arguments and fallacies
structuring arguments
basic structure: syllogisms
- syllogism: an argument with premises and a conclusion
- two kinds of syllogisms * categorical * "all A are B," * "some A are B", * "no A are B" or * "some A are not B” * hypothetical * “if, then” statements
- categorical syllogisms * eg. all huskies are dogs. * all dogs are mammals. * therefore, all huskies are mammals.
- hypothetical syllogisms * use of if, then statements to prove a point * “if statement P is true, then statement Q must also be true. * letters stand for variables/phrases that can be inserted into the syllogism * must also follow certain rules of
fallacies
fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument
modus ponens fallacy—denying the antecedent (invalid) * if it’s raining, then the street will be wet * it’s not raining * therefore, the street is not wet * why isn’t this valid? * there may be other things wetting the street, eg. a street sweeper, the neighbor washed his car, the fire-dept. was cleaning out the hydrants, etc.
modus tollens fallacy—affirming the consequent (invalid) * if it’s raining, then the street will be wet * the street is wet * therefore, it must be raining * why isn’t this valid? * again, street sweeper, neighbor washed his car, fire-dept. cleaning out the hydrants, etc.
ad hominem (attack against the person) * an attempt to discredit the argument by discrediting the person making it * “You like kale? Oh yeah? Well, you’re an idiot!”
ad populum (appeal to the masses) * saying an argument is true because many people believe it * “Everyone I talked to agrees that the brontosaurus is the best kind of dinosaur ever. Clearly you’re wrong.”
improper appeal to authority * saying an argument is true because some authority says that it is * “Well, Richard Dawkins says there is no God, and he teaches at Oxford!”
false dichotomy * forces a choice between two options when there are really more available * “If you don’t support lower taxes then you must hate the free market you stinkin’ Commie!”
straw man arguments * instead of arguing against the opponent’s real argument, one argues against a weakened version of it which may be difficult to identify * “You only want free healthcare so you can have the government pay for all of your problems
non sequitur (does not follow) * an argument in which the conclusion does not really follow the premises * “Of course Congress is a mess. DC was designed by a Frenchman.”
\