Ch. 13-17
fallacies of relevance
-ad hominem -appeals to authority -appeals to popular opinion -appeals to tradition -appeals to emotion
appeals to emotion types
-appeal to pity -appeal to fear
fallacies of vacuity
-circularity -begging the question -self sealers
slippery slope fallacies
-conceptual -fairness -causal
methods of refutation
-counterexamples -reductio ad absurdum -parallel reasoning
refutation methods
-counterexamples -reductio ad absurdum -parallel reasoning
fallacies of ambiguity
-definitions -semantic -syntactic -equivocation
ad hominem fallacies
-deniers -silencers -dismissers -genetic -tu quoque -inconsistency
responses to causal
-deny that supposedly horrible effects are horrible -deny that one thing is related to the other
circularity
if one of the premises that is used to support conclusion is the same as the conclusion -doesn't have to be worded exactly the same, can just mean the same thing
self-sealers
immune to counter refutation -"anyone who wants to quit smoking can quit anytime" -"then he doesn't REALLY want to quit"
lexical/dictionary definitions
inform us what most people mean when they use the term -car=automobile
slippery slope vs. heap
no real/significant difference between two classifications vs. nothing has the property in question
Sorites
no things have the property in question 1) take vague predicate (bald) 2) an obviously true claim (Obama is not bald) 3)incremental difference to first (if Obama lost one hair he wouldn't be bald) 4)repeat step 3 until there's none 5)an obviously false claim (if Obama lost all but one of his hairs, he wouldn't be bald)
disambiguating definitions
offered to avoid ambiguity or equivocation, often specify which kind of lexical definition is being used -"When I say x, I mean y, not z"
false dichotomy
offering limited options when more are available
causal slippery slope
one thing will lead to a serious of others, and finally, something awful
genetic fallacy
origin makes claim false -"Jewish physics"
appeals to emotion
pity, fear
ostensive definitions
pointing to the thing being defined -that's a chair *points*
begging the question
rationale for premises just accepts conclusion -have to already believe the conclusion for the premises to be valid
semantic ambiguity
related to confusing meaning of the word -Obama smokes (meats? cigs?)
relevance
relationship between conclusion and premises
majority claims
show that conclusion does not hold for majority cases
some claims
show that none to refute
reductio ad absurdum
shows premise or conclusion is absurd or leads to an absurdity
stipulative definitions
stipulated for purpose of argument or a discussion -often introduced explicitly -"By such and such an expression, I mean..."
conceptual slippery slope
things at opposite ends of spectrum aren't different enough to make a distinction -sanity and insanity (some people are just a little weirder)
silencers
type of ad hominem -"you don't get to say this because" -revoke right to speak without necessarily denying truth of statement
tu quoque
type of ad hominem -charges of hypocrisy
deniers
type of ad hominem -deny truth of what is said or soundness of an argument -Mussolini was an awful person and said the sky is blue, so it can't be blue
dismissers
type of ad hominem -doesn't deny truth of statement or speaker's right to say it -shows why the fact this speaker supports a claim is not a good reason to believe the claim -speaker is untrustworthy and can't give us a good claim
middle ground
type of false dichotomy -assumes middle ground is truth
systematic/theoretical definitions
used to give order and structure to a subject matter -A is the brother of B -A and B have the same parents and A is male
precising definitions
used to resolve vagueness, draw sharp boundaries on terms -a big city is one with x miles
appeals to tradition
what everyone's always done
appeals to popular opinion
what general public believes
parallel reasoning
"That's just like arguing"
fairness slippery slope
-"where do you draw the line?" -differences along continuum are just a matter of degree
fallacies of vagueness
-heaps -slippery slope
definitions
-ostensive -lexical/dictionary -disambiguating -stipulative -precising -systematic/theoretical
fallacies of refutation
-straw man -false dichotomy -fallacy of composition
equivocation
-type of ambiguity -when an expression is used in different senses in an argument
4 classes of fallacies
-vagueness -ambiguity -relevance -vacuity
how to do equivocation
1) distinguish possible meanings of ambiguous phrase 2) restate argument in standard form with different meanings 3) evaluate resulting arguments separately -if fail, they commit the fallacy
how to get out of a Sorites
1) reject Modus Ponens 2) premises become false at some point, but where?
ad hominem
arguments against the person instead of claim or argument -not always fallacious, but usually are
composition
assumes what is true of the parts is true of the whole
division
assumes what is true of the whole is true of the parts
universal claims
can be discounted with just one counterexample
straw man
fails to actually address claim
appeals to authority
false authority
syntactic ambiguity
when you know meaning of every word and sentence is still ambiguous -Fred like sushi more than Bob