FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016
Download as PPTX, PDF3 likes6,816 views
The document provides an introduction to common logical fallacies. It defines fallacies as arguments that seem correct but are not valid upon examination. It focuses on three main categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. Under fallacies of relevance, it discusses the argument from ignorance, appeal to inappropriate authority, appeal to popular opinion, complex question, begging the question, false dilemma, and ad hominem. It also covers fallacies of ambiguity like equivocation and accent. The document aims to help readers identify and avoid using fallacious reasoning.
More Related Content
Similar to FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016 (20)
![Communication and gender[1]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/communicationandgender1-110328020506-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=560&fit=bounds)
FALLACIES Critical Thinking First PPT July 2016
- 1. INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING JULY 2016 By: Raji Thomas
- 2. Introduction to Critical Thinking Topic 5 FALLACIES
- 3. Fallacies ILO 1. Define various types of fallacies 2. Identify fallacies in arguments 3. Show weaknesses of a fallacious argument and correct the identified fallacies.
- 5. What are fallacies • Fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves, on examination, not to be so. • Most fallacies are normally psychologically persuasive- although some fallacies can hardly persuade or deceive any normal person
- 6. To be forewarned is to be forearmed
- 7. Copi and Cohen’s text book • We shall focus on – Fallacies of relevance – Fallacies of ambiguity – Fallacies presumption
- 8. Fallacies of Relevance • Fallacies of Relevance are committed when an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth. • Unwary persons fall into fallacies of relevance due to their persuasiveness and their seeming correctness- premises that are psychologically relevant
- 9. The argument from ignorance argument ad ignorantiam • In an argument from ignorance, it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, that it is false because it has not been proven true For example: “You can’t prove that there aren’t Martians living in caves under the surface of Mars, so it is reasonable for me to believe there are.”
- 10. The appeal to inappropriate authority: argument ad verecudiam • When the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. • Buy Samsung because Drogba recommends it • Also common in moral debates
- 11. Appeal to Popular Opinion • This type of appeal is when someone claims that an idea or belief is true simply because it is what most people believe. For example: “Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.”
- 12. Complex Question • Asking a question in such a way as to presuppose the truth of some conclusion buried in the question • For example: “If aliens didn’t steal my newspaper, who did?” (assume that the newspaper was actually stolen).
- 13. Begging the question: petitio principii • Assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove. • All of us cannot be famous, because all of us cannot be well known
- 14. False Dilemma/Dichotomy • Sometimes referred to as Bifurcation, this type of fallacy occurs when someone presents their argument in such a way that there are only two possible options. • For example: “If you don’t vote for this candidate, you must be a Communist.”
- 15. Argument ad hominem • A fallacious attack in which the thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it. – Argument ad hominem abusive: attacking the intelligence, integrity, reasonableness of others etc – Argument ad hominem circumstantial
- 16. Accident and converse accident • When we apply a generalization to individual cases that it does not properly govern. • Or when we by design or carelessly apply a principle that is true of a particular case to the great run of case. • i.e. Are there Jews in your house? From a Gestapo. No!
- 17. False cause • Treating something as the cause of something else when in reality it is not the cause. Post hoc ergo propter hoc After a thing therefore because of a thing
- 18. Appeal to Emotions • Replaces the laborious task of presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language and other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger, or hate. • Politics, adverts
- 19. The appeal to pity; argument ad misericordiam • Going for the mercy The appeal to force; argument ad baculum • To the stick- abandonment of reason
- 20. Fallacies of Ambiguity • Equivocation- when we confuse several meanings of a word or phrase- accidentally or deliberately- we are using the word equivocally
- 21. Amphiboly • A statement is rendered amphibolous when the loose or awkward combination of its words renders its meaning indeterminate. • Passing someone on the road a load
- 22. Accent • When a premises relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion drawn from it relies on the meaning of the same word accented differently. i.e. We should not speak ill of our friends
- 23. Hasty Generalization • Definition: Making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a sample that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small). – Stereotypes about people are a common example of the principle underlying hasty generalization. • Example: "My roommate said her philosophy class was hard, and the one I'm in is hard, too. All philosophy classes must be hard!" – Two people's experiences are, in this case, not enough on which to base a conclusion.
