critical thinking FINAL

JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON

Doing something merely because one thinks others are doing the same thing. "If my friends are drinking booze, then it's alright for me to drink booze." However, Mary needs some good reason for thinking that it's alright in the first place for her to drink alcohol.

AWFULIZING

Exaggerating just how bad a situation is by rating it as the worst or nearly the worst thing possible. For example, Sal says "If my wife divorces me then it would be horrible"; Sylvia says "It is terrible that I cannot bear any children"; Lawton says "It was awful that I failed my law boards." While some things such as the gas chamber and the guillotine may be "awful," "horrible," and "terrible," such words are misused when they are used in cases where reasonable hopes for the future still exist.

THE "TERRIFIC" FALLACY

Exaggerating the virtue of an individual (person, thing, etc.) by rating it as perfect or near perfect. For example, Mindy says that "If my mother and father get back together then everything would be perfect"; Kathy says "If you knew my husband then you would see that he is the nicest guy in the world." Indeed, things are rarely if ever "perfect"; and "the nicest guy in the world" does not really exist.

SLIPPERY-SLOPE-AWFULIZING-I-CAN'TSTAND-IT-ITIS SYNDROME

First, exaggerating the negative (bad) effects of an action or event; second, thinking these effects to be awful; and third, thinking them too awful to stand. In such cases, first you Slippery Slope and then you Awfulize about it. For example, Jim tells himself that, because he made a mistake at work today, he is going to lose his job. Then he tells himself how awful, horrible and terrible this will be. For example, Jim may go one step further and conclude that, because losing his job is so awful, he just cannot stand to lose his job.

invalid forms (fallacies) of the hypothetical syllogism:Denying the antecedent

Form: If p then q Not p Therefore not q Minor premise: denies antecedent Conclusion: denies consequent Major premise/traffic rule: if the light is red then I have to stop Minor premise: the light is not red Conclusion: I do not have to stop Since the minor premise denies the antecedent while the conclusion denies the consequent

valid forms of the hypothetical syllogism:Denying the consequent

Form: If p then q Not q Therefore not p Minor premise: denies consequent Conclusion: denies antecedent Since p implies something q that is false then p itself is false. A statement that implies a false statement is itself false -Since this is an apple implies that this is a fruit and since it's false that This is a fruit it follows that this is not an Apple- there are no substitution instances that would make the premise true and the conclusion false ( this is impossible) -For example, given the proposition If the burglars entered by the front door, then they forced the lock, it is valid to deduce from the fact that the burglars did not force the lock that they did not enter by the front door.

invalid forms (fallacies) of the hypothetical syllogism:Affirming the consequent

Form: If p then q Q Therefore p Minor premise: affirms consequent Conclusion: affirms antecedent Major premise: if a group supports al queda, it supports terrorism Minor premise: the iraqi regime (saddam and company) supports/ has supported terrorism Conclusion the Iraqi regime supports al queada Both premises are true- however the conclusion does not follow the premises - someone can support terrorism without being an al queda supporter - while supporting terrorism may be a necessary condition of being an al queda supporter, it is not a sufficient condition because you can be a terrorist without supporting the group

valid forms of the hypothetical syllogism:Affirming the antecedent

Form: If p then q P Therefore q Minor premise: affirms antecedent Conclusion: affirms consequent Major premise: if the president approves the torture prisoners of war then he has committed a war crime Minor premise: the president approved the torture of prisoners of war Conclusion: the president has committed a war crime

invalid forms (fallacies) of the hypothetical syllogism:Non-sequitur

Form: If p then q P Therefore r Minor premise: affirms antecedent Conclusion: conclusion does not follow "It does not follow" When one attempts to deduce a conclusion that does not follow from the premises - the conclusion does not affirm the consequent EX If I have a mitral valve prolapse then I have a heart condition. the doctor said that I have mitral valve prolapse. it was confirmed by and ultrasound. so I'm going to die of a heart attack. One sets oneself up for intense fear by jumping to a dreaded conclusion not supported by evidence Major premise: if I have mitral valve prolapse then I have a heart condition Minor premise: I have mitral valve prolapse Conclusion: I'm going to die of a heart attack

invalid forms (fallacies) of the hypothetical syllogism:Uncertain relations between premises

