be true. Therefore, whatever the Bible says is true. It is possible that the conclusion of this argument is true, but the premises do not support it since they presuppose it. The only way to accept the premises is if you already accept (or assume) the conclusion. One can see that arguments that beg the question argue in a circle. -
On Arguments from Ignorance
On Arguments from Ignorance MARTIN HINTON University of Łódź Department of English and General Linguistics Łódź, Poland [email protected] Abstract: The purpose of this paper is Résumé: Le but de cet article est dou- twofold: to give a good account of the ble: donner un bon compte rendu de argument from ignorance, with a pre- l'argument par l'ignorance, avec un sumptive argumentation scheme, and schème d'argumentation présomptif, et to raise issues on the work of Walton, soulever des questions sur certains the nature of abduction and the con- aspects de l’œuvre de Walton, la na- cept of epistemic closure. First, I offer ture des raisonnements abductifs et le a brief disambiguation of how the concept de fermeture épistémique. terms 'argument from ignorance' and Premièrement, j'offre une brève dé- 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' are sambiguïsation de la façon dont les used. Second, I show how attempts to termes «argument par l'ignorance» et embellish this form of reasoning by «argumentum ad ignorantiam» sont Douglas Walton and A.J. Kreider have utilisés. Deuxièmement, je montre been unnecessary and unhelpful. Last- comment les tentatives de Douglas ly, I offer a full and effective account Walton et de A.J. Kreider d'embellir of the argument from ignorance and cette forme de raisonnement ont été ni discuss the lessons of the analysis. nécessaires et ni utiles. Enfin, j'offre un compte-rendu complet et utile de l'argument par l'ignorance et je discute des leçons de l'analyse Keywords: argument from ignorance; argumentation scheme; Kreider; Walton 1. Introduction The argument from ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam, itself needs little introduction. -
Fallacies of Relevance1
1 Phil 2302 Logic Dr. Naugle Fallacies of Relevance1 "Good reasons must, of force, give place to better." —Shakespeare "There is a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons, and reasons that sound good." —Burton Hillis "It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it." —Arthur Schopenhauer Introduction: There are many ways to bring irrelevant matters into an argument and the study below will examine many of them. These fallacies (pathological arguments!) demonstrate the lengths to which people will go to win an argument, even if they cannot prove their point! Fallacies of relevance share a common characteristic in that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, the premises seem to be relevant psychologically, so that the conclusion seems to follow from the premises. The actual connection between premises and conclusion is emotional, not logical. To identify a fallacy of relevance, you must be able to distinguish between genuine evidence and various unrelated forms of appeal. FALLACIES THAT ATTACK I. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum ="argument toward the club or stick") "Who overcomes by force has overcome but half his foe." Milton. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is like hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde 1 NB: This material is taken from several logic texts authored by N. -
Fallacies of Argument
RHETORIC Fallacies What are fallacies? Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. The examples below are a sample of the most common fallacies. Common Fallacies: Emotional—The fallacies below appeal to inappropriately evoked emotions instead of using logic, facts, and evidence to support claims. ● Ad Hominem (Argument to the Man): attacking a person's character instead of the content of that person's argument. Not simply namecalling, this argument suggests that the argument is flawed because of its source. For example, David Horowitz as quoted in the Daily Pennsylvanian: “Anyone who says that about me [that he’s a racist bigot] is a Nazi.” ● Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument From Ignorance): concluding that something is true since you can't prove it is false. For example "God must exist, since no one can demonstrate that she does not exist." ● Argumentum Ad Misericordiam (Appeal To Pity): appealing to a person's unfortunate circumstance as a way of getting someone to accept a conclusion. For example, "You need to pass me in this course, since I'll lose my scholarship if you don't." ● Argumentum Ad Populum (Argument To The People): going along with the crowd in support of a conclusion. For example, "The majority of Americans think we should have military operations in Afghanistan; therefore, it’s the right thing to do." ● Argumentum Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to False Authority): appealing to a popular figure who is not an authority in that area.