Critical Thinking
an argument that either is invalid or has at least one false premise.
Unsound
make an argument or response to an argument that is irrelevant.
all fallacies of relevance
Appeal to Force
an irrelevant appeal because it argues that some proposition is true, but uses as justification for the claim a threat on the listener.
fallacies of weak induction
are all failures in reasoning about the messy world of cause and effect, contingent facts of the universe, and generalizations about kinds of things in the world.
Abduction
arguments where the best available explanation is chosen as the correct explanation
The burden of proof shifting fallacy
committed when one presumes that one's (implausible) claim is justified unless someone else demonstrates otherwise.
The false dilemma fallacy
committed when one presumes that there are fewer options (typically two) than there actually are.
Questions about whether a source has a real author, is biased, is thoughtful, is honest, etc. can help in
evaluating information sources
happens when someone uses the fact that a fallacy was committed to justify rejecting the conclusion of the fallacious argument.
fallacy fallacy
Questions about plausibility, convenience, or what others are saying about a story can help in
identifying fake information
valid argument
is an argument structure where the premises guarantee the conclusion.
Hasty Generalization
it's when one generalizes about a group of people or things or events, but one does so too quickly and without enough evidence or with too small of a sample.
Texas Sharpshooter
letting your desired conclusion determine which evidence you take into account or how you treat evidence
Appeal to Consequences
something which isn't relevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion is appealed to in arguing for that conclusion.
Equivocation
the same word is being used in two different senses (i.e., with two different meanings).
False premise
. There is something wrong with this argument's particular content.
Deduction
: arguments where the premises guarantee or necessitate the conclusion
Induction
: arguments where the premises make the conclusion probable
is strong and has true premises.
A Cogent argument
the offender is introducing an irrelevant topic and discussing that instead of the topic at hand.
A Red Herring
a type of bad argument.
A fallacy
valid and has true premises.
A sound argument
if the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true.
A strong inductive argument
if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
A valid deductive argument
The fallacies of weak induction are
Appeal to Ignorance, Slippery Slope, Texas Sharpshooter, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - False Cause, and Hasty Generalization
Ad Populum
Appeal to the People, to Popularity, Nose-Counting Fallacy, Bandwagon Fallacy, argumentum ad populum are all names for the same thing: appealing to the popularity of a thing or idea or practice in order to justify that thing or idea or practice.
composed of premises and conclusions.
Arguments
purportedly rational movements from premises to conclusions.
Arguments
A cognitive bias in which an individual takes available information while not considering unknown information resulting in a person jumping to conclusions.
Availability heuristic
a cognitive bias in which an individual takes available information while not considering unknown information resulting in a person jumping to conclusions.
Availability heuristic
interpret others' arguments in the best possible light.
Charity
all true premises
Cogent
The way we naturally categorize and make sense of the world around us.
Cognitive Bias
The systemic ways in which people categorize and make sense of the world to make judgments and decisions.
Cognitive bias
refers to the systemic ways in which people categorize and make sense of the world to make judgments and decisions.
Cognitive bias
composed of simple propositions.
Complex propositions
true or false based on whether the simple propositions that make them up are true or false.
Complex propositions
The natural tendency to seek out evidence that supports personal beliefs and to ignore evidence that gets in the way of those beliefs.
Confirmation Bias
is the natural tendency to seek out evidence that supports personal beliefs and to ignore evidence that gets in the way of those beliefs.
Confirmation bias
supposed to guarantee their conclusions
Deductive arguments
Bad inferential structure
Every argument with the same structure as this argument is bad (invalid or weak). The premises do not, in fact, demonstrate or maybe even support the conclusion. In other words, we can accept the premises as true without being compelled to accept the conclusion. There is something wrong with this argument's general structure.
Arguments can go wrong in only two ways
False premise or bad inferential structure
have a bad structure.
Formal fallacies
the structure of things
Formal fallacy
A rule of thumb, a ready strategy, or a shortcut.
Heuristics
means a rule of thumb, a ready strategy, or a shortcut.
Heuristics
only offer probabilistic support for their conclusions
Inductive
supposed to make their conclusions probable
Inductive arguments
have a problem with their content.
