9a. Fallacies
Fallacies Introduction
Importance of critical thinking in argumentation.
Need for a commitment to recognizing and evaluating arguments.
Errors in reasoning are common and connected to human psychology.
Techniques learned help in spotting errors in arguments.
The Roots of Common Errors
Human fallibility: We all make errors in reasoning about beliefs and actions.
Awareness of personal fallibility is crucial for a critical mindset.
Certain mistakes occur more frequently due to psychological tendencies.
Example: Difficulty in shooting a bull's eye vs. placing a glass on a coaster.
Philosophical inquiry into arguments focuses on identifying errors and understanding why people accept faulty arguments.
Cognitive Biases vs. Argumentative Fallacies
Cognitive biases: Shortcuts in reasoning leading to errors in judgment but not rigidly logical fallacies.
Fallacies: Specifically flawed arguments that lead to weak conclusions.
Relationship between fallacies and cognitive biases can overlap and influence each other.
Argumentative Fallacies
Definition: Errors that result from bad reasoning leading to unjustified conclusions.
Major types of fallacies to be discussed:
Fallacies with unacceptable premises
Fallacies with poor logical structure
Fallacies That Use Unacceptable Premises
Straw Man Fallacy
Misrepresentation of an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: Distorting a safety policy's intent to criticize it unfairly.
Variants: Personal straw man (specific individuals) vs. group straw man (entire groups).
False Dilemma
Presenting only two options when more exist; typically forces a choice between two extremes.
Example: Claiming you must either support a policy or oppose it completely.
Logical error: Assumes a limited range of possibilities.
Slippery Slope
Arguing that one choice leads to a series of negative outcomes without justification.
Example: Claiming accepting small policy changes will lead to drastic negative consequences.
Critical thinking required to assess the validity of such claims—ask if the slope is truly slippery.
Fallacies That Use Bad Logic (Formal Fallacies)
Denying the Antecedent
Structure: If P, then Q. Not P, therefore not Q.
Example: A claim about profitability leading to flawed conclusions about product success.
Affirming the Consequent
Structure: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.
Example: An argument about successful products implying profitability.
Both fallacies are invalid forms of reasoning.
Informal Fallacies
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Focus on the individual rather than the argument.
Example: Dismissing someone's suggestion based on personal characteristics.
Relevant when personal character directly impacts the argument in specific contexts.
Appeal to Popularity
Assuming a claim is true because many people believe it.
Historical examples show the fallibility of popular beliefs.
Appeal to Tradition
Justifying actions or beliefs because they’ve existed for a long time.
Historical practices are not automatically valid; change is often necessary.
Hasty Generalization
Making broad conclusions from small samples or insufficient evidence.
Example: Concluding all warranties are valuable based on one experience.
Post Hoc Fallacy (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)
Inferring a causal relationship from a mere sequence of events.
Example: Assuming alarm clocks cause sunrise based on their occurrence.
Fighting Fallacies
Developing a critical mindset aids in identifying and disputing fallacies.
Encourage questioning and analysis when confronting arguments.
Standard responses for various fallacies can help clarify reasoning errors:
Straw Man: "That’s not what I said!"
False Dilemma: "You’re assuming only two options."
Slippery Slope: "This slope isn’t really slippery."
Ad Hominem: "The person isn’t relevant here."
Appeal to Popularity: "Many can be wrong."
Appeal to Tradition: "Tradition isn’t always a good reason."
Hasty Generalization: "We need more evidence."
Post Hoc: "Correlation doesn’t imply causation."