Note 6 - note PDF

Preview

Summary

note...

Description

1.4 Cogent (Inductive) - Cogent Argument - an inductive argument that is strong and has all true premises. (must meet the "total evidence requirement")

1.4 Invalid (Deductive) - Invalid Argument - A deductive argument in which it is possible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true

1.4 Sound (Deductive) - Sound Argument - a deductive argument that is valid and has all true premises

1.4 Strong (Inductive) - Strong Argument - a inductive argument in which it is improbable that the conclusion be false given that the premises are true

1.4 Uncogent (Inductive) - Uncogent Argument - an inductive argument that is weak, has one or more false premises and/or fails to meet the total evidence requirement

1.4 Unsound (Deductive) - Unsound Argument - a deductive argument that is invalid, has one or more false premises, or both

1.4 Valid (Deductive) - Valid Argument - a deductive argument in which it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given that the premises are true

1.4 Weak (Inductive) - Weak Argument - an inductive argument in which the conclusion does not follow probably from the premises, even though it is claimed to

3.1 Fallacies - A defect in an argument that consists in something other than false premises alone (they can occur in Inductive or Deductive arguments = uncogent or unsound) occur because -mistake in arguer's reasoning -to create an illusion that a bad argument is good!

3.1 Formal Fallacy - Occur only in deductive arguments w/ an identifiable form (e.g. categorical syllogisms, hypothetical syllogisms, and disjunctive syllogisms) Example: All bullfights are grotesque rituals. All executions are grotesque rituals. Therefore, all bullfights are executions.

This argument has the form: All A are B. All C are B. All A are C.

3.1 Informal Fallacy - Can only be identified by examining the content of the argument Example: The Brooklyn Bridge is made of atoms. Atoms are invisible. Therefore, the Brooklyn Bridge is invisible. Example: A chess player is a person. Therefore, a bad chess player is a bad person. We will look at 22 different informal fallacies, divided into five groups: Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Weak Induction Fallacies of Presumption Fallacies of Ambiguity Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy

3.2 Accident - Informal Fallacy - When a general rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover

Example: Anyone who cuts another person with a knife is a criminal. Surgeons cut other people with knives. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.

3.2 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) -Informal Fallacy - The use of physical power or psychological harm to compel or restrain *If you don't study I'll hurt you*

3.2 Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) - Informal Fallacy - A personal appeal that attacks our sense of pity, compassion, and brotherly love instead of giving facts, evidence, or reasons *My Boyfriend dumped me/Car broke down/Dog ran away ect*

3.2 Appeal to the People (Argumentum as Populum) -Informal Fallacy - (1)Direct-addresses large group of people/enthuses/scares or excites them (2)Indirect-aims the appeal not at the crowd but individuals separately 3 types -bandwagon (left behind!) -appeal to vanity (Admired if you use/do!) -appeal to snobbery (Choosey moms choose Jif)

3.2 Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem) ALWAYS 2 ARGUERS -Informal Fallacy - One arguer advances a certain argument and the other responds by directing attention not to the argument but by attacking the person! 3 forms -ad hominem abusive (verbally abusive) -ad hominem circumstantial (discredit opponent - Clinton is a woman so she will be prochoice/her arguments are worthless) -tu quoque (you too) (2nd arguer tries to make first look hypocritical - mom drank underage; so can I)

3.2 Fallacy of Relevance (Informal Fallacy) - -Premises is logically irrelevant to the conclusion

-premises appears psychologically (emotionally) relevant and conclusion appears to follow from the premises/even though it doesn't follow logically

3.2 Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi) - Informal Fallacy - The premises of an argument support one particular conclusion, but then a different conclusion, often vaugely related to the correct conclusion, is drawn E.g. There has been an increase in burglary in this neighborhood; it must be because more people are moving in.

3.2 Red Herring - Informal Fallacy - Arguer diverts the attention of the reader/listener/viewer by CHANGING THE SUBJECT) ignores the original argument if there ever was one *You should study, You should watch a movie* eye catching scandal, crime, sex, death = all popular!

3.2 Straw Man - Informal Fallacy - When an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it. -Arguer has set up a straw man/knocked it down and then concluded the real man has been knocked down too.. (wendy's competitors where's the beef in their sandwiches?)

3.3 Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) - Something that cannot be or has not yet been proved.. *no one has proved the existence of ufos therefore, ufos do not exist* but scientists search for something for years and can't find it does not exist-not fallacious*

3.3 Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) - When the cited authority lacks credibility -lack expertise -biased -motivation to lie *Chairman of tobacco company says smoking doesn't result in addiction* but if it is a doctor-no fallacy-...