Form: If p then q R Therefore q Minor premise: relation between premises is uncertain Conclusion: affirms consequent Major premise: if rich white kids Who play lacrosse from a prestigious university like Duke gang rape a black stripper than they may still in the end get away with it Minor premise: there are allegations that the three white lacrosse players gang raped mangum, a black stripper conclusion: The three duke students may still in the end get away with having a gang raped Mangum The minor premise does not affirm the antecedent because there is a difference between alleged gang rape and a proved one. By fudging this distinction grace was able to draw the above conclusion - its invalid tho

What the scientific method is

Formulating testing and evaluating hypotheses making up the core ingredients

HAIRSPLITTING

Given the specific purposes at hand, focusing attention upon insignificant or irrelevant matters at the expense of addressing significant ones. when Mr. Milton, a high school social studies teacher, grades an essay exam, he spends most of his time finding misspellings and grammatical errors instead of looking at what the student has said; and when Seymour's son asks him for advice on dating, Seymour concentrates on the need for his son to have "clean white healthy teeth" and the "need to use a gel with fluoride";

Mills method of agreement

If two or more instances of the phenomenon under investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon. -look for the cause of something in that condition which is present in all instances of that for which you are seeking the cause "The circumstance in which alone all the instances agree" Suppose your family went out together for a buffet dinner, but when you got home all of you started feeling sick and experienced stomach aches. How do you determine the cause of the illness? Suppose you draw up a table of the food taken by each family member : -Mill's rule of agreement says that if in all cases where an effect occurs, there is a single prior factor C that is common to all those cases, then C is the cause of the effect. According to the table in this example, the only thing that all of you have eaten is oyster. So applying the rule of agreement we infer that eating oyster is the cause of the illnesses.

Distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions

In some cases the cause of an event is a necessary condition for its occurrence -a necessary condition for the occurrence of an event is an event state or condition without which an event cannot occur (Exposure to HIV is a necessary condition of getting AIDS because one cannot get aids without hiv) -a sufficient condition for the occurrence of an event is an event state or condition in the presence of which the event must occur; it consists of a set of conditions that's are jointly sufficient for a certain effect EX striking a match is not sufficient to ignite it, this act must occur under the conditions such as the presence of oxygen, absence of moisture, and application of surface friction - each of the other conditions are a necessary condition of igniting the match (Being exposed to HIV is not a sufficient condition for getting AIDS because it is possible to have HIV and not get AIDS)

DEMANDING PERFECTION (IN THIS IMPERFECT WORLD)

Insisting upon or requiring that the world or some part of it exist without any defects or flaws. Donald falls into this mistake when he thinks that everyone must always like and approve of him. Since it is unrealistic for anyone to expect approval from everybody all of the time, such a demand is unreasonable. "I must never fail at anything," "People must never do anything to hurt me," "Everyone must always treat me fairly,"

. APPEAL TO TRADITION

Insisting on doing something now simply because it has been a custom to do it in the past, even though circumstances are different now and do not support the usefulness of continuing to do it. Larry says "If my mother and my grandmother and my great grandmother stayed at home and raised children, then my wife must do the same." Larry's insistence on tradition for its own sake is a fallacy since it amounts to blind acceptance of tradition.

O.J. Simpson case: what evidence converged (connects) on the hypothesis that he committed the murders?

It is not uncommon for a spouse to injure or kill another in jealousGlove, his blood on the scene, blood spot on the white bronco, blood drops near two cars parked in the rockingham estate (formd a trail to the white bronco) eventually led to the front door, Nicoles sister suspected him, he didnt ask for details about the murder, had a bandage on his hand,socks collected from simpsons home had browns dna on it, the bloody footprints seem to have simpsons show size and rare shoes, adomestic abuse arrest record , simpson purchased a knife resmebling the stab wounds,

Multiplying Wrongs

It is quite common to find people attempting to defend objectionable conduct by claiming that it was done in retaliation to something wrong done to them. -used to try to justify anything from name-calling to murder. by doing something wrong to another person who did something wrong to you, one does not rectify the first wrong but instead simply adds an additional wrong to the prior wrong. The old adage that "Two wrongs don't make a right" is fundamentally sound. When you add one wrong (W) to a second wrong, you get two wrongs, not one right (R) For example, Jack might cheat on Jane, and then Jane might retaliate by cheating with Jack's best friend.

