Types of reasoning, fallacies, and tactics

Over Generalization:

Using limited evidence to make a statement about a whole. (Ex: Hershey's is a very popular candy brand. This proves that all people like chocolate.)

Fallacy

A component of an argument that is demonstratably flawed in its logic or form, thus rendering the argument invalid as a whole. Beginning with Aristotle, informal fallacies have generally been placed in one of several catagories, depending on the souce of the fallacy: fallacy types are relevance, casual, and ambiguities.

Straw Man (ambiguity and relevance)

A straw-man argument is the practice of refuting a weaker argument than an opponent actually offers. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute; then, attribute that position to your opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is also a logical fallacy, since the argument actually presented by your opponent has not been refuted, only a weaker argument. Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation. An example of the Straw Man technique would be: Debater A: "I don't think that children should play out in the busy streets." Debater B: "My opponent thinks that children should be eliminated from playing in their neighborhoods, but I think it very cruel to deny children their freedom to play out-of-doors, or to go wherever they please. Children should not be kept locked-up in their own homes as my opponent suggests. ** The reason this is a straw man argument is because Debater B attributes the idea that "children should be locked up" (an easy argument to defeat) to Debater A, when that is not his argument at all — therefore, if debater B is last to speak, Debater A has no way to retort and defend his actual position.

Bandwagon:

Appealing to the popularity of something - suggesting one should do or believe something because everyone else is doing or believing it. Speaks to the common human desire to follow the crowd and not be left behind. (Ex: "Come to my party- everyone else is coming!")

Name Calling:

Calling a person, group, or idea an easy-to-remember name that has a negative, undesirable connotation so that the name is always associated. The propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or idea on the basis of the negative idea rather than the evidence. (Ex. a Middle Eastern man terrorist; President Obama --> Socialist)

Glittering Generalities / Virtue Words:

Emotionally appealing words closely associated with highly-valued concepts and beliefs. It is reverse Name Calling: NC seeks to make us reject and condemn without examining the evidence, while GG seeks to make us approve and accept without examining the evidence. The GG appeal is to emotions such as love of country and home, or desire for peace, freedom, glory, and honor. These words are highly abstract, ambiguous, mean different things to different people and can be used in different ways. The danger is when we assume the speaker is using a word in the way we interpret and use it. (Ex. "We can do it!" "The Ford way!" "We have it better" The words democracy, freedom, patriotic, and justice each have several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another.) **generally uses vague claims. Testimonial: A tactic that uses a person's experience—usually a well-known person—to strengthen the argument. This tactic can be used to construct a fair, well-balanced argument with citing a a qualified source; however, it is often misused by citing individuals who are not qualified to make judgments about a particular issue. (Ex. Barbara Streisand supported Bill Clinton in his 1992 campaign, but there is no reason to think that she knows what is best for this country.)

Red Herring (relevance)

Latin: lgnoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself he valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than one it is purporting to prove or support. "lgnoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of the issue; (context: A red herring, also referred to as a kipper, is a dried, smoked, herring. The curing process turns the fish red.) When this logical fallacy is used in an attempt to intentionally confuse or distract someone else, it is known as a "red herring". This phrase is thought to have originated from the use of smoked herring fish to distract dogs following a scer trail. The herring's strong smell could obscure the real trail and lay a false one. Therefore, an argument that intentionally tries to distract the reader is making use of a 'red herring.'

False Analogy (Relevance)

In an analogy two concepts, objects or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. Many languages have culturally idiosyncratic idioms for invalid analogies or comparisons; for example, such false analogies are likened to "comparing grandmothers and frogs" in Serbian and to "comparing apples and oranges" in English. Ex: Employees are like nails; just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees or they will not work on their own. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)

Equivocation (relevance)

It is commited when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an argument, implying that the word means the same each time round. Ex: A feather is light/what is light cannot be dark/ so the feather cannot be dark. The word light is used in the sense of having little weight the first time, but of reflecting many photons the second time. Therefore the word light has been equivocated. The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotionl content and have many meanings, These meanings often conclude within proper context, but thr fallicious arguer does a sematic shift, slowly changing the context as they go in such a way to achieve equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Non-sequitur (ambiguity)

Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non-sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. EX 1: If A then B. (e.g. If I am a cat, I am a mammal.) B (I am a mammal.) Therefore, A. (Therefore, I am a cat.) EX 2: If A then B. (e.g. If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan. Not A. (e.g. l am not in Tokyo.) Therefore, not B. (e.g. Therefore, I am not in Japan.)

