Chapters 13 & 14 Fallacies of Vagueness & Ambiguity Forum 7 Discussion, chapter 15 & 16 fallacies of relevance and vacuity

equivocation

*An argument is said to commit this fallacy when it uses the same expression in different senses in different parts of the argument, and this ruins the argument. Here is a silly example (from Carl Wolf): Ex: six is an odd number of legs for a horse. odd numbers cannot be divided by two Therefore, six cannot be divided by two. -odd meaning not even vs odd meaning unusual both premises are true with false conclusion so the argument is not valid -ambiguity can cause a variety of problems for arguments; often producing hilarious or embarrassing side effects, and its hard to get your augment taken seriously if your listeners are giggling over unintended double entendre in which one of the double meanings has risqué connotations -ambiguity also generates bad arguments that involves the *fallacy of equivocation which is an augment that is said to commit this fallacy when it uses the same expression in different sense in different parts of the argument and this ruins the argument

beggining the question

*if and only if (1) it depends on a premise that is not supported by any reason that id independent of the conclusion, and (2) there is a need for such an independent reason. -ex: if terrorists can be stopped without torture, then I'm a monkeys uncle. I'm not a monkeys uncle. therefore, terrorists can't be stopped without torture. pg 325 -it raises a question -context raises the question of why anyone denies its conclusion should accept its premises and when hat question has no adequate answer. -the need for an independent justification arise from the context and the purpose for which the argument is being used. a premise needs support from an independent reason for when its in dispute or subject to objection and the arguers goals is to give an audience some reason to accept the premise and to accept the conclusion. a need for an independent reason exists but is not satisfied explains why the argument can be criticized by saying that it commits the fallacy of begging the question -very hard to detect since it is affected by the context and because there are many ways to hide the fact that a premise depends on the conclusion -often used when you have nothing better to say especially on a controversial issues -ex: its always wrong to murder human beings. capital punishment involved murdering human beings. therefore capital punishment is wrong. -by referring to the fetus as an unborn baby (or simply as a baby), a point that demands argument is taken for granted without argument= begging the question -whether a particular argument or premise is question begging will depends on the context in which the argument is given. one way for an argument to beg the question is for it to rely, either explicitly or implicitly, on an unsupported premise that is a matter of dispute in the particular argumentative context referring to a human fetus as a baby will be question begging on contexts in which the moral status of the fetus is at issue, but it may not question begging when this is not an issue. -knee jerk reaction page 326

ad hominem

*its an argument directed against a person who is making a claim rather than against that persons claim or argument. -usually common and obvious sometimes -this move involves irrelevance for the character, social position, or status of a person should have nothing to do with the truth of what that person says or with the soundness or strength of that persons argument -dressing shabbily or failing to bathe, clothing and hygiene shows nothing about the legitimacy of their protest -ethnicity, race, sex or sexual orientation almost never gives us any good reason to challenge the truth of what that person says or the sounds of his/her argument -jusge being appointed by a liberal or conservative doesn't show the judges legal decision are incorrect to unfounded -these fallacies often deal in such irrelevant personal characteristics; introduced just to distract us from the real point at issue. -rare and unusual: speakers character or position is a reason to doubt the truth of what he says ex: DENIERS: ad hominem arguments that deny the truth of what is said or the strength or soundness of an argument although most ad hominem deniers are fallacious, the case of Louie (the perjurer for hire) shows that a few are not -ad hominem that questions a persons right to make a claim or present an argument ex: SILENCERS: which revoke the right to speak without necessarily denying the truth of what is said. *questions the persons right to speak in this context; responding with "practice what you preach" to your uncle who tells you not to take up smoking but the smokes a pack a day. -whether justified or not, ad hominem arguments ex: DISMISSER: dismiss the speaker as untrustworthy and unreliable -with the point not to deny the truth of the claim or the speakers right to say it -its supposed to show why the fact that this speaker supports a claim is not a good reason to believe that claim or deny it for that matter *questions the motive for speaking or the speakers integrity; arguing for opening ip trade with Cuba so you can sell more cigars. -deniers, silencers, and dismissers are all ad hominem arguments since they start from premises about the persons character or status. -differences: deniers conclude that a claim is untrue or that an argument is unsound or weak. silencers conclude that someone lacks the right to speak in a certain context. dismissers conclude that someone is untrustworthy or unreliable. Each can be either justified or unjustified, so ad hominem come in six kinds that can be diagrammed like like: ad hominem arguments: deniers, silencers, and dismissers justified: Louie, the hired perjurer, Tad if he is not a legislator, Cliffs reply if norm lacks integrity not justified: shabby protestors, tad id he is a legislator, cliffs reply if norm doesn't lack integrity

appeals to popular opinion

-argument depends on suppressed premises, -an argument is not an appeal to authority if there is no person claimed to be an authority or an expert. -APPEAL TO POPULAR OPINION: when the argument isn't appealed to authority; Claiming that a position is true because most people believe it is. -when this argument is supposed to have been shared for a long time, the argument = APPEAL TO TRADITION. assuming that when many ppl agree on some indues or agree for a long time, they are likely to be right. which is incorrect -opinion shared by many ppl just because they all learned it from a common source, tv or politicians, then the shared opinion isn't reliable unless its source is reliable. -conclusion is fallacious when the mere fact that an opinion is widely held is not enough to show that the opinion is true. -appeals to popular opinion are often fallacious there are also some areas where popular opinion is evidence of truth -not appeals to popular opinions are defective or fallacious to determine whether or not a particular appeal to popular opinion is fallacious, ask questions that are much like the questions we asked about appeals to authority. including: 1. is the opinion actually widely held? 2. is this the kind of area where popular opinion is likely to be right? 3. why is an appeal to popular opinion being made at all? even when superficial examination reveals that an appeal to popular opinion is fallacious, such argument still seem to convince many ppl. this might be because many ppl want to agree with other so that they will be popular and will not have to think for themselves

chapter 16 fallacious of vacuity

-arguments are vacuous when they don't go anywhere 1. sometimes an argument begins by assuming its conclusion so the argument makes no real progress beyond its own assumptions 2. the arguments conclusion is empty, so the argument has nowhere in particular to go -in both kinds of argument they are fallacious and vacuous; fallacies of vacuity -circular arguments and arguments that beg the question fall into this category -positions that make themselves immune to criticism by being self-sealing.

appeals to emotion

-emotions 1. appeal to pity defense lawyers often dwell on the sad circumstance in which a defendant grew up/ how badly the defendants family will be hurt if the defendant goes to prison showing that the defendant should not receive the max sentence or appeals to pity used to argue that the defendant is not guilty or should not be found guilty then the argument is almost alway fallacious. 2. appeals to fear: common, 9/11 -only fallacious when they are overdone or exaggerated in order to lead ppl away from an accurate assessment of the risks that really exist, which happens all too often so whenever anyone appeals to fear we need to ask whether those fears are being amplified and abused. 3. outrage day 3 2004 republican national convention w/democratic senator Zell miller -need to become aware of these common assumptions so that they can be critically evaluated. 4. positive appeals to emotions: ad's link with a product to positive feelings, might provoke reason to adopt a plan -can be misleading if its unlikely that everything will work out so well and if serious danger will arise when something goes wrong -even emotional reactions are relevant to some extent, one must be careful not to let them cloud the other side of the issue.