DAMNATION

Negatively rating your entire self (self-damnation) or that of another person (damnation of others). because of something about yourself or the other person that you do not like. For example, Jenny says "If my husband lied to me then he's no damn good"; Lester says "If my father is an alcoholic then he's nothing but a worthless bum"; and you may also damn yourself as when you tell yourself that "If I lost my job then I am a complete failure in life."

Causation

Relation between cause and affect The cause can be a state or condition or an event The effect is an event that typically occurs after the cause

PARROTING

Saying or thinking something simply because you heard someone else say it. Stan says "If people say that my girlfriend is a slut, then my girlfriend must really be one." Since what others say about something or someone may just be gossip, Stan needs further facts to support what is said.

Prejudicial attacks:

Some personal attacks attempt to destroy a person's credibility in a particular area by pointing to a personal trait that is unrelated to competence in that area but which may carry a social stigma or is associated with prejudice. Graham referred to Maddow as "this lesbian air America radio host," as if her sexual preference was evidence of her lack of competence in anchoring a political talk show. Indeed, the fact that Maddow was a lesbian was plainly irrelevant to such competence. Nor was it relevant to whether she was "left wing" since gay people can be conservative, centrist, or liberal, just like anyone else. More to the point, the attack appeared to have been aimed at a still commonplace prejudice against gays in an effort to get his viewers to look askance at Maddow's credibility

MISUSE OF AUTHORITY

Taking the advice of someone because one thinks that this person has special knowledge, training or qualifications even though this person's qualifications are in some area that does not especially qualify him or her to give the sort of advice being given. -Lloyd says, "Since my physician tells me that I don't have any psychological problems then I don't need to see any counselor."t it is a fallacy to think that therefore the physician must also be an expert in counseling.

THE "THOU SHALT UPSET YOURSELF" FALLACY

Telling yourself that you must (have a special duty to) preoccupy and make yourself miserable over a perceived problem until it is resolved. For example, Jim thinks that he must preoccupy himself with, and make himself miserable, about a problem he is facing at work, and that he must stay in this state of gloom just as long as the problem persists. And Jane thinks she must remain in a state of anxiety until she brings her failing grades up to passing ones. However, life is often filled with difficulties and just as soon as one disappears it is not unlikely for another one to crop up.

Abusive Personal Attacks:

The name-calling version, often referred to as an abusive personal attack, involves the 1 Also called, in Latin, argumentum ad hominem meaning literally "argument against the man." 2 use of pejorative ascriptions to the person, for example, "idiot," "moron," "crazy," "*******," and "bastard."2 However, calling someone names such as these does not count as evidence against a statement made by the person in question or about whom the statement has been made. Here, Kerry is said to be too "strange," "stuck-up," and "stupid" to be president and that he is also an "idiot" because his campaign stressed his military service record in the Vietnam War even though he later opposed this war. Notice that calling Kerry all these names provides no evidence that refutes his qualifications for president or that his campaign was in any way misguided. These terms are factually vacuous. Yet the author is attempting to pass these appellations off as evidence.

Formal Fallacy( logic )

The study of how to distinguish valid from invalid forms - in formal logic, if the argument form of a deductive argument is invalid it is said to commit a formal fallacy- thus a mistake in reasoning resulting from the use of an invalid form

Mill's Joint Method of Agreement and Difference

The use of both the morbid of agreement and difference to investigate the same phenomenon -when both of these methods are used to investigate something, then the probability of the claim about causation can be even greater -this is a matter of applying both the method of agreement and the method of difference, as represented by the diagram above. So application of the joint method should tell us that it is the beef which is the cause this time. (you were the only one who didnt eat beef therefore your not sick)

antecedent

The word, phrase, or clause referred to by a pronoun.

Mill's Method of Concomitant Variation

There is a direct correlation in both degree and regularity between the hypothetical cause and the effect. -in cases where a cause or effect admits of gradations when you increase or decrease the cause the phenomenon under investigation also increases or decreases -probability increases that there is a causal relationship between something -this says that if across a range of situations that lead to a certain effect, we find a certain property of the effect varying with variation in a factor common to those situations, then we can infer that factor as the cause. Thus using the same kind of example, we might find that you felt somewhat sick having eaten one oyster, whereas your sister felt rather not well having eaten a few, and your father became critically ill having eaten ten in a row. Since the variation in the number of oysters corresponds to variation in the severity of the illness, it would be rational to infer that the illnesses were caused by the oysters.