Analogy

Listening from similar model: analogies( known examples) explain,illustrate, or clarify unknown examples. You can draw a conclusion about an unknown thing or situation based on its similarity to a specific, known example when the essential areas being compared are similar. Claim: The proposed new energy distribution agency would be wasteful and inefficient. Evidence: The U.S. Postal Service is wasteful anCutd inefficient. Conclusion: I assume the new federal agency, which is unknown, would be like the USPS in the known areas of wastefulness and inefficiency. Figurative Analogy: A comparison of disimilar persons, events, ideas, etc. that simplifies complex ideas. Ex: The government is like a three-legged stool; it has an executive, legislative, and judicial branch tied together with checks and balances. Like stability of a stool is compromised without one of the legs, if one of these branches were to be destroyed our government could not stand Common Fallacy: False analogy

Post Hoc Ergo Prompter/ False Cause and Effect (causal relationship)

Literal Latin "after this, therefore because of this." It is often shortened to simply "post hoc". Some philosophy books translate the Latin to simply: "If, then therefore, because." Post hoc, also known as "coincidental correlation" or "false cause' is a logical fallacy, which assumes or asserts that if one event happens after another, then the fir: must be the cause of the second. It is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence 15 integral to causality — it is true that a cause always happens before its effect. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based only on the order of events, which is not an accurate indicator. Tha is to say, it is not always true that the first event caused the second event. EX: Event A occurred before event B; Therefore, A must have caused B.

Authority

Reasoning form Source Credibillity: Instead of the concrete data of the previous types of reasoning, reasoning od based entirely on what an "authority" said. Is the source an expert? Competent to voice an opinion? Trustworthy? Does the evidence with that of other sources? Claim: The nation should develop a modified policy towards the Peoples Republic of China. Evidence: The president said the nation should modify its policy towards China. Conclusion: I assume the president knows what he's talking about. Common Fallacy: False Authority

Generalization

Reasoning form facts: As a whole, we assume that if indivisual members of a certain general class of objects share a characteristic will apply to all other members of the class. If you draw a conclusion based on some specific examples, you have made a generalization. Premise A: Big cars are gas guzzlers (fact) Premise B: My 1992 Buick station wagon is a big car (fact) Premise C: My 1992 Buick station wagon gets about 15 mpg on the highway. (fact) Conclusion: Generalization = All big cars are like my car and get poor gas mileage.

Cause and effect

Reasoning from Process Relationships: An "if... then" reasoning then assumes one phenomena (object, event) causes the other and results in certain effects. The most complex form of reasoning. Claim: My heating bill will be outrageous. Evidence: This is the coldest winter since 1907. Conclusion: I assume my furnance will m=burn more fuel than usual because of the cold weather. Common Fallacy = Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc/False Cause and Effect

Sign Argument

Reasoning from Related Observation: Reasoning based on noting certain signs: when one thing occurs so does another. Sometimes in patterns or because you have experienced it before, one can gather that it will happen again in that fashion. (The phenomena are not causally linked but occur simultaneously or in succession or by happenstance.) One understands the reasoning by identifying the sign → understanding what is signified by the sign and vice versa. Claim: Winter must be coming. Evidence: Leaves are falling, squirrels have thick fur, and birds have flown south. Conclusion: These characteristics are associated with the advance of winter. Ex: If you hear that school is great, one would assume that there are signifying qualities that you would find at a good school. Similarily, if you see signs of a good school, you may judge it to be a good school. ** Common fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc/ Begging the Question

Statistics

Reasoning from Scientific Methodology: Reasoning is based not on the facts of the data itself but on the method of study (its quality, limitations, inherent assumptions). Claim: Solar energy is not the answer to the energy crisis. Evidence: Studies show that solar energy is economical only as a supplement to a regular heating system and onlu in certain geographical areas. Conclusion: I assume the methodology of the studies meets scientific standards. **Common fallacies: False Authority/ Faulty Reasoning from Statistics/ Overgeneralization

ad Nauseam:

Repeats information so often - to the point of nausea - for emphasis. Propagandist drives home an unproven point by repeating it so often that the audience is subconsciously conditioned to accept this information. (Ex. Alcoholics Anonymous has a standard list of unproven assumptions they constantly repeat: AA is the best way to recover from alcoholism. Alcoholics need the 12 Steps to teach them spirituality. Keep Coming Back: It Works!)

