Arguments
and Fallacies
Argument Clinic

http://youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y
What is an “argument”?



Anger: Fight or quarrel
Debate: Pro and con
Programming:


A parameter is a variable which takes on the
meaning of a corresponding argument passed in
a call to a subroutine.
Although parameters are also commonly referred
to as arguments, arguments are more properly the
actual values or references assigned to the
parameter variables when the subroutine is called
at runtime.
An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary
position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any
statement the other person makes.
No it isn't.
It is.

Parts of an Argument ?

An argument is a connected series of statements

Assumptions, Evidence, Grounds
Rules, logic,
Conclusion(s)



Purpose?



Question, contrary position
Persuade
Convince
What makes an argument
Good vs. Bad?
 Valid


Conclusion follows from the rules of logic
If assumptions are accepted, then conclusion
should be accepted
 Sound

Assumptions are true
 Fallacy

Faulty reasoning
Fallacy


The term "fallacy" does not
mean false statement.
It means faulty reasoning.
It is possible for an argument to contain all true
statements and still be fallacious.
Deductive Arguments:
Valid, Sound, Strong, Weak
Deductive Arguments
Valid
Unsound
Weak Arguments
Invalid
Sound
Inductive
Fuzzy
Strong Arguments
Fallacious
Weak Arguments
Fuzzy arguments

Invalid





wrt DEDUCTIVE logic
No LOGICAL necessity
Still can be STRONG arguments
Still can be persuasive
Still can be convincing
Some Common Informal Fallacies










Ad Hominem Argument
Slippery Slope Argument
Fallacy of Appeal to Authority
False Cause Fallacy
Begging the Question
Fallacy of Composition/Fallacy of Division
Fallacy of Ambiguity
Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
The Many/Any Fallacy
The Virtuality Fallacy
Ad Hominem



From Latin, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man"
or "against the person."
fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on
the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person
making the claim.
Typically




Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
Fallacy: circumstances or actions of a person do not
(in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity
of the claim.
Example of Ad Hominem




Jessie: "I believe that file sharing of music
should be stopped."
Ben: “You say that, but I noticed that you
downloaded an MP3 today."
Jessie: "What about the arguments I gave to
support my position?"
Ben: "Those don't count. You don’t practice
what you preach, so I can't believe what you
say."
Another example of Ad Hominem?
Clinton is an adulterer
 He lacks moral “character”
____________________
 So, his policies are not good,
and he will make a bad
president

Slippery Slope Fallacy (Camels nose)
If you allow a camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the
whole camel will follow.
Something is wrong because it could slide towards something
that is wrong.
 Momentum: event A will initiate a process which will lead
inevitably to event B.



Domino Theory
Gateway drugs, gun control will lead to gun confiscation
Induction: like mathematical induction (almost)

If Blacksburg is far from New York,



then 1 mile closer is still far.
So 2 miles closer is far, and 3, and 4….
Therefore n miles is far
If 5 is a lot then 4 is a lot. If 4 is a lot, then 3 is a lot…
If 1 is a lot then 0 is lot. If 0 is a lot then….

Affirming The Consequent
logic reversal. A correct statement of the
form "if P then Q" gets turned into "Q
therefore P".
For example,
 All people whose surname begins with
Mac are of Scottish ancestry.




Dougal is of Scottish ancestry.
Therefore his surname begins with Mac."
But actually his name is Campbell.
Affirming The Consequent (example)
Marijuana is a “Gateway” drug:





Marijuana use leads to use of harder drugs.
Marijuana use causes cocaine and heroine use.
"Marijuana users are sixty-six times more likely to use
cocaine subsequently than subjects who have never
consumed marijuana.”
“Cause” vs. “Symptom” ?
79% of regular marijuana users do not use any other
illicit drug.
False Cause (Correlation vs. Cause)

False Cause (Correlation vs. Cause)

"Every time my brother Bill accompanies me
to Fenway Park, the Red Sox are sure to
lose."

The bigger a child's shoe size, the better the
child's handwriting.

When sales of hot chocolate go up, street
crime drops.
Begging the question
Assuming the answer
Tautology

Circular reasoning

The thing to be proved is used as one of your
assumptions.

Big circles vs. small circles
Circular reasoning
For example
 “You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!”
 "We need the death penalty to discourage
violent crime".


This assumes it discourages crime.
"The stock market fell because of a technical
adjustment."

But an "adjustment" IS just a stock market drop
Fallacy Of Composition

Assuming that a whole has the same simplicity as its
constituent parts.


"A car makes less pollution than a bus. Therefore, cars are
less of a pollution problem than buses."
"Atoms are colorless. Cats are made of atoms, so cats are
colorless."
Fallacy Of Division

Assuming that what is true of the whole is true of
each constituent part.

Human beings are made of atoms, and human beings are
conscious, so atoms must be conscious.
Non Sequitur
Latin for "it does not follow."


