Material Fallacies

Hypothesis contrary to fact

- the "if only" fallacy -consists in arguing that if only x were true, which it isn't, then y would be true ex. "If only you had studied harder, you would have passed this test." Perhaps so, perhaps not.

ad ignorantiam

-"appeal to ignorance" -consists in arguing that an idea must be true because we do not know that it is not -nothing logically flows from nothing (out of nothing, nothing comes) ex. "He can't prove he earned that money, so he must have stolen it."

Complex question

-"damned if you do and damned if you don't" ex. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

composition

-Consists in arguing from the part to the whole, ignores the fact that what is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole ex. "This member of the logic class is smart, therefore that must be a smart class."

Slanting

-a form of begging the question by assuming what it sets out to prove, denotes a fact and connotes an evaluating attitude toward the fact ex. calling someone stubborn , pigheaded, firm

Accent

-ambiguity coming from voice inflection, ironic or sarcastic tone, or facial expression, or innuendo ex. "(I) do not choose to ran at this time." [but perhaps later] "I do not (choose) to run at this time." [but he can be forced]

Ad verevundiam

-an appeal to illigitatme authority, or an illigitatmate appeal to authority -literally means "appeal to reverence", - the appeal to authority becomes fallacious when the authority is (1)irrelevant (2) unreliable (3)unnecessary (4) dogmatic-closed, claims certainty (5) uncritical ex. there must be something to astrology; my mother swears by it

Hyperbole

-an exaggeration ex. media hype like "shocking" or "crisis" -also "absurd extension" of what others say ex. "Go clean your room." "Oh, so you want me to be your slave."

division

-argues from the whole to the part, ignoring the fact that what is true of the whole is not always true of the part ex. "This is a smart class. Jim is in the class. Therefore Jim must be smart."

special case

-argues that something is true in a special case, and is therefore true universally -the saying "the exception proves the rule" says that the exception presupposes the rule. no rule => no exceptions ex. "If women ran the world, we would have fewer wars." "Oh yeah?" Lizzie Borden was a multiple axe murderer. That goes to show you how aggressive women are."

dicto simpliciter

-argues that something is true universally, therefore it argues (incorrectly) that it is true in some special case -saying something too simply, absolutely, or unqualifiedly -applying a general principle to a special case without considering exceptions or differences ex. "Man is a rational animal. Therefore even an idiot can pass a logic course."

ignoring the argument

-arguing beside the point -ignoring your opponent's argument, while just waiting for your turn to talk ex. failing to address the arguments opponent

Begging the question

-assuming what you set out to prove -usually smuggles the conclusion back into the premises ex. "The accused will be given a fair trial before they are hanged."

Argument from silence

-claiming that a lack of evidence for one things necessarily proves another thing ex. "Notice that this author never once referances to her husband. and there is no evidence whatever of any reference to her husband, in any documents of her time or later, by her friends or by her enemies. Therefore she must have been unmarried."

Hasty generalization

-consists in inferring some specific example proves a general principle -examples never conclusively prove a general principle, they one show its more probable ex. "We went to three ball games this year and the home team lost each one. They're losers."

the black and white fallacy

-failing to allow for gradations or levels between extremes ex. ("it is not this one extreme, therefore it must be the opposite extreme.") ("Do you hate me?" "No." "Oh good, you love me!)

Stereotyping

-failing to make room for the exception -not all generalizations are stereotypes ex. "You are tall; you must play basketball well." -archetypes are givens in the collective unconscious --ex. "the sea is a woman"

Shifting the burden of proof

-fallacy consists in flipping the [blank] in the course of an argument - the [blank] is a matter or protocol/interpersonal rules in debate - not a matter of logic but of protocol

winning the argument but losing the arguer

-ignoring the personal, psychological factor and being distrusted and treated as an enemy

post hoc

-means "after this, therefore caused by this" -consists in inferring that one thing is the cause of another simply because the first thing is observed to occur before the second thing ex. "The rooster thinks his crowing brings up the sun each morning because each morning the sun rises shortly after he crows."

non sequitur

-means "it does not follow" -the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises, reasons, or evidence given -depends on logical content ex. ("Grass is green. I feel depressed today. Therefore the grass is to blame for my depression.") ("I hate courthouses. Therefore you will lose your case in court today.")

assuming that refuting an argument refutes its conclusion

-showing error in opponent's argument and thinking that refutes the conclusion -all defense, no offense ex. The claim: "If God existed my puppy wouldn't have died." ( there will always be some bad arguments for true conclusions)

false assumption

-similar to "begging the question" but is more covert -basis for many jokes ex. "This parrot can repeat every word it hears." "No, it cant. I've been talking all day and it hasn't repeated a thing." "The parrot's deaf."

answering another argument than the one given

-slaying the enemy, but the wrong enemy, perhaps in hope that the brilliance of the refutation will distract attention away from his sidestepping the original argument ex. Slavery is morally wrong. You think its wrong because slaves aren't happy, but that isn't true. Sometimes slaves are happy prisoners of war who would have died otherwise.

quoting out of context

-taking a quote out of context -literal: failing to consider the larger meaning of the text where a quote comes from -figurative: failing to consider the real lived situation surrounding the spoken words ex. "The manager is a thief. He told his baserunner to steal whenever he could."

