With a minimal groundwork laid, our small logic class turned to common ways that arguments fail to make the case the arguer intends. Fallacies are what logicians call these common mistakes.
1. If the argument is truly a formal argument, there are two easy ways to ruin it:
(a) Prove that one of the premises is false (=ruining the form of a formal argument).
(b) Find a counterexample that violates the argument.
*I'm of the opinion that most arguments people encounter outside the academy are the informal/inductive variety. Also, I found working with informal fallacies to be quite fun in the course I took. Therefore, I decided to give formal fallacies only a passing nod. If some folks show desire to learn more, we might break out the square of opposition!
For the following fallacies, I gave people the name, my brief explanation, and an example of the fallacy committed in an argument. The fun is in putting a finger on what the exact problem is. I'm not giving my specific examples because it took a long time to find precise & concise examples that would interest folks.
2. Some informal arguments have irrelevant ideas that ruin them.
a. appeal to force - "My conclusion should be accepted or else!" threats, blackmail, etc.
b. appeal to pity - "My conclusion should be accepted because of these unfortunate circumstances." immoral begging, shut-your-brain-off-and-feel-sorry requests
c. appeal to the people - "My conclusion needs to be accepted if you are going to fit into the group." peer pressure, jump-on-the-bandwagon arguments
d. argument against the person - "That conclusion is wrong because you said it." every failure to recognize that the truth is true no matter who presents it and with what motives
e. accident - "Here's a broad principle/rule that justifies my conclusion for this specific situation." misusing broad principles/rules for cases they weren't meant to cover, failure to recognize a special case
f. straw man - "That other opinion is so crazy in the first place! Of course it's wrong, and here's why..." misrepresenting an opposing view so that you can triumph over that misrepresentation (instead of a real position)
g. missing the point - "If you agree that premise #1 and premise #2 are true, then why don't you agree with my conclusion?" letting true evidence lead me just off target from the fitting conclusion - to something related
h. red herring - "Focus on my engaging side issue instead of focusing on the actual evidence I have for my conclusion." different audiences fall for different 'red herrings' - whatever the hot topics are
Part 3 (weak induction) coming soon!
Part 1 (Clear Thinking Matters)
No comments:
Post a Comment