heaps pg 279 Sorites Arguments

-existence of borderline cases is essential to various styles of reasoning that have been identified and used since ancient time 1 ).ex: ARGUMENT FROM THE HEAP (Soros= heaps) -this example was intended to show that its impossible to produce a heap of sand by adding one grain at a time = no one can become rich at this rate -conclusions of arguments from the heap are false - arguments cannot be sound -premises 1 have to be accepted as true by everyone -main debate is focuses on premises 2 and whether the argument is valid -why are these arguments labeled fallacies: arguments from the heap are unsound for one reason or another -heaps conclude that nothing has a certain property such as baldness -the claim= no change occurs since the person who loses all their hair is still not bald, as in an argument from the heap

uses of unclarity

-good argument: a person states a conclusion clearly and then with equal clarity gives reasons for this conclusion. -everyday arguments fall short of this -unclear language is a sign of unclear thought -unclearness can be on purpose -using unclarity for poetic effect or leave details to be decided later; with the goal to confuse others= OBFUSCATION. -no such thing as absolute clarity -clarity depends on the context in which it occurs -Aristotle: the mark of an educated person is not to expect more rigor than the subject will allow -clarity and rigor depends on context, and takes judgement and good sense to pitch an argument at the right level

relevance

-in a good argument, we present statements that are true in order to offer a reason for some conclusion. one way to depart from this ideal is to state things that are true themselves, but have no bearing on the truth of the conclusion. -why irrelevant remarkers can have any influence at all we generally assume that a persons remarks are relevant, for this is one of the conditions for smooth and successful conversations -its possible to exploit ppl by violating this natural assumption is shown in the Catcher in the Rye.

Fallacies

-inferences are defective= fallacious

slippery slope

-near cousins to arguments from the heap with different conclusions -could be trotted out to try to show that there is no real or defensible or significant or important difference between being bald and not being bald -claims that we should not classify people as either bald or not bald, because there is no significant difference between these classifications -difference is significant depends on a variety of factors -whats significant for one purpose might not be signifanct for other purposes -different concerns yield different kinds of slippery-slope arguments

vagueness

-not clear for the context -occurs when in a given context, a term is used in a way that allows too many cases in which its unclear whether or not the term applies -underlines many common fallacies including 3 kinds of slippery-slope arguments -most common form of unclarity -arises when a concept applies along a continuum/series of very small changes -ex:baldness; a person with.a full head of hair is not bald. a person without a hair on their head is bald however in btwn it has a range of cases in which we cannot say definitely whether the person is bald or not=BORDERLINE CASES -saying something less definite, such as that person is "going bald" -still wouldn't be able to call the person bald or not even if we were to count the number of hairs on their heads -same for most adjectives that concern properties admitting of degrees such as; rich, healthy, wise and ruthless -imprecision: the lack of sharply defined limits which causes little difficulty -most useful feature of our language -ex: having to count all the grains of salt to see if you really have a pinch -difficulties in borderline cases: -ex: state forbidding all actions in public that are obscene, there will be many cases that clearly fall under this law and many cases that clearly do not fall under it also many cases in which it will not be clear whether or not they fall under this law -laws are sometimes declared unconstitutional for this reason; saying that the law is vague -calling the law vague =criticizing it -there are too many borderline cases for this context -any expression in a given context is used vaguely if it leaves open too wide a range of borderline cases for the successful and legitimate use of that expression in that context -vagueness depends on context -a term that works perfectly well in one area becomes vague when applied in some other (usually more specialized) area -this vagueness can then be removed by adopting more precise rules in the problematic area -vagueness is resolved by definition slippery slope

ambiguity pg 291

-occurs when its unclear which meaning of a term is intended in a given context. -leads to the fallacy of equivocation -the idea of vagueness is based on a common feature of words in our language: many of them leave open a range of borderline cases. -the notion of ambiguity is also based on a common features of our language: words often have a number of different meanings -depends on the context, cause whether something is misleading also depends on context -ex: Merriam-webster pocket dictionary for the word "cardinal"; a STL baseball team, a bird, etc -an expression in given context is used ambiguously if and only if its misleading or potentially misleading because its hard to tell which of a number meanings is intended in that context. -only uses of expressions that are misleading or potentially misleading will be called ambiguous -some writers call an expression ambiguous if it admits of more than on interpretation, without adding that its no possible to tell which meaning is intended. -every expression is ambiguous because virtually every expression admits of more than one interpretation -in a context where the use of a word is ambiguous, its no clear which of two meanings to attach to a word. -in context where the use of a word is vague, we cannot attach any precise meaning to the use of a word *semantic ambiguity: the ambiguity of individual terms or words. *syntactic ambiguity or amphiboly: not knowing which interpretation to give to a phrase or a sentence because its grammar or syntax admits of more than one interpretation *the conquest of the Persians: refers to the Persians conquering someone or to someones conquering the Persians -the grammar of a sentence leaves open a great many possible interpretations ex: only sons marry only daughter by Paul benacerraf -that a person who is a male only child will marry a person who is a female only child vs sons are the only persons who marry daughters and don't marry anyone else etc *disambiguating: the process of rewriting a sentence so that one of its possible meanings becomes clear -rewriting it as a whole, spelling things out in detail or continue the sentence in a way that supplies a context that forces one interpretation over others -deletions cause no misunderstanding sometimes vs sometimes deletions are misunderstood and this can produce ambiguity

inconsistency

-occurs when someone is accused of inconsistency over time -its normally a fallacy to reject pals view on the basis of an inconsistency with their views at other times -TU QUOQUE: meaning you are another, to use a tu quote argument to reach that conclusion would be an unjustified denier and an ad hominem fallacy -to show that someone claims and arguments are defective one normally needs to look at those claims and argument themselves not the behavior of the speaker