For example, "Tens of thousands of
Americans have seen lights in the night sky
which they could not identify. The existence
of life on other planets is fast becoming
certainty!"
"Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment
must be large."
Statistics



President Dwight Eisenhower expressed
astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully
half of all Americans had below average
intelligence.
Most 3rd graders read at or below 3rd grade level
“Regression to the mean“ = extremes tend to go
back to normal. E.g. cures.

a variable that is extreme on its first measurement
will tend to be closer to the centre of the distribution
on a later measurement
Straw Man
Fallacy Of Extension



Attacking an exaggerated or caricatured
version of your opponent's position.
“Evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund
the attack submarine program. I can't
understand why he wants to leave us
defenseless like that."



Fallacy of Appeal to Authority
Fallacy of Ambiguity
Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum)
The Virtuality Fallacy



Because something happens in "virtual
space" (computer, Internet) that it is not real
Slander on websites
Using false virtual identity to trick someone
How do you make a good argument?

Change thinking

Follow the leader

Clear connection between the parts
Developing an argument
Claim
Statement you want someone to accept





Why? - Context
Who? - Audience
Who are you to them? - Author
Reason, Evidence



Context
Motivation
Interests
Social context
Message
Logos
• Logic
• Internal consistency
• Reason, evidence
Writer / speaker
Ethos
Reader / listener
Pathos
• Credibility
• Trustworthiness
• Appeal to
• Engage emotionally
An argument isn't just contradiction.
It can be.
No it can't. An argument is a connected series of
statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn't.
Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary
position.
Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Yes it is!
No it isn't! Argument is an intellectual process.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any
statement the other person makes.
No it isn't.
It is.
Claim
Cyberethics does NOT introduce new ethical issues.

Computing introduces new puzzles and dilemmas


Such as?
What is an “ethical issue“?

What might a new ethical issue be?
Cyber-Ethics Assignment
Write a well-formed, OUTLINE for a 5-paragraph (intro, 3
body points, conclusion) essay that argues the following:
Cyberethics does NOT introduce new ethical issues.
Be sure to recognize the following understanding:
Computing introduces new conceptual puzzles and dilemmas related to
ethics (cyber-ethics) that Tavani refers to as "conceptual muddles".
These can lead to "policy vacuums".
We can distinguish between unique technological features and unique
ethical issues.
New technologies and their capabilities can introduce "conceptual
muddles" and/or "policy vacuum", but we should be careful to distinguish
"policy vacuums" and "unique ethical issues".
Arguments can be explicit or implicit

Implicit:

Describe a photograph that would create an
implicit argument persuading




The general public toward banning handguns
The general public against banning handguns
Advertising
Psychology, communication
Explicit Argument

Requires Justification of it’s claims


An argument?
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction
is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement
the other person makes.
Truth seeking + persuasion
Exploratory
Essay
Inquiry:
Think out
loud
Dialog:
seeking
common
ground
Classical
Argument
aimed as
skeptic
One-sided:
preaching
to the choir
Aggressive
one-sided
Political
rally
Propaganda
Reading Arguments
5 strategies





Read as a believer
Read as a doubter
Explore how the rhetorical context and genre
are shaping the argument.
Seek alternative views and analyze sources
of disagreements
Use disagreement productively to prompt
further investigation
Read as a believer



Empathetic listening
Suspend your doubt when summarizing
Give the other side it’s BEST shot


Don’t be afraid to offer positive examples etc.
“What you are trying to say is…”



Say it in such a way that THEY agree that is what
they said
Make implicit assumptions explicit
THEN proceed to argue
Read as a believer


E.g CS needs a code of ethics (or not).
Cyberethics does NOT introduce new ethical
issues.


Evidence?
Best example?
Read as a doubter




Seek not the answers, but to understand the
QUESTIONS
List assumptions, and challenge
Categorize counter-examples (and support)
Focus on key terminology that



reveals bias
too strong
Loaded (value laden, ideology, etc.)
Rhetorical context and Genre













Personal correspondence
Letter to editor
Op-ed
Niche magazine (e.g. Beginner’s Guides)
Scholarly journal
White papers
Proposals
Legal briefs
Advocacy
Advertisement
Blogs, forums
Visual argument
Speech
Questions to ask





What is the authors interests / investment?
Who is the audience?
What is motivating the writing?
What genre?
What info about the publication helps explain
the angle?
Seeking Alternative Views

Disagreement about facts


Global warming?
Disagreement about Values

Ethics? Politics? Religion?
Using disagreements productively

Accept ambiguity or uncertainty


Consider synthesis as a solution
Describe as a dilemma




You have 2 (or more) choices
You MUST make a choice
ALL of your choices stink
Sources, References for facts / data



Statistics
Studies
Context of data
Sources, facts, data





Statistics, Studies
Stories
Testimony / witness
Memory
Evidence





Physical
Analogical / Model
Circumstantial (indirect – inference from another fact)
Opinions
Description, analysis, decomposition, logic?
Consider ways to synthesize views


Define YOUR values
Reader Response Theory






recognizes the reader as an active agent who imparts "real
existence" to the work and completes its meaning through
interpretation. (no meaning w/out reader – if a tree falls…)
Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be
viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates
his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance.
It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and
the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating
literary works is ignored (meaning is objective).
There is NO authoritative or privileged interpretation
Take a 3rd position that reconciles two sides
Provide multiple or hypothetical resolutions