THE WORLD REVOLVES AROUND ME

Thinking that, because you believe, want, or accept something, then others must do so too. Ignatz says "If I believe that premarital sex is wrong then my daughter should think so too"; and Marcia says "If I say my children love their stepfather then my children do love their stepfather." What you believe is true is not necessarily what is, in fact true; similarly, what you want to be true is not necessarily what is, in fact true.

Mill's Method of Difference

This method for causal analysis states that if an effect is present in one case but not present in another similar case, we can look for a factor that is present in that case that is not present in the other case and identify it as a probable cause of the effect. -If the hypothetical cause is absent, the effect is absent "Have every circumstance in common save one" Some circumstances are will be relevant whereas some are not -In this particular case you are the only one who did not fall ill. The only difference between you and the others is that you did not take salad. So that is probably the cause of the others' illnesses. This is an application the method of difference. This rule says that where you have one situation that leads to an effect, and another which does not, and the only difference is the presence of a single factor in the first situation, we can infer this factor as the cause of the effect.

SWEEPING GENERALIZATION

Trying to apply a general rule to some situation that the rule is not really supposed to be applied to in the first place.(ignore exceptions to a rule.) , Jessica, a minor, argues that she doesn't have to attend school if she doesn't want to because "America is a free country." Similarly, Herman, a manic, refuses to take his lithium because "All drugs are bad for you." applying rules to cases to which these rules are not intended to be applied.

PERSONAL ATTACK

Trying to disprove something someone says or does merely by criticizing this person, even though the criticism has little or nothing to do with what the person is saying or doing. , Jake says "If my father is an alcoholic then I don't have to listen to him when he tells me not to drink"; and Henry says "If my sister's husband came from the ghetto, what kind of parent could he possibly be."

CHANGING THE SUBJECT

Trying to divert attention from the subject at hand by introducing some irrelevant line into the discussion. when Harry's teenage son asks Harry for the keys to the car, Harry asks his son how he has been doing in his Algebra class; and when George, a local politician, is asked by concerned citizens to justify the increase in property taxes, he responds by asking them if they would like to live under a communist government where 66 there is no private property at all;

TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT

Trying to do something to someone else that I think is wrong because I also think this person has done something wrong to me. -Humphrey thinks that, "If my wife cheated on me then it is alright for me to cheat on her"; and Howard says "If my friend said bad things about me behind my back, then its alright for me to do the same to him."

POISONING THE WELL =

Trying to intimidate or manipulate another into doing what you want through the use of name calling or other similar verbal tactics. Brenda says that "If my husband wastes our vacation visiting his mother then my husband is nothing but a momma's boy tied to his mother's apron strings." In this case, Brenda may not wish to visit her mother-in-law, so she tries (whether on a conscious level or not) to "poison the 83 well" against it. Since Brenda's husband probably does not want to be viewed as a "momma's boy tied to momma's apron strings," he may be quietly "seduced" by these words into doing just what Brenda wants him to do.

APPEAL TO FORCE

Trying to persuade others by threatening them, even though one might have tried rational means instead. -(for example, to do physical injury, to blackmail, to punish) if you don't get your way. For example, Arnold says "If my son tells me he doesn't want to do his homework then I'll whip his butt";

I CAN'T-STAND-IT-ITIS

Underrating your ability to endure a situation that you perceive to be difficult or frustrating. you use strong emotional language to exaggerate your ability to stand up to some problem in your life. For example, Todd claims that "If my girlfriend broke up with me then I couldn't stand it"; Eugene says "I just can't tolerate my wife 81 anymore"; Hilda says "If I lost my job then I just couldn't take it, I just couldn't live with it."

What evidence diverged (separates) from the hypothesis that OJ committed the murders.