Ad baculum

-the appeal to force or fear instead of reason ex. "Before you answer, remember who pays your salary" -corollary is the "appeal to desire" ex. "something is true because I want it to be"

ad misericordiam

-the appeal to pity instead of reason -pity can be good, but it is not a substitute for an argument ex. "if you don't steal this with me I'll beat myself up"

ad ignominiam

-the appeal to shame -to believe or disbelieve an idea, only because one wants to avoid experiencing shame, is to substitute emotion for reason -shame is subjective, it is essensially social and relative to social espectations, which change with time, place, and culture -guilt, is dependent on one's own moral beliefs and can be felt when alone ex. "You're going to talk about chastity to teenager's? You'll be a laughing stock"

ad populum

-the appeal to the masses/populace -also "snob appeal" ex. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" -the fallacy of believing or doing something only because it is popular ex. "Forty million Frenchman can't be wrong."

"refuting" an argument by refuting its conclusion

-this fallacy consists of not addressing the argument -offensive, but not defensive -refute arguments by showing the use of ambiguous terms, false premises, or logical fallacies that do not lead to the conclusion -refute a conclusion (a single proposition) by using another argument proving the contradictory of that conclusion ex. is like playing base ball with no defense

substituting explanations for proofs

-this fallacy is using a [blank] instead of a proof -[blanks] claim to open the door for a possibility, but do not offer a proof ex. Darwinian Natural selection explains fossil records. But natural selection is an explanation rather than a proof.

false analogy

-this fallacy wrongly assumes that [blank] prove things -this fallacy does one of two things 1.) using a false [blank], one that is not a real resemblance 2.) using an [blank] falsely, assuming that when two things are similar in one way, they will necessarily be similar in another way -[blanks] don't prove things, they only illustrate general principles ex. "No body can be healthful without exercise, neither natural body nor politic; and, certainly, to a Kingdom or estate, a just and honourable war is the true exercise. A civil war, indeed, is like the hear of a fever; but a foreign war is like the heat of exercise, and serveth to keep the body in health; for in a slothful bace, both courage will effeminate and manners corrupt."-Francis Bacon

Arguing in a circle

-using a conclusion as a premise to prove your other proposition ex. "All the precepts of the Qur'an are true?" "Why?" "Because they are the word of Allah." "How do you know they are the word of Allah?" "Because the Prophet Muhammad says so."

selective evidence

-using only the evidence that tends to support your hypothesis and ignoring evidence that tends to refute it ex. "Pessimists claiming life is getting worse: teenage crime, murder rates, new diseases, while ignoring positive things"

equivocation

-when a term is used in two or more different senses in the course of an argument -a term can not be equivocal, it can only be used that way ex. "Mom told us not to go swimming after lunch, but I am not swimming; I'm on a body board." how to solve: 1) identify the word or phrase that shifts its meaning 2) identify the two different meanings by using two different words or phrases

slanting the question

-when pollsters phrase questions to obtain a desired result ex. "Do you think a woman should have the right to control her own body and remove 'extra cells from her uterus?" vs. "Do you think a woman should be allowed to kill her unborn child?"

Contradictory premises

-when the premise contradicts itself ex. (We can know nothing.") ("All truth is relative.")

material fallacies

a mistake in understanding the meaning or use of terms -an error in the first act of the mind -mistakes in reasoning, in the content/matter/or meaning

Ad hominem

an argument attacking the person, rather than their argument -poisoning the well- direct attack on trustworthiness of person rather than statement ex. "How can you believe what he says?" -tu quoque- meaning "you too" accusing your critic of the same thing rather than defending against the criticism ex. you lie too -genetic fallacy- "refuting" an idea by showing some suspicious psychological origin of it. this is a fallacy because regardless of psychological origins of a belief, the logic is independent of psychology ex. you say that just because you are a man

Straw man

consists of refuting an unfairly weak, stupid, or ridiculous version of your opponents idea ( a watered down version) rather than their actual argument ex. Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.

slogan

consists of using a slogan in place of an argument ex. if it ain't broke, don't fix it

formal fallacies

mistakes in reasoning a mistake in the third act of the mind (reasoning)

amphiboly

the use of ambiguous syntax ex. "Aristotle the peripatetic( i.e. the walker) taught his students walking." Unclear if he was teaching how to walk, or was teaching while walking