Plain folks:

Seeking to gain support by convincing an audience that my ideas and I are just as ordinary as everyone else, by displaying a 'folksy' or 'human' touch, or by appealing to the 'average guy.' (Ex. Sarah Palin as a 'soccer mom' who says "you betcha...")

Name Dropping:

Taking a publicly known name and associating it with your point of view specifically for the purposes of making your own assertions seem more valid. IT IS NOT using any well-known person's name in a sentence and leaving it at that. The difference between mentioning someone and Name Dropping is that you are deliberately trying to strengthen your argument through association of an idea to a well-known person, thereby making your idea stronger and more legitimate. (Ex. Michael Jordan buys Nike so you should too.)

Scapegoating:

Transfers blame to a person or a group without investigating the complexities of the issue, fixing the problem for which the blame is being assigned, and thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties. (Ex. Bill Clinton got us into Bosnia; President Obama is the reason why the nation is in economic crisis)

Card-stacking:

The easiest concept of this is "half-truths." Using only information that %yin persuade the audience to agree with the issue as it is presented - intentionally leaving out facts that would change their opinion. (Ex. "Come to my party, it will be fun!" when you actually plan to include people that kid doesn't like for the sake of making them uncomfortable.) Think of 'stacking the cards in your favor'

False Dichotomy (ambiguity)

Which isalso known as fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, either-or reasoning, either/or dilemma or dichotomy. It involves a situation in which two alternative points of view - often, though not always, the two extreme points on some spectrum - are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more alternate options that have not been considered. Ex: "Mark is late for work. Either his car has broken down, or he has overslept. We called him and he isn't at home, so his car must have broken down." This argument is a false dilemma, because there are many reasons why Mark may have been late for work. If it were somehow proven that there were no other possibilities, then the logic would be sound. But until then, the argument is fallacious. False dilemmas are also common in politics. They are often hidden in (rhetorical) questions, and then become akin to the fallacy of many questions, as in: Ex: ?Are you with us, or with the forces of evil? ...or they can be done as statements of fact: "My opponent voted against the public schools spending bill. He must think educating our children is not important." "America - love it or leave it." "You're either with us, or you are against us."

False Authority (relevance)

a type of argument in logic where an author claims assertion of someone who is considered an authority on the subject to be absolute because of the associated authority. The unsupported assertion depends on the asserter's credibility and it can not be proven, therefore the logic is false. Examples of false appeals to authority: • Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle. "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so". • Quotes from religious books such as the Bible. "The Bible says X, therefore X is the right thing". • Claiming that some crime is morally wrong because it is illegal. "It's against the law for stores to be open on weekends, therefore it's wrong for them to do so". Here the lawmakers are the "authority", whose judgment is taken as correct without debate. • Referencing scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal. "Science (in the form of an article in a prestigious journal) says X, therefore X is so". • Believing what one is told by one's teacher. "My teacher said so, therefore it must be right." • Something must be true because it is in the news. •Something must be true because it is in a textbook. •Something must be true because it is in an encyclopedia.

Transference:

he authority and prestige of something we respect and revere is carried over to something a propaganist would have us accept that we might otherwise reject. This technique projects positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. Often the symbols that evoke a strong emotional response in the Western world are Medicine, Science, Democracy, and Christianity, among others. (Ex. Filming the President in front of the American flag; a politician closing a speech with a public prayer thereby transfers religious prestige to the ideas being advocated. The presence of an American flag with the words "Deport Illegals" would mean that to deport illegal immigrants is an American ideal. Also uses beauty or status of celebrities to "brand" their product Associates a person and all the things connoted by that person with the item or idea.)

Ad Hominem (causal)

literally "argument to the man" or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. Ex: "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well;" "You feel that abortion should be legal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor;" Not all ad hominem attacks are insulting Ex: "Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this is false because Paula is too important to pay attention to the game." This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

Circular Reasoning (causal)

related to begging the question (sometimes considered another name for begging the question) where the statement uses the same information in the premise as in the conclusion. EX: "We need to invade Japan because Japan needs to be invaded," "It is hard to work because working is hard," "we need to get rid of terrorists because terrorist terrorize."

Begging the Question (ambiguity)

when the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. Ex: "Politicians cannot be trusted. Only an untrustworthy person would run for office; the fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this. Therefore politicians cannot be trusted." The argument is fallacious as it relies upon its own proposition (in this case, "politicians are untrustworthy") in order to support its central premise that "they can not be trusted". Essentially, the argument assumes that its central point is already proven, and uses this in support of itself; the question remains; it is "begging" to be answered.