definitions pg 299

-take the precaution of defining terms to avoid disputes -definitions will not solve all problems and a mindless insistence on definitions can turn a serious discussion into a semantic quibble -cannot ever be satisfied every definition since they will introduce new terms to be define -some definitions can be confusing or obfuscating ex: inflation as too much money chasing too few goods. defined by an economists; this definition is metaphorical and obscure and has a theory of the causes of inflation built into it 1. lexical or dictionary definitions: most common kind of definition, explaining the meaning of a word by using other words the reader presumably already understands, using the background knowledge to figure out what the other terms mean , with a goal to supply factual information about the standard meanings of words in a particular language -say what words mean or how they are use by most speakers of the language. 2. disambiguating definitions: specify a sense in which a word or phrase is or might be being used by a particular speaker on a particular occasion, telling us which dictionary definition is intended in a particular context or can distinguish several meaning that might be intended, also used to remove syntactic ambiguity or amphiboly -focuses on a particular speaker and species which meaning that speaker intended on a particular occasion. -can be used in response to arguments that seem to commit the fallacy of equivocation -arguments that use terms ambiguously cannot be evaluated thoroughly without the help of disambiguating definitions -whether the ambiguity is semantic or syntactic the goal of a disambiguating definition is to capture what the speaker intended so such definitions can justified by asking the speaker what he/she meant 3. stimulative definitions: used to assign a meaning to a new usually technical term or to assign a new or special meaning to a familiar term -follows the general terms: by such and such expression I or we will mean so and so -dont report what a word meaning but gives a new word a meaning or an old word a new meaning -cannot be false, since no performative can be false -can be vague or ambiguous -useless or confusing -cannot be false by virtue of failing to correspond to the real meaning of a word since they give that meaning to that word 4. precising definitions: used to resolve vagueness pg 301 -used to draw a sharp or sharper boundary around the things to which a term refers when this collection has a fuzzy or indeterminate boundary in ordinary usage -are in effect combinations of stimulative definitions and dictionary definitions -just like stimulative it involves a choice -are not completely arbitrary because they usually should conform to the general accepted meaning of a term & can be good reasons to prefer one pressing definition over another when adopting the preferred definition will have better effects than the alternative -we need some argument os how that one precising definition is better than other alternatives -the only way tp defend this definition might be to show that some precising definitions are needed and the cutoff should lie inside a certain general area, ones preferred definition does lie within area and no alternative is any better 5. systematic or theoretical definitions: introduced to give a systematic order or structure to a subject matter -can be evaluated on the basis of whether they really do help us formulate better theories and understand the world which requires a greta deal of empirical investigations -definitions can play an important tole in presentation but could also hinder the progress of an argument in the middle of discussion ppl often ask for definitions or state usually with an air of triumph that everything depends on the way you define your terms

causal slippery slopes

-the claim is made that, once a certain kind of event occurs, other similar events will also occur and this will lead to disaster -ex: US govt to justify its intervention in Vietnam in the 1960's -domino theory: the fall of one kind are sometimes called domino arguments. Such argument claims that one event which might not seem bad itself would lead to other more horrible event so such argument can also be called parades of horrors -the point of parades of horror is that certain events will cause horrible effects cause of their similarity or proximity to other events *CASUAL SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS: crucial claim is about cause and effects -causal can also slide into good results after all someone who wants communists to take over the world might use the domino argument to show why the us should not intervene in Vietnam. -such optimistic slipper slope are much less common than parades of horror -these arguments resemble other slippery slope arguments in that they depend on a series of small changes -the domino argument does not claim that there is no difference between the first step and later A causal slippery slope is one in which a seemingly innocent action is taken, but it sets off a causal chain that eventually takes you where you may not want to go. -claim about increasing the clerk hire allowance is likely to lead to much larger expenditures that will break the budget pg 285: opponents: 1. deny the supposedly horrible effects really are so horrible; more office space and new buildings would be useful which is often used by describing the effects in especially horrible terms 2. deny that increasing the clerk hire allowance really would have horrible effects; old offices have adequate room for more clerks -best response is a combo of the above arguments one admitting certain claimed effects would be horrible but deny that these horrible effects rally are likely. while the other acknowledges that some more minor problems will ensue, but argue that these costs outweighed by the benefits of the program, determine if a response is adequate: 1. are any of the claimed effects really very bad? 2. are any of these effects very likely? 3. do these dangers outweigh all the benefits of what is being criticized? -if answers to all these arguments are YES then the causal argument is strong. but if any of these questions get a negative answer then the causal argument is questionable on that basis.

circularity - circular reasoning

-to establish the truth of a claim to someone who doubt it person a makes a claim; another person b raises objections to it then a tries to find arguments that respond to the objections and justify the originals statement: a asserts that p is true. b raises objections x,y, and z against it a then offers reasons to overcome these objectiosn what's must a's response be like to meet b's objections?: start w/ the simplest case, a cannot challenge simply by repeating the original assertion. valid argument example: terrorists can't be stopped without torture. therefore, terrorists can't be stopped without torture. the premises cannot be true without the conclusion being true as well. thus argument has no force in this conversational setting since any objection that B has to the conclusion is straight off an objection to the premise since they are the same. -if the premise is true, then the argument is also sound -circular reasoning is disguised by restating the conclusion in different ways -hiding circularity by suppressing the premise that repeats the conclusion *circular reasoning if and only if one of the premises that is used directly or indirectly to support a conclusion is equivalent to the conclusion itself. -reasoning in a circle is normally bad reasoning but not easy to say whats bad about it -problems with this become clear when noticing that the same basic defect is shared by arguments that are not strictly circular -circular= premises repeats the conclusion

conceptual slippery slope arguments pg 281

-try to show that things at opposite ends of a continuum do not differ in any way that would be important enough to justify drawing a distinction in one's concepts or theories depends on the following principles: 1. we should not draw a distinction between things that are not significantly different. 2. if A is not significantly different from B, and B is not significantly different from C, then A is not significantly different from C. -this first principle is interesting, complicated, and generally true. -second principle is obviously false. -a series of insignificant differences can add up to a significant difference -ex: senator Everett Dirksen said: a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there can add up to some real money -conceptual slippery slope arguments depend on this questionable assumption, providing no more support for their conclusions than do arguments from the heap -conceptual slippery slope often lead ppl to accept their conclusions -have been used to deny the difference between sanity and insanity, some ppl are just weirder than others, and between amateur and professional athletics, some athletes just get paid a lil more or more directly than other athletes, -when many small differences make a big difference such conceptual slippery slope arguments are fallacious -this fallacy is seductive, its often hard to tell when small difference do make a big difference =ex: -We shouldn't draw a conceptual distinction between two cases that are very similar.A perfectly normal (with respect to sanity) person is very similar to a person who is normal but just a little bit weird, and a person who is normal but just a little bit weird is very similar to a person who is normal but a little bit weirder, and so on until we get to a person who believes that he is a dog.Therefore, we shouldn't draw a conceptual distinction with regards to sanity between perfectly normal people and people who think that they are dogs.Again, we are left saying, "There definitely is a distinction somewhere." After all, we can move imperceptibly between blue and violet, but that doesn't mean that they are the same color. Conceptual slippery slopes are similar to those concerning fairness, but whereas fairness slippery slope arguments are for the conclusion that we should treat two different things the same, conceptual slippery slope arguments are for the conclusion that two things aren't really different in the first place.

