PHIL 150 Fallacy Exam (Test 2)

bombo

Fallacy

Error in logic/reasoning

Subjectivism

• i believe/want p to be true; therefore p is true (x believes y, so y = true)

• when evidence or the claim is based on the person/what the person wants

• using a want/belief as evidence

  • my parents believe in a higher power, therefore there must be a higher power/i believe there is a higher power too

Appeal to Majority

• majority believes p; therefore p is true

• when you believe something is true because a large number of people think it is true

Appeal to Emotion

• persuading someone and hoping they will adopt a belief on the basis of a feeling you instill in them

• the person appealing to someones emotion is hoping that the person they are talking to commits a fallacy of subjectivism

• the appeal ur doing is already igniting the emotion that is there

  • its fallacy when they use this appeal as evidence

Appeal to Force

• trying to get someone to accept a proposition on the basis of a threat/coercion

• used force as evidence to motivate you

Ad Hominem

• personal attack (Ad Hominem = “against the person”)

• x claims y, x has negative trait; therefore y = false

• using a negative trait of a speaker as evidence that the speaker’s statement is false or the argument weak

• this person is dumb so their statement is not true

  • trump is rude, therefore a bad president

• racism is an ad hominem structure (so it applies to groups too, not just individuals)

Appeal to Authority

• x says p, therefore p is true

• based on credibility -

  • you have to know if the person is competent enough to speak on that subject based on their:

    • education

    • position

    • achievement

  • competency - do they know truth/you have a good reason to believe that they know truth

  • objectivity - do they tell truth/want to tell the truth, for the truth/do you trust them

    • deals with bias, political agendas, etc

False Dichotomy

• either p or q + not q, therefore p

• while its a valid argument, it limits the “answer” to only 2 choices or responses, when there is a lot more that should be and could be included

• sorta like polarized claims when they force someone to pick one of two claims even though its more complex than that

• ex. joel is either rich or poor; joel isnt rich, therefore joel is poor

Post Hoc

“after this, therefore because of this”

• A occurred before B, therefore A caused B

  • they may have a temporal relationship (one thing after another), that doesnt mean they have a causal relationship → correlation ≠ causation

    • easier way to think of this is…

  • includes superstition

    • ex: saw a black cat before i got hit by a car, therefore the black cat caused the accident

Hasty Generalization

• to make a claim of a category of thing …

• I met an italian that is quick-tempered, therefore all italians are quick-tempered

  • not enough strength in numbers that helps prove a claim

• my first trip to sweden was awful, therefore all of sweden is awful

• “generalizing from too few particular cases or from nonrepresentative ones”

Accident

• applying generalization to a special case in disregard to the circumstances that make the case an exception to the general rule

  • “hasty application”

  • “applying generalization to particular cases in disregard of special features”

Slippery Slope

Actions A will lead to consequence B + B will lead to C + C will lead to D + D would be reallly bad; therefore → we should not do A

• “if you give him an inch, he’ll take a mile”

• it occurs when we posit a sequence of effects without good reason for thinking they will actually follow

  • if everyone thinks D is bad, then based on this argument, they will not agree with A, despite it really correlating or not

  • if we legalize weed, people will take it, then take harder drugs like crack, etc., and they will end up dead (so essentially, taking marijuana will lead to death)

Composition

• the fallacy of inferring that a whole has a property merely because its parts have that property

  • brick is light, so brick houses are made of bricks, therefore brick houses are light (this would be a composition fallacy)

Division

the fallacy of inferring that a part has a property merely because the whole has that property

Begging the Question

God exists because the bible says so; we should trust it because god wrote it (circular)

Equivocation

• when ur using the same term in 2 different ways

• using a word in two different meanings in the premises and/or conclusion.

Appeal to Ignorance

• because i cant prove something, i know that it doesnt make sense/isnt right

• using the fact that you dont know something as an argument

Diversion

Instead of giving evidence for N, you give evidence for M

• trying to support one proposition by diverting attention to another proposition or issue

Missing the Point (diversion)

instead of giving evidence to the argument that jack is a child abuser, you give evidence as to why a child abuser is bad

• arguing for a conclusion that is different from the conclusion in question

Straw Man (diversion)

• trying to refute a speaker’s position by arguing against a distorted version of that position

“I don’t want to give the entire class period over to an aimless bull session, because no one would learn anything.” (context - student asks for a class to focus on homework for example) - this assumes that its gonna go to shit instantly i think but not sure how this works tbh, maybe ignore this and just use the first point above

Red Herring

leading someone to something completely different from the main argument → leading to nowhere

• introducing irrelevant points

Non Sequitur

• “It does not follow”

• you say something random that really has zero reason to be said in the argument