Philo- Fallacies

Three Kinds of Knowledge

Knowledge by Acquaintance, Knowledge-How (Practical or Procedural Knowledge), and Knowledge-That (Propositional Knowledge)

Knowledge by Acquaintance

Knowledge gained through direct experience or familiarity with a person, place, or thing.

Knowledge-How (Practical or Procedural Knowledge)

Knowing how to do something or perform a skill.

Knowledge-That (Propositional Knowledge)

Knowing that something is true or factual, usually supported by evidence or information.

Personal (which kind of knowledge?)

I experienced it. = Knowledge by Acquaintance

Practical (which kind of knowledge?)

I know how to do it. = Knowledge-How

Propositional (which kind of knowledge?)

I know that it is true. = Knowledge-That

Three Knowledge Criteria

Belief, truth, and justification

Truth

A fact or statement that is correct, real, and can be proven or verified.

Examples of Truth

The sun rises in the east. A week has seven days. Humans need oxygen to survive.

Belief

The acceptance that something is true or real, even when it may not always be directly proven.

Justification

The reasons, evidence, or proof that support a belief or claim and show why it should be accepted as true.

Value of Philosophy (two main points)

It helps us understand ourselves, other people, and the world more deeply. It teaches us to think critically and make wise and responsible decisions.

Important values of philosophy (list all six)

Critical thinking, Self-understanding, Open-mindedness, Good decision-making, Moral awareness, Broader perspective

Critical thinking

Helps us analyze information and avoid false conclusions.

Self-understanding

Helps us reflect on our beliefs, values, and actions.

Open-mindedness

Helps us understand different opinions and perspectives.

Good decision-making

Helps us think carefully before making choices.

Moral awareness

Helps us understand what is right and wrong.

Broader perspective

Helps us see life and problems from different points of view.

Opinion

A personal belief, feeling, or judgment. It may differ from one person to another and does not always have evidence to prove it.

Truth (compared with opinion)

A statement or fact that can be supported by evidence, facts, or reliable information and can be verified.

How Do We Evaluate Truth Using Philosophical Methods? (5 steps)

1. Ask questions 2. Examine evidence 3. Use critical thinking 4. Consider different perspectives 5. Draw a reasonable conclusion

Methods of Philosophy Lead to Wisdom and Truth (4 methods)

Asking questions, Critical thinking, Philosophical reflection, Seeking truth

Asking questions (method)

Instead of believing a rumor immediately, you ask questions and look for evidence to know if it is true.

Critical thinking (method)

Before deciding that someone is wrong, you listen to both sides and examine the facts.

Philosophical reflection (method)

After making a mistake, you reflect on what happened and learn how to make better decisions.

Seeking truth (method)

Instead of believing everything you see on social media, you check reliable sources to determine whether the information is true.

How do philosophical methods lead to wisdom and truth?

They lead to truth because they help us examine facts and question false beliefs. They lead to wisdom because they teach us to use knowledge and experience to make good decisions.

Why do philosophical methods lead to truth?

They lead to truth because they help us examine facts and question false beliefs.

Why do philosophical methods lead to wisdom?

They lead to wisdom because they teach us to use knowledge and experience to make good decisions.

Fallacies (definition)

Statements which are misleading and erroneous. We tend to commit fallacies because our arguments are crafted and stated in a wrong way.

Why do we tend to commit fallacies?

Because our arguments are crafted and stated in a wrong way.

FALLACY (idea definition)

An idea which many people believe to be true, but which is in fact false because it is based on incorrect information or reasoning

Ad Hominem

(Attacking the Person) is a fallacy in which a person attacks the person instead of addressing their argument or providing valid reasons or evidence.

It focuses on the person's character, qualities, or mistakes instead of examining the actual argument or evidence.

Fallacy of Division

(Assuming What is True of the Whole is True of the Parts) is a fallacy in which someone assumes that what is true of the whole (the group) is also true of its parts (individual members).

It ignores the fact that individuals can be different from the group as a whole. The qualities or behavior of the whole do not automatically apply to every part.