Appeals to authority 314

-we cite an authority to back up what we say which is a way of offering assurance. inciting author instead of giving reasons for what we say we indicate that someone (cited authority) could give them. -authority is a person or institution with a privileged position concerning certain info ex: training =doctor can be an expert on a certain disease, department of agriculture can be an expert on soybean -an appeal to experts and authorities is essential of we are to make up our minds on subjects outside our own range of competence. -abusing appeals to authority: ask whether the person cited is an authority, whether the person cited is an authority in the particular area under discussion ( if answer to this question is no= fallacy of relevance) ex: being a movie star does not qualify a person to speak on the merits of a particular brand of toothpaste or endorsements by athletes of hair creams, beer etc. they are being used to attract attention -to cite an authority is to give assurances usually given to strengthen weak points in arguments. -we can see what's wrong with an argument by noticing where its backed by appeals to authority -be suspicious of arguments that rely on too many authorities = FALLACIES OF EXCESSIVE FOOTNOTES -good arguments stand on their own -reliance on experts and authors is unavoidable in out complicated and specialized world. yet we still need to be critical of appeals to authority by asking these questions: 1. is the cited authority in fact an authority in the appropriate area? 2. has the authority been cited correctly? 3. can the cited authority be trusted to tell the truth? 4. why is an appeal to authority being made at all? 1-4 yes= appeal to authority is probably justified. -even the best authorities can make mistakes, so the conclusion of any appeal to authority might turn out to be false, we can reduce errors by appealing to better authorities, but no authority can guarantee the truth.

fairness slippery slopes

-when borderline cases form a continuum, if someone clarifies a case at one end of the continuum, an opponent often challenges this classification by asking "where do you draw the line"? -this rhetorical question suggests that differences along the continuum are "just a matter of degree" so its arbitrary and hence unfair to draw a line at any particular point along the continuum cause then very similar cases on differences sides of the line will be classified and treated very differently -questions about the fairness of drawing a line often arise in the law. -ex: given reasonable cause the police generally do not have to obtain a warrant to search a motor vehicle, for the obvious reason that the vehicle might be driven away while the police go to a judge to obtain a warrant -few expectations: police may not search a person home without a search warrant. -gray area: motor vehicles and not homes; apartments, mobile homes, tents, houseboats (with or without motors or oars), covered wagons, and a house being moved on a trailer truck -where to draw the line has more important implications than warrantless searches: where to draw the line bwtn crimes punishable by death vs crimes not punishable by death: -death penalty: reserved for serious crimes -the line drawn seems to be an avoidable consequence of the death penalty that similar case will be treated in radically different ways -defender of death penalty can argue that its not unfair to draw a line since once the line is drawn the public will have fair warning about which crimes are subject to the death penalty and which are not -legalization fo abortion: 1. its never justified and ought to be declared totally illegal. 2.it needs no justification at all and should be completely legalized -some ppl abortion is justified in certain circumstances such as when abortion is the only way to save the life of the mother but not when it prevents only lesser harm to the mother. -should be allowed for a certain number of months of pregnancy but no thereafter -where to draw the line and does it make it subject to criticisms from holders of either extreme position -every line draw seems arbitrary to some extent, a person who holds a middle position needs to argue that its better to draw some line even a somewhat arbitrary one than to not draw it at all. -some line is needed, and can often help us locate the real issues which is the first step toward a reasonable position. -separate argument is needed to show that the line should be drawn at one point, or in one area, rather than another. -in the law, such arguments often appeal to value judgements about the effects of drawing the line at one place rather than another -ex: its more efficient to draw a line where its easy to detect, and drawing the line at one place will provide greater protection for some values or some ppl drawing it at another place. -different values often favor drawing different line and sometimes such arguments are not available at all thus it will be difficult to solve may of these profound and important problems Another type of slope is one concerning fairness. Fairness slippery slope arguments start by pointing out that we shouldn't treat similar cases in radically different ways (a principle of fairness). Then it points out that between two extremes there is a continuum of smaller steps such that drawing a line at any point means that we're violating the principle of fairness. The conclusion of such arguments is that we shouldn't draw any line.

exercise 1 pg 327

1. A student of mine told me that I am her favorite professor, and I know that she is telling the truth, because no student would lie to her favorite professor.= Circular reasoning and begs the question 2. Intoxicating beverages should be banned, because they can make people drunk.= Circular reasoning and begs the question 3. Capitalism is the only correct economic system, because without it free enterprise would be impossible= Circular reasoning and begs the question 4. Free trade is good for the country, because it brings the country all of the advantages of an unimpeded flow of goods. =none 5. Gun-control laws are wrong, because they violate the citizen's right to bear arms.= none 6. When B applies for a job from A:A: How can we know that you are trustworthy?B: Mr. Davidson will write me a recommendationA: But why should we trust him?B: I assure you that he is honest and accurate= begs the question 7. The Bible is the inherent word of god, because God speaks only the truth, and repeatedly in the Bible god tells us that the Bible consists of his words.= begs the question 8. We have to accept change, because without change there is no progress= begs the question 9. Premarital sex is wrong, because premarital sex is fornication, and fornication is sin.= Circular reasoning and begs the question 10. The drinking age should be lowered eighteen, because eighteen-year-olds are mature enough to drink.= Begs the question 11. We should never give security clearances to homosexuals, because they can be blackmailed into revealing classified information. They are subject to blackmail, because we will revoke their security clearances if we find out they are gay= none 12. People wit suicidal tendencies are insane, because they want to kill themselves= circular reasoning and begs the question 13. Jeffrey can't really be insane, because he says he is.=none

page 321 exercise 4

1. For centuries throughout Europe, women were burned for being witches, so there must have been lots of witches= Appeal to tradition, fallacious 2.There must be life on other planets, because most people think there is. Just read a few tabloids= Appeal to popular opinion, fallacious 3. Most people who live in the United States think that it is the greatest country ever, so it must= Appeal to popular opinion, fallacious 4. There are more Buddhists than followers of any other religion, so there must be more truth in Buddhism.= Appeal to popular opinion, fallacious 5. Incest must be immoral, because people all over the world for many centuries have seen it as immoral= Appeal to tradition, fallacious 6. The golden rule Is accepted in almost every system of ethics both in the past and in the present, so there is probably something to it= appeal to tradition, not fallacious? 7. Chris must not be guilty, because twelve jurors, who saw all the evidence, agreed on a verdict of not guilty.= Appeal to popular opinion, not fallacious 8. "Polls show an overwhelming majority of American people want lot less immigration or even an immigration moratorium..."= Appeal to popular opinion, fallacious

exercise two pg 277

1. Ross has a LARGE income. If a bank officer must approve Ross's application for a home mortgage, it might matter precisely how large Ross's income is. Replacement: Ross is a billionaire 2. Cocaine is a DANGEROUS drug. if cocaine might be used in a medical procedure, then it might matter precisely how dangerous it is. Replacement: An overdose of cocaine can kill you 3.Ruth is a CLEVER women. Ruth applied for a job in your law firmReplacement: Ruth graduated first in her law school class 4. Andre is a TERRIFIC tennis player. You have a chance to bet that Andre will win the United States Open tennis tournament this year. Replacement: Andre won the United States Open and other major tournaments recently 5. Mark is not doing too WELL (after his operation) A doctor needs to decide whether to perform a second operation on Mark now. Replacement: Mark is still in critical condition. .6. Shaq's a BIG fellow. We are picking a center for our basketball team. Replacement: Shaq is 7'1" and weighs 350 pounds 7. Dan's grades are LOW. Dan has to decide whether to hire a tutor. Replacement: Dan is about to flunk out of school. 8. Walter can't see WELL. Walter is applying for a training program to become a bus driver or a sharpshooter. Replacement: Walter can't see a hand in front of his face 9. The earthquake was a DISASTER. A committee is distributing a limited amount of disaster relief. Replacement: The earthquake caused thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damage 10. The news was WONDERFUL. A set of twins are waiting to hear back from colleges they applied to, and their mother informs them of the news. Replacement: The news was that both siblings got into their top choices

