Philosophy 1100
Title:
Critical Reasoning
Instructor:
Paul Dickey
E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu
Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm
Today:
Discuss Second Editorial Analysis
--- Instant Democracy is Never Doable
Submit Midterm Exam Re-do
Final Editorial Essay Discussion
Discussion on Chapter Six & Seven
Next Week:
Portfolio Assignment #5
Your Student Portfolio is Due
Read Chapter 8, pp. 253- 261, 264-266.
pp.271-279 & pp. 281-284
Exercise 8-2
1
Portfolio
Assignment #5
What is Rhetoric?
·
“Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate
different forms of rhetoric. For each, write a
description of the artifact selected, identify the
form of rhetoric, and explain why this is an
example of that particular form.
· What are Logical Fallacies?
·
“Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate
different logical fallacies. For each, write a
description of the artifact selected, identify the
type of logical fallacy it is, and explain why this
is an example of that particular logical fallacy.
Chapter Six:
Psychological and
Related Fallacies
3
Psychological & Related Fallacies
•
Logical fallacies pretend to give an argument with
a premise and conclusion, but the premises do not
support the conclusion and typically only evoke
emotions that make us “want” to believe or “satisfy”
some pre-judgment.
•
There are of course many different kinds of logical
errors. There are some recurring patterns of these
that are found so frequently that they have been
characterized and defined as common “logical
fallacies.”
•
Thus, a logical fallacy is a particular type of logical
error that occurs frequently and can be understood
in terms of general characteristics or in the form of
the supposed argument.
4
The “Argument” From Outrage
•
This fallacy consists of inflammatory words (or
thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some
sort. According to our text, it substitutes anger
for reason or judgment.
•
Increasingly on TV, overt anger is being replaced
with a “milder” form of “argument from outrage,”
substituting a sense of incredulity (with a
generous mix of facial expressions, etc) for overt
anger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2-9sPeSoA
•
The fallacy involved is basically the same –
suggesting that the “other side” are “fools” or
have a suspicious agenda.
5
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
One particular dangerous type of the “argument
from outrage” is scape-goating – blaming a
certain group of people or a single person
(“illegal aliens” -- notice the dysphemism, Bill
Clinton, George Bush, President Obama.)
•See Limbaugh quote in the text. (p.184)
•
Scape-goating sends us on a “witch hunt”
looking for “who to blame” rather than to
determine what is reasonable to believe or how
to solve the problem.
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
6
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Trying to scare people into doing something or
accepting a position is using scare tactics.
• Democrats claimed in the 2004
Presidential election that George Bush was
using 9/11 and terrorism as a scare tactic.
• Both Democrats and Republicans claim
that the other side is using scare tactics on
the issue of Social Security.
7
Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair
•
Many current controversial issues are very
prone to the use of scare tactics, e.g. samesex marriage, global warming, abortion,
failing banks, and on and on.
•
How can you tell the difference between a
“scare tactic” and when a good reason to
believe happens to be “scary?”
•
Question for in 2008 used as scare tactics
to push emergency legislation that would
not have otherwise passed?
8
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument from pity” and the “argument
from envy” are also fallacies.
•
Whatever feelings one has for a victim of
some situation or injustice is not in itself an
argument for a claim although it can well be
a justification for behavior on our part,
including increasing our passion to search
out and champion a logical argument for a
position that will benefit the individual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qgaJ2A3Zs
9
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Apple polishing occurs when an appeal to
our pride is made by a proponent of a claim.
“Come on, relax. Have a beer. Don’t worry
about your parents. The one thing I like most
about you is that you think for yourself and
don’t let your parents tell you what to do.
Video
A guilt trip occurs when an appeal to our
shame in taking an opposite position is
made.
10
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
Our hopes, desires and personal
needs can delude us and make us
vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful
thinking.
•
If a desire for acceptance within a group
motivates us to accept a position without
a logical argument, we have become
victims to the fallacy of peer pressure.
•
Peer pressure can be quite subtle and is
often very strong. People feel peer
pressure even with strangers.
11
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The group think fallacy occurs when one
is motivated to accept a claim without
argument because of membership in a
group.
