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.”