1. We have to take a stand against sex education in junior high schools. If weallow sex education in the eighth grade, then the seventh graders willwant it, and then the sixth graders, and pretty soon we will be teachingsex education to our little kindergartners. 2. People are found not guilty by reason of insanity when they cannot avoidbreaking the law. But people who are brought up in certain deprivedsocial circumstances are not much more able than the insane to avoidbreaking the law. So it would be unjust to find them guilty. 3. People are called mentally ill when they do very strange things, but manyso-called eccentrics do things that are just as strange. So there is no realdifference between insanity and eccentricity. 4. If you try to smoke one cigarette a day, you will end up smoking two andthen three and four and five, and so on, until you smoke two packs everyday. So don't try even one. 5. A human egg one minute after fertilization is not very different from whatit is one minute later, or one minute after that, and so on. Thus, there is re-ally no difference between just-fertilized eggs and adult humans .6. Since no moment in the continuum of development between an egg and a baby is especially significant, it is not fair to grant a right to life to a baby unless one grants the same right to every fertilized egg. 7. If we let doctors kill dying patients who are in great pain, then they will kill other patients who are in less pain and patients who are only slightly disabled. Eventually, they will kill anyone who is not wanted by society. H= argument from heap C= conceptual slippery slope F= fairness slippery slope S= causal slippery slope

1. S = causal slippery-slope argument. The thrust of this argument is that since there is little difference between students who are only one year apart in school, then allowing sex education in 8thgrade willcauseus to eventually offer sex education to kindergarteners. This effect seems unlikely because it is easy to draw a line between high school and middle school or between middle school and elementary school. 2.F = a fairness slippery-slope argument. (Norval Morris argues this way inMadness and the Criminal Law.) This argument is a fairness slippery-slope because it concludes that it is unfair or "unjust" to treat one group of people differently from another group, when there seems to be no significant reason as to why. 3.C = conceptual slippery-slope argument. The argument claims that thereis no real differencebetween insanity and eccentricity, revealing that it is conceptual. 4.S = causal slippery-slope argument. The argument claims that smoking one cigarette a day will eventually cause you to smoke many more. 5.C = conceptual slippery-slope argument. Again, here the conclusion is about an apparent difference not actually existing, and thus it is conceptual. 6.F = a fairness slippery-slope argument. The argument claims that it is unfair to give certain rights to a being, and deny those same rights to an extremely similar being. 7.S = causal slippery-slope argument. Here, the argument states that by allowing euthanasia in some cases, we will be causing widespread patient-killing.

exercises on page 312

1. Sadie; ad hominem dismisser; dark and saw something else 2. Sam; ad hominem dismisser; questions reasons 3. Steve; ad homiem silencer 4. Sybill; not an ad hominem, no remarks about sybil or attack on sybil 5. Sally; ad hominem denying denying claim

page 318 exercise 3

1. The surgeon general says that smoking is hazardous to your health, so it is.= authority and strong 2. The surgeon general says that abortion is immoral, so it is.= No authority, not strong. 3. Michael Jordan says that Air Jordan's sneakers are springier, so they must be springier. no authority, not strong 4. This must be a great movie, because the billboard says that Time magazine called it "terrific".= No authority, not strong 5. My friend Joe says that this new movie is hilarious, so it must be worth watching= No authority, not strong 6. Ben and Jerry's ice cream must be the best, because Fat Fred eats more ice cream than anyone else I Know, and he says Ben and Jerry's is the best = No authority, not strong 7. There must be life on other planets, because many great scientists are looking for it, so they must think it is here.= Authority, not strong 8. Lefty Lopez must be the best pitcher of the year, because he won the Cy Young Award (awarded by the Baseball Writers Association to the best pitcher of the year).= Authority, not strong 9. Vanna must be the most beautiful woman in America, because she won the Miss America contest.= Authority, not strong 10. There was 250,000 protestors at the rally, because its organizers gave that figure.= No Authority, not strong 11. There was 25,000 protestors at the rally, because its opponents said so.= No authority, not strong 12. True Christians ought to give away all their money, because the Bible says, "Blessed are the poor.= No authority, not strong

Types of Slippery Slopes

1. conceptual slippery slopes 2. fairness slippery slopes 3. causal slippery slopes

assessing an ad hominem argument

1. determine whether its conclusion is about someones right to speak, about someones reliability, or about the truth, soundness or strength of what is claimed. 2. determine whether its premises provide adequate justification for its conclusion. these steps will enable you to place the argument and will often be ninth easy nor obvious -although perjurers for hire almost always lie, most ppl exhibit some middling degree of reliability -in assessing it would be best to look for more evidence -if none of this is available, them you need to ask how often their testimony is true on matters of this kind, only by careful inspections of individual cases can we determine the strength of such ad hominem arguments

strategy for dealing with arguments that may involve a fallacy of equivocation

1. distinguish the possible meanings of the potentially ambiguous empressions in the argument 2. for each possible meaning, restate the argument so that each expression clearly has the same meaning in all of the premises and the conclusion 3. evaluate the resulting arguments separately -if the argument fails whenever each term has a consistent meaning through out the argument then the argument is guilty of equivocation.

more fallacies of relevance

1. is the cited authority in fact an authority in the appropriate area? 2. has the authority been cited correctly? 3. can the cited authority be trusted to tell the truth? 4. why is an appeal to authority being made at all? questions like the above are used to evaluate appeals of authority can also be used to assess some other common styles of reasoning that are often accused of being fallacious.