An example of this is nationalism –
my country right or wrong.
“Ron is not guilty of anything. He is a
member in good standing of TKE
fraternity. He is one of us and we
support him.”
12
•
Rationalizing is the process by which a false
pretext is used (or a false reason given) to
satisfy our own desires or needs.
•
In Psychology, this is referred to as a defense
mechanism and may be pathological.
•
Video
Rationalizing generally is done “after the fact”
or after a behavior or decision is completed.
In a logical decision making process, the
decision and action typically comes after
consideration of the premises.
13
Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair
•
The “argument” from popularity suggests
that if everyone or a majority “knows” or
believes something, it must be true. Two
variations of this are:
•The “argument” from common
practice defends a position on the
basis that it is common.
•The “argument” from tradition defends
a position on the basis that has always
been done that way.
14
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
The relativist fallacy consists in
thinking a moral standard of your own
group is the “right” way but it doesn’t
“apply to everyone.”
•
The subjectivist fallacy consists in
thinking that something is true
necessarily because someone thinks it
is true. It also applies whenever
objective standards of analysis are
ignored in favor of suggesting that one
can believe whatever they like.
15
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy
that asserts that a wrongful act on one
person’s part can be justified based
on a previous wrongful act of the other
person.
Two pretty good examples:
Video
Video
16
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
A Red Herring occurs when a topic or
claim is introduced that is irrelevant to the
claim at issue with the intent only of
distracting the argument.
Cowgirl: “The animal rights people shouldn’t
pick on rodeos. They should all come see how
much fun all the kids are having. And those
dudes who ride the bulls. Are they hot or what?
Important Video
17
More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair
•
Similarly, a smokescreen is when
topics or claims are introduced that
are irrelevant to the original issue
with the specific intent to make the
issue appear to be too complex or
complicated to resolve.
•
So, trying to “clarify” a vague
argument by “giving all the facts you
have” may indeed be the absolutely
WORST thing you can do.
18
Chapter Seven:
Logical Fallacies
Presenters:
Zach: Ad Hominem Fallacy
Jaime: The Genetic Fallacy
Tracy: The Straw Man
Jacquie: The False Dilemma & Perfectionism
Jonathan: The Slippery Slope
Anthony: Misplacing the Burden of Evidence/Proof
Amber: Begging the Question
Emmanuel: Formal Fallacies (Affirming the Consequent &
Denying the Antecedent, The Undistributed Middle)
In your presentation, you must define your fallacy
type, give examples, and distinguish it from other
logical fallacies that are similar. I encourage you to
use powerpoint slides in your presentation if
possible, but it is not necessary.
19
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
•
Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes.
•
The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of the
argument itself with the the person or personality of the
individual making the claim.
“BOB: Reality consists of more than just what can see and feel.
God is real.
BIKER: “If you weren’t so removed from reality, I might be more
inclined to discuss it with you.”
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
20
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
•
Most ad hominem arguments are negative and
typical examples of ad hominem arguments will
be negative, but not always.
• e.g. Heather is very nice and is always a very positive
person, so if she is opposed to the war in Iraq, there
must be something terribly wrong with it.
•E.g. Ms. Gullible: “The Jehovah Witnesses that come
to the door always seem to be the “sweetest” people so
there must be something to what they believe.”
21
The Personal Attack Ad Hominem
•
Say you twist the example about Heather around.
• e.g. My boss is a very negative person, so
although he is opposed to the war in Iraq, that
means nothing. He is against everything.
Video
• e.g. remember Rush Limbaugh in the video:
“If you are going to start agreeing with Rosie
O’Donnell, I would suggest rehab and
treatment.” (Ridicule & Sasrcasm)
22
Specific Forms of Ad Hominems
•
The Inconsistency Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if
one can show that a person has made contradictory claims
at different occasions, then the claims are thereby refuted,
e.g. Hilary can’t be right that Obama is ready to be
president as she is saying now. She said exactly the
opposite during her political campaign.
•
The Circumstantial Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that
if one’s claim is associated to the claimant’s circumstances
in life, then the claim is refuted e..g. Of course, Sen. Nelson
is for farm subsidies. He is from Nebraska.