Informal fallacies
a problem with their content
Informal fallacy
propositions that are supposed to support the conclusion.
Premises
can be identified with the help of indicators.
Premises and Conclusions
are either simple or complex.
Propositions
statements that can be true or false.
Propositions
A cognitive bias in which an individual categorizes a new situation based on nearest prototype or experience in their mind.
Representativeness heuristic
a cognitive bias in which an individual categorizes a new situation based on the nearest prototype or experience in their mind.
Representativeness heuristic
Happens when the sample we generalize from isn't large enough or representative of the total population.
Selection bias
Occurs when the same data is reported in different ways to achieve different rhetorical goals.
Selective reporting
about both structure and truth: you must have a good structure and true premises
Sound
thinking is quick, automatic, and emotional.
System 1
thinking is deliberate, effortful, and calculating.
System 2
occurs when someone attacks the arguer instead of the argument.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
fallacies of relevance
The Ad Hominem Fallacy, The genetic fallacy, The straw figure or straw man fallacy, and A Red Herring
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - False Cause
The False Cause fallacy happens when someone mistakes correlation for causation.
committed when one selectively uses, or "cherry-picks," only the evidence supporting their desired conclusion.
The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy
committed when one attacks the person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
The ad hominem fallacy
committed when one appeals to an unqualified authority in support of one's claim.
The appeal to authority fallacy
committed when one appeals to the bad (or good) consequences of accepting a claim as a reason to reject (or accept) it as true.
The appeal to consequences fallacy
committed when one uses a threat to compel agreement with one's claim.
The appeal to force fallacy
committed when one reasons from our lack of knowledge that a claim is false (or true) to the assertion that the claim is true (or false).
The appeal to ignorance fallacy
committed when someone reasons from our lack of knowledge that a claim is false (or true) to the assertion the claim is true (or false).
The appeal to ignorance fallacy
committed when one appeals to the popularity of a belief as a reason to affirm its truth.
The appeal to popularity fallacy
a circular argument in which a premise of the argument presumes the truth of the conclusion.
The begging the question fallacy
committed when one presumes that one's (implausible) claim is justified unless someone else demonstrates otherwise.
The burden of proof shifting fallacy
Appeal to Unqualified Authority
The fallacy is when we trust an authority on one subject (or perhaps someone who is not an authority on anything at all) to speak on another subject.
committed when one's argument mistakenly uses the same word in two different senses.
The fallacy of equivocation
committed when one presumes that there are fewer options (typically two) than there actually are.
The false dilemma fallacy
Fallacies of Presumption include
The false dilemma fallacy, The begging the question fallacy, and The burden of proof shifting fallacy
committed when one argues that the origin of an idea is a reason for rejecting (or accepting) that idea.
The genetic fallacy
occurs when an arguer critiques the origin of a claim or argument rather than the claim or argument itself.
The genetic fallacy
committed when one generalizes too quickly about a group of people, things, or events.
The hasty generalization fallacy
committed when someone generalizes too quickly about a group of people, things, or events.
The hasty generalization fallacy
committed when one claims that some event causes another just because the first event (the alleged cause) occurs before the second event (the alleged effect).
The post hoc fallacy
committed when someone claims some event causes another just because the first event (the alleged cause) occurs before the second event (the alleged effect).
The post hoc fallacy
try to be aware of its influence in personal reasoning and to take steps to counteract that influence when feasible and appropriate.
The proper way to respond to bias
committed when one introduces an irrelevant topic.
The red herring fallacy
committed when someone argues, without sufficient reason, one event will lead to a series of events ultimately ending in some further (usually disastrous) event.
The slippery slope fallacy
committed when one misrepresents another's argument then attacks the misrepresented (weaker) argument rather than the actual (stronger) argument.
The straw figure fallacy
happens when someone (willfully or mistakenly) misinterprets someone else's argument or position.
The straw figure or straw man fallacy
Appeal to Ignorance
This is a bad argument pattern because the fact that we do not know the truth of the matter is a reason for withholding judgment and not coming to hold a determinate belief. It is not a reason for or against believing something.