exercise one pg 277

1. large animal: This term clearly applies to elephants. It clearly does not apply to shrimp. Dogs are borderline cases. 2. populous state: This term clearly applies to California. It clearly does not apply to Vermont. Kansas is a borderline case 3. long book: War and Peace. It clearly does not apply toA Christmas Carol. Madame Bovaryis a borderline case. 4. old professor: This term clearly applies to an 80-year-old professor. It clearly does not apply to a 30-year-old professor. A 50-year-old professor is a borderline case. 5. popular singer: This term clearly applies to Britney Spears. It clearly does not apply to me. Many singers in night clubs are borderline cases. 6. powerful person: This term clearly applies to the President of the United States. It clearly does not apply to the President's baby. Local school board members are borderline cases. 7. difficult subject: This term clearly applies to quantum mechanics. It clearly does not apply to physical education. History is a borderline case. 8. late meeting: This term clearly applies to a meeting at midnight. It clearly does not apply to a meeting at 6 a.m. Afternoon meetings can be borderline cases 9. arriving late to a meeting: This term clearly applies when one arrives an hour late. It clearly does not apply when one arrives a second late. Arriving a minute or two late is a borderline case

minimum and maximum age to drive a car

15/16 to 70

minimum age to join the military

17

minimum age to vote

18 years old

minimum age to drink alcohol

21

minimum age for president

35

an old professor

40-50 vs 80-90 borderline: 35-40

maximum age before retirement becomes mandatory

65-70

AMBIGUITY A NATURAL FEATURE OF LANGUAGE

Ambiguity occurs when it is unclear which meaning of a term is intended in a givencontext. Ambiguity leads to the fallacy of equivocation. EX: The term 'cardinal' has several meanings: It's a bright red bird, a position in the Roman Catholic Church, and a baseball team. If you said to me, "The cardinals are coming to town," I might justifiably ask you, "which cardinals?" EX: Consider the multiple interpretations of the following sentences. •I don't know what state Meredith is in.; the state of her health vs the state which she resides in •Mary had a little lamb; it followed her to school vs she had a lamb then some broccoli -had a lamb, owned, ate, •Visiting professors can be boring; going to see a professor is boring office hrs vs professors visiting you in class is boring •AMBIGUITY occurs when it is unclear which meaning of a term is intended in a given context. •Words often (and necessarily) have a number of different meanings. •EX: The word CARDINAL can be both an adjective (1. of basic importance; chief, main, primary; 2. of cardinal red color) or a noun (1. an official position in the Roman Catholic Church; 2. a bright red; 3. any of several American finches of which the male is bright red). •It is not likely that people would get confused about these very different meaning of the word "cardinal," but we might imagine a priest, a birdwatcher, and a baseball fan all hearing the remark, "The cardinals are in town." In this context, the remark might be criticized as ambiguous (page 291). •Ambiguity leads to the fallacy of EQUIVOCATION.

If you try to smoke one cigarette a day, you will end up smoking two and then three and four and five, and so on, until you smoke two packs every day. So don't even try one.

Casual slippery slope

We have to take a stand against sex education in junior high schools. If we allow sex education in the eighth grade, the seventh graders will want it, and then the sixth graders, and pretty soon we will be teaching sex education to our little kindergartners. Which argument?

Casual slippery slope

page 298 When a newspaper was criticized as a scandalous rumormonger, its editor responded with the following argument (as paraphrased by Deni Elliot). Does the editor's argument commit the fallacy of equivocation?

Equivocation is defined as a fallacy that uses the same expression in different senses in different parts of the argument. The editor does commit the fallacy of quivocation he uses the term "public interests". One is the best for the public to know (facts) and the other is stating what's going to peak interests in the readers.

A Straw Argument is distinct from an Ad Hominem in that Ad Hominem attacks misrepresent an opponent's position, whereas those that are Straw Arguments abuse an opponent directly

False; Straw Arguments are often confused with Ad Hominem arguments. The difference is that Straw Arguments misrepresent an opponent's position, whereas Ad Hominem attacks abuse an opponent directly.

RELEVANCE A NATURAL FEATURE OF LANGUAGE

Many fallacies arise when a premise, true or not, is not adequately related to the conclusion. When you offer something as a reason, it is conversationally implied that there is some connection between it and the thing for which you are arguing. Ad Hominem fallacies are a prime example of a fallacy of relevance. EX: If I ask you how you liked the concert and you replied, "The costumes were beautiful," you've told me (in not so many words) that you didn't care for the concert much. I've deduced this by recognizing that what you had to say in response to my question is irrelevant. You've used that feature of language to get your point across implicitly rather than explicitly.

Although we usually have a class at this time in this room, I don't see anybody in the classroom, because a wicked witch made them invisible.

Not conservative or falsifiable

My house fell down, because of a powerful earthquake centered on my property that did not affect anything or anybody else.

Not conservative or powerful

Although we usually have class at this time in this room, I don't see anybody in the classroom, because they all decided to skip class today.

Not deep or explanatory

Although I fished here all day, I didn't catch any fish, because there are not fish is this whole river.

Not modest

Although I fished here all day, I didn't catch any fish, because the river gods don't like me.

Not simple, conservative, or falsifiable

EX: ARGUMENT FROM THE HEAP

One the earliest examples of this kind of fallacy is one we get from the Greek philosophers. It's called an "argument from the heap" (or Sorites paradox) and it goes like this: Imagine a heap of something in front of you (grain, sand, salt, laundry, etc.). If I take one granule away, I still have a heap. If I take another granule (so now two granules), I still have a heap. And so on and so forth. Eventually I will no longer have a heap...but it won't be because of the loss of any one of those granules... In other words, it seems that no single grain (of whatever) can make the difference between a number of grains that does, and a number that does not, make a heap.Therefore, since one grain does not make a heap, it follows that two grains do not; and if two do not, then three do not; and so on.This reasoning leads to the absurd conclusion that no number of grains make a heap.

VAGUENESS A NATURAL FEATURE OF LANGUAGE

Vagueness occurs when, in a given context, a term is used in a way that allows too many cases in which it is unclear whether or not the term applies. Vagueness arises when a concept applies along a continuum or a series of very small changes. Vagueness leads to the fallacy of a slippery slope. EX: How many hairs must one have on one's head in order to not be bald? A full head of hair is clearly a case of "not bald" and a hairless head is clearly a case of "bald" but what about all the in between? Likewise, how much money must one have in order to be rightly considered rich? In comparison to Bill Gates I am not rich, but in comparison to most of the people of Haiti I am.

getting paid for an argument

a justified ad hominem

generosity and fear of looking stupid leads to

accept all sorts of irrelevant statement as reasons.

relevance

ad hominem

relevance

ad hominem and appeal to authority

genetic fallacies

argue for against an idea based on its source -aim at the source or origin of the speakers belief -when its origin is irrelevant to the truth of a climate, such arguments commit what's called GENETIC FALLACY -whole movements are seen as genetic fallacies -can be used just as well for contrary conclusions suggests that they do not really support either side -its problem is that lots of good ideas have questionable origins ex: Pythagorean cults, gravity, chemical theory -the origins of the ideas cannot be used to refute those views/.arguments for them -learning the genesis of an idea can help improve ones indicate of its content and of the process of discovery -origins sometimes indicate where to look for evidence or for objections and to evaluate an idea or an argument one should focus on that ideas or argument not its origin

two kinds of arguments that often involves fallacies of relevance

arguments ad hominem and appeals to authority

Fallacies of Relevance

arise when a premise, true or not, is not adequately related to the conclusion. -two common forms: ad hominem and appeals to authority -common in everyday life; introducing irrelevant details or tangents in order to mislead by diverting attention from the real issue; irrelevant distractions is sometimes described as a RED HERRING with the best strategy to cross out all irrelevant claims and then see what's left sometimes there is nothing left. -dont always be heavy handed in making charges of irrelevance. sometimes the occurrence of irrelevance is innocent; good arguments often contain irrelevant asides -relevence is often secured by way of a conversational implications, knowing what's happening in a given context to decide whether a remake is relevant or not

