Philosophy Terms (9/17): Arguments and Fallacies

Argument

a set of sentences such that one sentence (the conclusion) follows necessarily from the other sentences (the premises)

Analyze

break down in order to bring out the essential elements and structure

evaluate

make appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations

premise

a statement regarding what is the case (taken as a fact). a good argument usually has more than one ___ and should NEVER be controversial or immediately rejectable.

conclusion indicators

therefore, thus, hence, so, ergo

premise indicators

because, since, given that

enthymeme

an argument with a suppressed or implicit premise; obvious

ethics

how you should behave

morals

how your actions may be right or wrong; defined by society and/or environment

deductive argument

A reasoning where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true, providing definitive proof and making it a strong form of logical reasoning.

conclusion is no broader than its premises, moves from broad to narrow and is NON-ampliative

inductive argument

drawing general conclusions from specific observations. if something is true in many cases, it is likely true in general. does NOT guarantee the truth of the conclusion, they offer support based on evidence.

conclusion is broader than its premises, AMPLIATIVE

validity

the conclusion follows the premises

does not concern the content of the premises. to asses ______, you merely accept the premises for the sake/form of the argument.

well-groundedness

based only on accurate premises, regardless of the form of argument or truth of conclusion

sound argument

valid AND well-grounded argument

example of sound argument

P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a Man
C: Socrates is mortal

example of valid argument

P1: all principals of US high schools were born in the US
P3: Mr. O’Donnell is a high school principal
C: Mr. O’Donnell was born in the US

example of well-grounded argument

P1: all presidents of the US are human
P2: all newborn children are human
C: all newborn children are presidents of the US

logical fallacy

identifiable category of argument that does not support its conclusion. these traps can manipulate others through rhetorical slight

circular argument

conclusion is identical to premise

ex) It’s wrong to kill animals because it’s wrong to kill anything that can feel pain. —> humans are animals, animals are the only things that can feel pain. two statements worded differently that mean the same thing!

begs the question

accept conclusion in order to accept one of the argument’s premises

ex) we should trust that Post is telling the truth because he wouldn’t lie —> how would we know this
A single premise doesn’t prove the conclusion. Good arguments have two or more premises.

appeal to authority

claiming that an authority thinks something is the case, then it must therefore be the case —> should not be used to dismiss claims of experts/scientific consensus. also is reasonable to listen to experts regarding matters in their own field but that is not an argument, only a ______________!

genetic fallacy

judging a claim/argument as either good or bad on basis of where it comes from. avoids argument by shifting focus on something else or one’s origin

black-or-white fallacy

considering the alternative states as the ONLY possibilities, when in fact, more exist. also known as the false dilemma.

middle ground fallacy

presuming that a compromise or middle point between two extremes must be the truth —> not always the case tho! halfway between a truth and a lie is a lie!

anecdotal fallacy

deciding upon a position based on a personal experience or isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence

appeal to nature

presuming that just because something is natural, it is therefore justified, inevitable, good or bad

ad hominem attack

attacking your interlocutor’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Can be a personal attack or subtly cast doubt on their character/personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument without actually engaging with it

strawman fallacy

to interpret someone’s position in an unfairly weak way and to argue against a position that nobody hods (likely to hold). this dishonesty serves to undermine honest, rational debate.

syllogism

the classic form of reasoning for deductive arguments

ex. All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

ampliative

the conclusion is contained within the content of the premises.

ex) the sun has risen every other morning in the past. therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow as well. (the conclusion is NOT one of the days cited in premise. high probability but no absolute certainty!)