Without testing the blood on the bronco to see if it was browns it was not sufficient evidence, someone could have tried to frame Simpson for the murders, blood specimens gathered from the crime scene were cross contaminated due to shoddy forensics, didn't have enough time to commit the murders, simpsons blood in nicoles house had been planted, (it was still wet when it shouldve been dry) the gloves"didnt" fit, blood was missing from simpsons blood sample, sample from the rear gate was planted, detective fuhrman planted the bloody glove behind the guest house, he also planted blood on the bronco, blood was planted on the sock aswell taken maybe even from the test tubes,

Convergent facts

a fact that confirms a hypothesis ( that is, raises its probability)

Divergent fact

a fact that disconfirms the hypothesis ( lowers its probability)

Hypothetical Syllogism Argument 1

a syllogism with atleast one conditional premise ( at least one "if.. then" premise) It's first premise ( refereed to as the major premise) is a conditional (if-then) statement -a syllogism with at least one conditional statement Logicians refer to the if part of the major premise ("global warming continues to increase at the current rate") as the antecedent and the then part (" the earth is in imminent danger") as the consequent - the minor premise (second premise) of the argument can be said to affirm the antecedent while it's conclusion affirms the consequent

Argument form

an arrangement of letters and words such that the uniform substitution of words or phrases in the place of the letters results in an argument -pattern of reasoning - is a symbolic representation of an argument with all references to the World stripped away and replaced with variables (placeholders)

Personal Attacks

attempting to disprove a statement by attempting to discredit the person who made the statement or about whom the statement has been made. Personal Attacks can take the form of name-calling, claiming that the person in question is a hypocrite, that the person has a questionable past, The fallacy is committed when this attack on the person is irrelevant to the truth of the statement in question.

I really messed up at work today when I blurted out the wrong answer at the staff meeting. And I 'm supposed to be an expert in my field! I am such a worthless screwup! a. Approval damnation b. Achievement damnation c. Damnation of others d. All of the above

b. (the speaker damns himself because he didn't achieve his goal),

syllogism

deductive argument with two premises A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. -a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion

post hoc fallacy

false assumption that because one event occurred before another event, it must have caused that event (After this therefore because of this) EX you walk under, have bad luck and straight way conclude that walking under the ladder is what caused your bad luck

Unsupported Explanation (as discussed in the context of Simpson case, especially with respect to cross-contamination hypothesis and the planting hypothesis)

first, it should feel like someone is explaining something Second, they would have little or no evidence to support the explanation. (have a sense for what strengthens or weakens each side) -the defense needed two separate theories to clear oj- prosecutors only needed one

Alibi (as this concept is discussed in the Simpson case)

had a flight to chicago left at 11- murder happend around 10:15

Standards for choosing between alternative hypotheses

in the end a hypothesis worthy of acceptance will be one that has, on balance, the greatest probability of being true relative to any alternative hypothesis that might be accepted

Inductive Hypothesis

inferences that involve such indirect observation from the basis of hypotheses- a statement or group of statements used to explain a fact or facts perceived as needing an explanation - it is a fallacy to assume that just because one event follows another the first must be true

Distinction between a dogmatic explanation and a scientific one

testability distinguishes a scientific hypothesis from a dogmatic one. a scentific hypothesis can be tested by inferring statements from it, then seeing if they are true or false. if h then f f therefore h

consequent

the outcome of the hypothetical condition in the major premise of a conditional syllogism

Appeal to Ignorance

when one attempts to prove a conclusion true because there is insufficient evidence to prove it false; or to prove it false because there is insufficient evidence to prove it true. This fallacy is often committed in the context of highly debated issues. For example, an atheist (disbeliever in God's existence) might argue that God does not exist because there is insufficient evidence to prove that God does exist. On the other hand, a theist (believer in God's existence) might argue that God does exist because there is insufficient evidence to prove that God does not exist. For example, consider the Argument from Personhood, a very popular antiabortion stance: Major Premise: All acts of killing innocent persons are wrong. Minor Premise: All Abortions are the killing of an innocent person Conclusion: All Abortions are wrong

Mills methods of determining causation

"Methods" for confirming causal relationships is a system of logic 1) agreement 2) difference 3) joint method of agreement and difference 4) concomitant variation

Tu Quque (You don't practice what you preach):

"Tu Quoque" (Latin: "You Also"). This fallacy tries to disprove a statement by trying to show that the person who made it is a hypocrite, that is, that the person doesn't practice what he preaches. However, even a person who does not practice what he preaches can preach the truth. For example, an alcoholic parent who warns his children about the dangers of taking drugs and alcoholic can still speak the truth. Thus, it is a fallacious Personal Attack to argue that the parent doesn't practice what he preaches and that, therefore, his warning should not be heeded.