If we let doctors kill dying patients who are in great pain, then they will kill other patients who are in less pain and patients who are only slightly disabled. Eventually, they will kill anyone who is not wanted by society.

causal slippery slope

A human egg one minute after fertilization is not very different from what it is one minute later, or one minute after that, and so on. Thus, there is really no difference between just-fertilized eggs and adult humans.

conceptual slippery slope

People are called mentally ill when they do very strange things, but many so-called eccentrics do things that are just as strange. So there is no real difference between insanity and eccentricity.

conceptual slippery slope

ad hominem

deniers, silencers, and dismissers

exercise 2 page 313 1, "The American Tobacco Company has argued for years that smoking is not really unhealthy, but what would you expect the company to say? It would take the same position regardless of any evidence, so I can't trust them." 3. After Congress passes a military draft during a war, an opponent says, "If members of Congress were eligible for the draft, they would not vote for it. So we must not really need a draft." 13. "Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone." Which of the following terms best labels the sort of ad hominem being conveyed in this argument?

dismisser denier silencer

large animal vs not a large animal

elephant vs ant borderline case: dog

ambiguity

equivocation

People are found not guilty by reason of insanity when they cannot avoid breaking the law. But people who are brought up in certain deprived social circumstances are not much more able than the insane to avoid breaking the law . So it would be unjust to find them guilty.

fairness slippery slope

Since no moment in the continuum of development between an egg and a baby is especially significant, it is not fair to grant a right to life to a baby unless one grants the same right to every fertilized egg.

fairness slippery slope

Which fallacy is committed by the following argument: Since no moment in the continuum of development between an egg and a baby is especially significant, it is not fair to grant a right to life to a baby unless one grants the same right to every fertilized egg.

fairness slippery slope

Although we usually have class at this time in this room, I don't see anybody in the classroom, because it's Columbus Day.

good explanation

Andy: Since the supply of fresh milk has diminished significantly, milk drinkers have been turning to powder.Sandy: That's impossible! People cannot turn to powder.In this exchange, Sandy

misunderstands Andy's claim because of a syntactic ambiguity in the expression "turn to powder." Feedback: The correct answer is B. The phrase "milk drinkers have been turning to powder" could mean two things. On one hand, it could mean "milk drinkers have increased their use of powdered milk." On the other hand, it could mean "milk drinkers are being physically transformed so that they are mere powder." By stating that people cannot turn to powder, Sandy takes Andy to be making the second claim. It is likely, however, that Andy is making the first claim, and not the second. So Sandy misunderstands Andy's claim because of a syntactic ambiguity in the expression "turn to powder."

That light far up in the sky is moving quickly, because it is an alien spaceship.

not conservative

That light far up in the night sky looks like it is moving quickly, because there's something wrong with my eyes right now.

not deep

My house fell down, because it was painted red.

not explanatory

Although I fished here all day, I didn't catch any fish, because I was unlucky today

not explanatory, falsifiable, or deep

That light far up in the night sky is moving quickly, because it is the daily United Airlines flight from Boston to Los Angeles.

not modest

deiner, silence, Dimmers

rare justified argument structures

vagueness

slippery slopes, conceptual, fairness, causal, heaps

Anyone who thinks that the United States should have sent troops to Iraq must think that they will only be there for a short time. Straw man

straw man

Anyone who thinks that the United States should not have sent troops to Iraq must think that the suffering Saddam Hussein inflicted on his own citizens doesn't matter much. Straw man?

straw man

Atheists think that God does not exist , so everything is permitted is permitted. But even atheists must admit that I would not be permitted to kill them! So atheism is nonsense. Straw man?

straw man

Humans could not have been created in the image of God, because God is not a physical being, and only physical beings can have images. Straw man?

straw man

Stephen Colbert again: "Evolutionists' main claim is that one day we decided to stop being monkeys and turned ourselves into humans. Well, if that's true, why aren't more monkeys escaping from zoos? Think about it. They could turn into humans, then disguise as janitors and walk out of their cages. But I guess evolution doesn't have an answer for that one." Straw man?

straw man

The theory of evolution says that humans are no different from apes, but humans are clearly smarter than apes, so the theory of evolution must be wrong.

straw man

logicians sometimes speak of the fallacy of appealing to authority

there is often nothing wrong with citing authors or experts

Sometimes a Slippery Slope argument is justified and sometimes it is not. t/f

true

ambiguous

unclear or doubtful in meaning -more than one meaning

logicicans usually call ad hominem fallacies are

unjustified deniers. -even when the premises of such an argument are true, they are irrelevant to the conclusion. which makes the fallacies of relevance

WE'LL BEGIN WITH SOME FEATURES OF LANGUAGE, BECAUSE OF WHICH CERTAIN FALLACIES CAN ARISE. THOSE FEATURES ARE:

•AMBIGUITY -- Equivocation •VAGUENESS - Slippery Slope •RELEVANCE - Ad Hominem

mills increase happiness and decrease sadness

•Let's consider another, more serious, example of EQUIVOCATION. •Consider the passage taken from Utilitarianism (1861) by John Stuart Mill on page 296 of your text. Mill has been charged (by some) with committing the fallacy of equivocation in this passage, IF the following reconstruction is a charitable one: If something is desired, then it is desirable. If something is desirable, then it is good. If something is desired, then it is good. •The pattern should look familiar... If A then B and if B then C; therefore, If A then C. •The objection to Mill's argument is that the word "desirable" is used in different senses in the two premises. Specifically, in the first premise, it is used to mean "capable of being desired," whereas in the second premise, it is used to mean "worthy of being desired." If so, the argument really amounts to this: If something is desired, then it is capable of being desired. If something is worthy of being desired, then it is good. Therefore, if something is desired, then it is good. •To make the charge of equivocation stick, we must replace the multiple senses of the word with just one sense and examine the argument without the ambiguity. This produces two cases. CASE 1: If something is desired, then it is capable of being desired. If something is capable of being desired, then it is good. Therefore, if something is desired, then it is good. -this argument is valid but the second premises if not true because we are capable of desiring things that are not good CASE 2: If something is desired then it is worthy of being desired. If something is worthy of being desired, then it is good. Therefore, if something is desired, then it is good. -this argument is valid but the second premises is false because sometimes ppl desire things that they shouldn't desire -to make the charge of equivocation stick it has to be shown that the argument is not valid when the meaning •In both cases, disambiguating the term "desirable" results in a VALID but UNSOUND argument. Thus, the fallacy of equivocation stands. also the altering the premises to produce a vlid argument produces a false premise so the argument cannot be sound. -a pattern this the Stuart mills one is a pattern that emerges when dealing with arguments that involves the fallacy of equivocation; when the premises are interpreted in a way that produces a valid argument then at least one of the premises is false; premises interpreted in a way that makes them true then the argument is not valid