Ad Populum

(Appeal to Popularity) is a fallacy in which someone tries to convince others to accept an argument or make a decision based on its popularity or the number of people who support it, instead of valid reasons or evidence.

It relies on popularity or the opinions of the majority instead of facts, evidence, or logical reasoning.

Fallacy of Composition

(Assuming What is True of the Parts is True of the Whole) is a fallacy in which someone assumes that what is true of each part of a group or whole is also true of the entire group or whole.

It ignores the possibility that the whole may have additional qualities, problems, or differences that are not present in the individual parts.

Fallacy of Composition - In simple words

Just because something is true of the parts, doesn't mean it's true of the whole.

False Analogy

(Using an Unrelated Comparison) is a fallacy in which someone uses an irrelevant or weak comparison to support a conclusion.

It assumes that two things are similar in important ways when they are not, leading to a flawed conclusion.

False Analogy - In simple words

False Analogy means using an unrelated comparison to support a claim.

Appeal to Pity

(Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

A fallacy in which a person tries to convince others to accept an argument or grant a request by making them feel sorry for them instead of providing relevant reasons or evidence.

It uses sympathy or pity instead of facts, evidence, or logical reasoning to support a conclusion or justify a request.

Appeal to Pity - In simple words

Appeal to Pity means trying to get what you want by making someone feel sorry for you.

Ad Baculum

(Appeal to Force or Threat) is a fallacy in which someone uses threats or fear to force another person to agree or obey instead of giving logical reasons.

It uses threats, intimidation, or fear instead of facts, evidence, or logical reasoning to support a conclusion.

Ad Baculum - In simple words

Ad Baculum means forcing someone to agree or obey through threats.

Petitio Principii / Begging the Question

(Assuming the Conclusion in the Premises) is a fallacy in which someone assumes what they are trying to prove in their premises instead of giving an independent reason.

It doesn't provide real evidence or reasons. It simply restates the conclusion in a different way, so it doesn't actually prove anything.

Petitio Principii - In simple words

Petitio Principii means assuming the conclusion is true, instead of giving real evidence or reasons.

Petitio Principii - Example 1

"The Bible is true because it is the word of God." (Assumes the Bible is true instead of proving it.)

Petitio Principii - Example 2

"You should trust him because he's honest." (Assumes he's honest instead of giving evidence.)

Petitio Principii - Example 3

"This policy is effective because it works." (Uses the conclusion as the reason.)

Hasty Generalization

(Drawing a Conclusion from Too Little Evidence) is a fallacy in which a person makes a broad conclusion based on too little evidence or a small sample size.

It assumes that what is true in a small number of cases is true for all cases, without sufficient evidence or proper reasoning.

Hasty Generalization - In simple words

Hasty Generalization means making a big conclusion from too little evidence.

Dicto Simplifier

(Simplifying a Complex Issue) is a fallacy in which someone reduces a complex issue to a simple statement or oversimplifies the situation instead of considering all the relevant factors.

It ignores important details, different perspectives, and other possible causes. This leads to a false or incomplete understanding of the problem.

Dicto Simplifier - In simple words

Dicto Simplifier means making a complex issue seem simple by using a short and easy statement.

Post Hoc

(After This, Therefore Because Of This) is a fallacy in which a person assumes that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second one.

It assumes a cause-and-effect relationship based only on the fact that one event happened after another, without proper evidence or proof.

Post Hoc - In simple words

Post Hoc means believing that something caused something else just because it happened first.

Fallacy of Division vs Fallacy of Composition

Division: whole to parts (what is true of the whole is true of each individual part). Composition: parts to whole (what is true of the parts is true of the entire group or whole).

Hasty Generalization vs Dicto Simplifier

Hasty Generalization concludes too much from too little evidence or a small sample size. Dicto Simplifier reduces a complex issue to a simple statement and ignores other factors.

Petitio Principii vs Post Hoc

Petitio Principii assumes the conclusion in the premises (restates the conclusion). Post Hoc assumes a cause-and-effect relationship only because one event happened after another.