•
Poisoning the Well occurs when an ad hominem is issued
prior to allowing someone to make their argument.
Interestingly, a speaker might have “the well poisoned
against her” by the opponent making a denial of something
unsavory about her, such as “Hilary may not be a bleeding
heart liberal, but….”
Video
23
The Genetic Fallacy
•
The Genetic Fallacy suggests erroneously
that a claim is refuted by disputing its origin or
history.
• e.g. The constitution is a bogus document
since it was primarily written with the intent to
protect the property of the wealthy.
• e.g. God does not exist because the whole
idea of God originated with superstitious
people who had no knowledge of science or
the universe.
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
24
The Straw Man or “Straw Figure”
•
The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when a claim
is made that distorts, exaggerates, or
otherwise misinterprets an opponent’s
position such that it becomes easy to refute.
•
e.g. “Congressmen who want us to set a
timetable to leave Iraq are just saying that
we should surrender.”
Important Video
Is this a Straw man Bill Clinton is presenting?
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
25
The False Dilemma
•
The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when you limit
considerations to only two alternatives although other
alternatives may be available.
• e.g. Either we keep all of our current forces in Iraq
until victory or we just pull out now unconditionally and
let the terrorists win. It is either one or the other, dude.
• e.g. You don’t believe in allowing prayer in public
schools? So what are you an atheist?
•
You want this?
OR
THIS?
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
26
The Perfectionist Fallacy
•
A specific type of The False Dilemma is the
Perfectionist Fallacy which suggests that if a policy
or a claim is not perfect then it must be rejected.
• e.g. “If they don’t fit, you must acquit.”
•Johnny Cochran’s defense of O.J.
Simpson, referring to his purported gloves.
• e. g. The National Football League’s instant
replay rule is no good because you are still going
to still have some bad calls.
•The National Football League’s instant replay rule
is no good because they seem to have to make
adjustments to it every year.
27
The Line-Drawing Fallacy
•
Another type of The False Dilemma is the LineDrawing Fallacy which suggests that a distinction
cannot be made because there is no precisely
known, agreed upon point at which a line can be
drawn.
• e.g. In the Rodney King case, when exactly did
the beatings become excessive force?”
• e.g. When did Bill Gates become rich? When he
earned his first dollar? His first $100,000? His first
$1M? $10M? $1B? Nonetheless, I can assure you
that Bill Gates is rich.
28
The Slippery Slope
•
The Slippery Slope Fallacy asserts that we
can’t let one thing happen because it could
lead to something else where there is no
argument or a weak argument that the first
action does in fact lead to the second.
Important Video
• e.g. Making people register hand guns is
just the first step to making guns illegal.
• e.g. Marijuana use should be illegal
because it can lead to harder drugs.
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
29
Misplacing/Shifting
the Burden of Proof
•
The burden of proof in an argument rests on the person
making the claim. It is her responsibility to give the
premises and the reasons to believe her claim is true.
•
To try to shift the burden of proof onto the person who is
listening to your argument and trying to make him show
that you are wrong is called misplacing the burden of
proof.
•
A particular example of this logical error is the appeal to
ignorance which suggests that we should believe
something because no one has proven or shown it to be
wrong.
•
Another example is when a proponent of a claim
suggests that his position is right because you haven’t
give a good argument for the opposite claim.
Video
Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here
30
The Burden of “Proof”?
(But Mr. Dickey, you said ….)
•
BE VERY CAREFUL!
•
This terminology is misleading and seems to
confuse the issue that we clarified in class earlier
about proof and evidence.
•
Even if you agree to allow someone to say “proof”
when they really mean evidence, be sure that you
are clear about the difference between the forms of
support in deductive and inductive arguments..
31
Begging the Question
•
Circular Argument / “Petitio Principii”
•
To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at
issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.
•
That is, you are assuming your conclusion as a
premise.
•
How does it differ from a valid, deductive
argument?
•
Be careful of a very common misuse of the term in
which one confuses “begging the question” with
“brings up the question.”
32
Formal Fallacies
•
Affirming the conseqent.
•
Denying the Antecedent.
•
The Undistributed Middle
33