- 24. Missing the Point • Definition: The premises of an argument do support a particular conclusion--but not the conclusion that the arguer actually draws. • Example: "The seriousness of a punishment should match the seriousness of the crime. Right now, the punishment for drunk driving may simply be a fine. But drunk driving is a very serious crime that can kill innocent people. So the death penalty should be the punishment for drunk driving." – The argument actually supports several conclusions-- "The punishment for drunk driving should be very serious," in particular--but it doesn't support the claim that the death penalty, specifically, is warranted.
- 25. Slippery Slope • Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. – The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill. • Example: "Animal experimentation reduces our respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now." – Since animal experimentation has been legal for some time and civilization has not yet ended, it seems particularly clear that this chain of events won't necessarily take place. Also known as “the Camel’s Nose
- 26. Weak Analogy • Definition: Many arguments rely on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations. If the two things that are being compared aren't really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one, and the argument that relies on it commits the fallacy of weak analogy. • Example: "Guns are like hammers--they're both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone. And yet it would be ridiculous to restrict the purchase of hammers--so restrictions on purchasing guns are equally ridiculous." – While guns and hammers do share certain features, these features (having metal parts, being tools, and being potentially useful for violence) are not the ones at stake in deciding whether to restrict guns. Rather, we restrict guns because they can easily be used to kill large numbers of people at a distance. This is a feature hammers do not share--it'd be hard to kill a crowd with a hammer. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it. • If you think about it, you can make an analogy of some kind between almost any two things in the world: "My paper is like a mud puddle because they both get bigger when it rains (I work more when I'm stuck inside) and they're both kind of murky." So the mere fact that you draw an analogy between two things doesn't prove much, by itself.
- 27. Appeal to Ignorance • Definition: In the appeal to ignorance, the arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue." • Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist." Here's an opposing argument that commits the same fallacy: • "People have been trying for years to prove that God does not exist. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God exists." – In each case, the arguer tries to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion. There is one situation in which doing this is not fallacious: If qualified researchers have used well- thought-out methods to search for something for a long time, they haven't found it, and it's the kind of thing people ought to be able to find, then the fact that they haven't found it constitutes some evidence that it doesn't exist.
- 28. Straw Man • Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. The arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent’s position and tries to score point by knocking it down. • Example: "Feminists want to ban all pornography and punish everyone who reads it! But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its readers should be left in peace." – The feminist argument is made weak by being overstated--in fact, most feminists do not propose an outright "ban" on porn or any punishment for those who merely read it; often, they propose some restrictions on things like child porn, or propose to allow people who are hurt by porn to sue publishers and producers, not readers, for damages.
- 29. Red Herring • Definition: Partway through an argument, the arguer goes off on a tangent, raising a side issue that distracts the audience from what's really at stake. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue. • Example: "Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well." Let's try our premise-conclusion outlining to see what's wrong with this argument: – Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well. – Conclusion: Grading this exam on a curve would be the most fair thing to do. • When we lay it out this way, it's pretty obvious that the arguer went off on a tangent--the fact that something helps people get along doesn't necessarily make it more fair; fairness and justice sometimes require us to do things that cause conflict. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.
- 30. False Dichotomy • Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. • Example: "Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students' safety. Obviously we shouldn't risk anyone's safety, so we must tear the building down." – The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question--for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn't hold classes in those rooms.