Two conditions of a sound argument, namely

-All premises are true -Valid form it must have a true conclusion. ... Since it is valid, the argument is such that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument really does have all true premises so it does actually follow that its conclusion must be true

Seven basic steps: Scientific Method

1)Defining the problem 2) formulating preliminary hypotheses 3) gathering further evidence 4) formulating a leading hypothesis 5) testing the leading hypothesis and its competitors 6)Evaluating hypothesis 7) choosing an acting on a hypothesis

If it rained then the street got wet. It rained So, the street got wet a. Valid, affirming the antecedent b. Invalid, fallacy of denying the antecedent c. Invalid, fallacy of uncertain relation between premises d. Invalid, non-sequitur

A

Conflicts of Interest

A commonplace way of dismissing the claim of another is to try to show that the claimant has a conflict of interest. In this context, to have a conflict of interest means to have a personal interest that has the potential to affect one's independence of judgment. For example, one might try to show that the findings of a drug study financed by a pharmaceutical company that had a financial stake in the outcome of the study were not credible due to the conflict of interest. It does not necessarily disqualify a judgment but instead may underscore the need to look carefully at the evidence that supports it.

Formal Validity

A deductive argument is formally valid if and only if it has a valid form - a valid form is one such that any consistent substitution instances of the variables that make all of the premises true will also make the conclusion true -this form of argument automatically makes its conclusion true just as long as its statement variables are consistently replaced with statements that yield true premises P= July 4 is a federal holiday Q= the U.S post office is closed on July 4 -if July 4th is a federal holiday then the us post office is closed on July 4. July 4 is a federal holiday. Therefore the post office is closed on July 4.

All my friends are smoking weed, so it's okay for me to do so too. a. Jumping on the Bandwagon (Appeal to the Many) b. Appeal to force (Appeal to fear) c. Appeal to Ignorance d. Misuse of pity (Appeal to pity)

A, Jumping on the bandwagon

Genetic Attacks:

An attack on a person need not be a fallacious personal attack if it can be shown to be relevant to disproving the statement in question. For example, arguing that a politician who has a history of graft and corruption is not a viable candidate for public office is not a personal attack inasmuch as this personal history is relevant to the candidate's ability to execute the duties of the office in question. This is when one tries to discredit what another person says by launching an irrelevant attack on the genesis or personal history of the person.

For example, which of Mill's methods of determining causation is applied in the following case: Jones, Smith, and Franklin all ate the meatball sandwich, a side salad, and a piece of apple pie at a local restaurant, and both got food poisoning. However, Thomson ate everything Smith and Franklin ate except the meatball sandwich, and he didn't get sick. This suggests that the cause of the food poisoning was eating the meatball sandwich. a. Method of agreement b. Method of difference c. Joint method of agreement and difference d. Method of concomitant variation

B

If p then q not p Therefore not q a. Valid, affirming the antecedent b. Invalid, fallacy of denying the antecedent c. Valid, denying the consequent d. Invalid, fallacy of affirming the consequent

B

MISUSE OF PITY

Being emotionally manipulated by others into feeling sorry for them even though you know that there are good reasons for not giving in to their requests. Liza says "If my father has a bad heart then they (the authorities) should not make my father have therapy for sexually abusing me." In such a case, it may be in order for Liza to feel sorry for her father's heart condition; but that pity should not be confused with a good reason for her father's not having therapy.

. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE

Believing something merely because one is not able to prove it false; or disbelieving something merely because one is not able to prove it true. -Elsa says "If the authorities have not proven that my husband is a child molester, then my husband is not one"; and Justin says, "If you can't prove that John is not a drug addict then John probably is." Just because the authorities were unable to show that Elsa's husband was a child molester does not mean that he is not one.

THE "I JUST CAN'T HELP THIS FEELING" FALLACY

Blaming your emotions entirely on external events without acknowledging the role of your own thinking in causing those emotions.What upsets you are the things that you tell yourself about those events and not those events alone. Of course, had the event in question not happened, you might not have gotten upset. Nevertheless, your negative value judgment of what has happened is a necessary ingredient; and this ingredient is one that you normally can control. , Trisha commits the "I just can't help this feeling" fallacy when she tells herself that her husband's failure to remember her birthday was what made her so upset and that she just couldn't help feeling deeply hurt by this. Similarly, Jack commits this fallacy when he says "My wife got me ripping mad when she called me a fat slob. She really did it then; I just exploded! And, so I hauled off and hit her."