AD HOMINEM

•Literally, an argument ad hominem is an argument directed against a person who is making a claim rather than against that person's claim or argument for it. •On the face of it, this move seems to involve irrelevance, for the character, social position, or status of a person should have nothing to do with the truth of what that person says or with the soundness or strength of that person's arguments. •EXAMPLE: Even when protesters dress shabbily or fail to bathe, their clothing and hygiene show nothing about the legitimacy of their protest. A speaker's ethnicity, race, sex, or sexual orientation almost never give us any good reason to challenge the truth of what that person says or the soundness of his or her argument. -a distraction; insults;

•EX II, page 294-295

•Milk Drinkers Turn to Powder •College Graduates Blind Senior Citizen •Time for Football and Meatball Stew •Police Kill Man with Ax •Prostitutes Appeal to Pope •Hospitals Sued by Seven Foot Doctors •Stolen Painting Found by Tree

slippery slopes

•Near cousins to arguments from the heap are slippery slope arguments. •Whereas heap arguments conclude that nothing has a certain property, such as baldness, a slippery slope argument could be trotted out to try to show that there is no real or defensible or significant or important difference between being bald and not being bald. •The claim is not that no change occurs because the person who loses all his hair is still not bald (as in an argument from the heap). Instead, the slippery slope argument claims that we should not classify people as either bald or not bald because there is no significant difference between these classifications. •Your text delineates three kinds of slippery slope arguments: •Conceptual, Fairness, and Causal. •CONCEPTUAL - try to show that things at opposite ends of a continuum do not differ in any way that would be important enough to justify drawing a distinction in one's concepts or theories •FAIRNESS -- typically claim that wherever you draw the line along the continuum is arbitrary and, hence, unfair to draw a line at any particular point because then very similar cases on different sides of the line will be classified and treated very differently. •CAUSAL - in these arguments, the claim is made that, once a certain kind of event occurs, other similar events will also occur, and this will lead eventually to disaster. •EX: most famous argument of this kind was used by the US gov't to justify intervention in Vietnam in 1960s. If was claimed that, if the communists took over Vietnam, they would take over Cambodia, the rest of Asia, and other continents, until they ruled the whole world. Also called "domino effect," "domino argument," "parade of horrors." •Causal slippery slopes can also slide into good results. Exercise IV, page 286 Conceptual, Fairness, or Causal? 1.We have to take a stand against sex education in junior high schools. If we allow sex education in the eight grade, then the seventh graders will want it, and then the sixth graders, and pretty soon we will be teaching sex education to our little kindergartners. 2. People are found not guilty be reason of insanity when they cannot avoid breaking the law. But people who are brough up in certain deprived social circumstances are not much more able than the insane to avoid breaking the law.So it would be unjust to find them guilty. 3. People are called mentally ill when they do very strange things, but many so-called eccentrics do things that are just as strange. So there is no real difference between insanity and eccentricity.

appeal to authority

•Often in the midst of an argument, we cite an authority to back up what we say (a standard way of offering assurances, as we saw in Chapter 3). •An authority is a person or institution with a privileged position concerning certain information. •Because some people stand in a better position to know things than others, there is nothing improper about citing them as authorities. •In fact, an appeal to experts and authorities is essential if we are to make up our minds on subjects outside our own range of competence. •At the same time, appeals to authority can be abused, and there are some obvious questions we should ask whenever such an appeal is made. •Is the person cited in fact an authority at all? •Is the person cited an authority in the particular area of discussion?

CHAPTER 13

•Vagueness arises when a concept applies along a continuum or a series of very small changes. •The standard example is baldness. •The person with a full head of hair is not bald (think of an example here) •The person without a hair on his head is bald (think of an example here) •In between, however, is a range of cases in which we cannot say definitely whether the person is bald or not (borderline cases). •It will not help to count the number of hairs on a person's head - our inability to apply the concept in a borderline case is not due to ignorance. Even if we knew the exact number, we would still not be able to say whether the person was bald or not. •The same goes for most adjectives that concern properties admitting of degrees, e.g. "rich," "healthy," "tall,' "wise," ruthless •For the most part, imprecision - the lack of sharply defined limits - causes little difficulty. •In fact, this is a useful feature of our language, for suppose we did have to count the number of grains of salt between our fingers to determine whether or not we hold a pinch of salt. •Difficulties arise when borderline cases themselves are at issue. •EX: Suppose that a state passes a law forbidding all actions in public that are obscene - there will be many clear cases that do and do not fall under the law, but there will also be many cases in which it will not be clear whether or not the law applies. The law is vague. •More precisely, we shall say that an expression in a givencontext is used vaguely if it leaves open too wide a range of borderline cases for the successful and legitimate use of that expression in that context. EX I, page 277 1.large animal 2.old professor 3.popular singer 4.powerful person 5.arriving late to a meeting ● You can see that vagueness depends on context. Vagueness is resolved by definition.

FALLACIES GENERALLY SPEAKING...

•WHEN INFERENCES ARE DEFECTIVE, THEY ARE CALLED FALLACIOUS. •WHEN DEFECTIVE STYLES OF REASONING ARE REPEATED OVER AND OVER, BECAUSE PEOPLE OFTEN GET FOOLED BY THEM, THEN WE HAVE AN ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY THAT IS WORTH FLAGGING WITH A NAME. •THE NUMBER AND VARIETY OF ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACIES ARE LIMITED ONLY BY THE IMAGINATION. •CONSEQUENTLY, THERE IS LITTLE POINT IN TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A COMPLETE LIST OF FALLACIES. WHAT IS CRUCIAL IS TO GET A FEEL FOR THE MOST COMMON AND MOST SEDUCTIVE KINDS OF FALLACY. IN THIS SHORT INTRODUCTION TO FALLACIES (GENERALLY SPEAKING) I WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A FEW UMBRELLA CONCEPTS. THESE UMBRELLA CONCEPTS IDENTIFY GENERAL CATEGORIES MEANT TO HELP US ORGANIZE VARIOUS PATTERNS OF FALLACIOUS REASONING.

•EX IV, page 297 all examples of equivocation

•We shouldn't hire Peter, because our company has a policy against hiring drug users, and I saw Peter take aspirin, which is a drug. •drug: Fallacy of Equivocation •Man is the only rational animal, and no woman is a man. •equivocation; no women is a man •Our cereal is all natural, for there is nothing supernatural about it. • -the cereal is made from natural ingredients vs its not out of this world, not alien, not from this world •I have a right to spend all my money on lottery tickets. Therefore, when I spend all my money on lottery tickets, I am doing the right thing. -I have the freedom to spend all my money on lotto tickets vs its not the wrong thing to do