- 31. Begging the Question • Definition: A complicated fallacy, an argument that begs the question asks the reader to simply accept the conclusion without providing real evidence – the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (which you might hear referred to as "being circular" or "circular reasoning"), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on. – Sometimes people use the phrase "beg the question" as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here. • Examples: "Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death." Let's lay this out in premise-conclusion form: – Premise: It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death. – Conclusion: Active euthanasia is morally acceptable. • If we "translate" the premise, we'll see that the arguer has really just said the same thing twice: "decent, ethical" means pretty much the same thing as "morally acceptable," and "help another human being escape suffering through death" means "active euthanasia." So the premise basically says, "active euthanasia is morally acceptable," just like the conclusion does! The arguer hasn't yet given us any real reasons why euthanasia is acceptable; instead, she has left us asking "well, really, why do you think active euthanasia is acceptable?" Her argument "begs" (that is, evades) the real question (think of "beg off").
- 32. Equivocation • Definition: Equivocation is sliding between two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase that is important to the argument. • Example: "Giving money to charity is the right thing to do. So charities have a right to our money." – The equivocation here is on the word "right": "right" can mean both something that is correct or good (as in "I got the right answers on the test") and something to which someone has a claim (as in "everyone has a right to life"). – Sometimes an arguer will deliberately, sneakily equivocate, often on words like "freedom," "justice," "rights," and so forth; other times, the equivocation is a mistake or misunderstanding. Either way, it's important that you use the main terms of your argument consistently.
- 34. Can you name this Fallacy? It is ridiculous to have spent thousands of dollars to rescue those two whales trapped in the Arctic ice. Why look at all the people trapped in jobs they don’t like. RED HERRING
- 35. Can you name this Fallacy? Plagiarism is deceitful because it is dishonest. BEGGING THE QUESTION
- 36. Can you name this Fallacy? Water fluoridation affects the brain. Citywide, student’s test scores began to drop five months after fluoridation began. POST HOC (false cause)
- 37. Can you name this Fallacy? I know three redheads who have terrible tempers, and since Annabel has red hair, I’ll bet she has a terrible temper too. HASTY GENERALIZATION
- 38. Can you name this Fallacy? Supreme Court Justice Byron White was an All-American football player while in college, so how can you say that athletes are dumb? HASTY GENERALIZATION
- 39. Can you name this Fallacy? Why should we put people on trial when we know they are guilty? BEGGING THE QUESTION
- 40. Can you name this Fallacy? You support capital punishment just because you want an “eye for an eye,” but I have several good reasons to believe that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong… STRAW MAN
- 41. Can you name this Fallacy? The meteorologist predicted the wrong amount of rain for May. Obviously the meteorologist is unreliable. HASTY GENERALIZATION
- 42. Can you name this Fallacy? You know Jane Fonda’s exercise video’s must be worth the money. Look at the great shape she’s in. POST HOC (false cause)
- 43. Can you name this Fallacy? We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester! SLIPPERY SLOPE
- 44. Can you name this Fallacy? The book Investing for Dummies really helped me understand my finances better. The book Chess for Dummies was written by the same author, was published by the same press, and costs about the same amount, so it would probably help me understand my finances as well. WEAK ANALOGY
- 45. Can you name this Fallacy? Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while. FALSE DICHOTOMY (Dilemma)
- 46. Can you name this Fallacy? I'm positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since my grandmother is sick. APPEAL TO PITY
- 47. Can you name this Fallacy? Crimes of theft and robbery have been increasing at an alarming rate lately. The conclusion is obvious, we must reinstate the death penalty immediately. MISSING THE POINT
- 48. Can you name this Fallacy? I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
- 49. Can you name this Fallacy? Buy Samsung because Drogba recommends it. The appeal to inappropriate authority: argument ad verecudiam
- 50. Can you name this Fallacy? “Lots of people bought this album, so it must be good.” Appeal to Popular Opinion
- 51. Can you name this Fallacy? “If aliens didn’t steal my newspaper, who did?” Complex Question
- 52. Can you name this Fallacy? All of us cannot be famous, because all of us cannot be well known Begging the question: petitio principii
- 53. Can you name this Fallacy? “If you don’t vote for this candidate, you must be a Communist.” False Dilemma/Dichotomy
- 54. Can you name this Fallacy? “All Dubliners are from Ireland. Ronan is not a Dubliner, therefore, he is not Irish.” • Non Sequitur