Introductory Terminology:
Argument: A set of premises that lead to a conclusion
Inductive Reasoning & Deductive Reasoning:
https://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html
https://study.com/academy/lesson/inductive-and-deductive-reasoning.html
Some examples of logical fallacies:
Person A makes claim P; person B states that A has a bad character; therefore, P is false.
- Attacking a speaker's argument by insulting the speaker
- E.g: 'You say the earth goes around the sun, but you're a drunk and a womanizer!'
Ad Hominem: Circumstantial
Person A claims P. The circumstances of A discredit his assertion that P. Hence, we should disbelieve P.
- Undermining the credibility of an argument by appealing to some facts about its proponent, where these facts are inconsistent with the proponent's advocacy of the argument, or where they undermine the proponent's credibility in putting forward the argument.
- In other words, impugning the motives of an argument's proponent; undermining the argument based on the proponent's motive/vested interest.
- E.g: 'The CEO of oil America claims that drilling in Alakas will have a negligible environmental effect. But we shouldn't believe him: he's juts saying that to get permission to drill.'
Ad Hominem: Guilt by association
Attacking an argument by casting aspersions on people or organisations associated with eitehr its proponent or the argument itself.
2 forms, depending on whether it's the speaker or the argument that is presumed guilty by association.
1) Opponent A argues that P. But a third party B also argues P. B is unsavory. Hence, we should disbelieve P. (Implicit premise: If B is unsavory, we shjould reject everything they say).
- E.g: You support arg(X). But bullshitter Bill supports arg(X) as well, hence we should disbelieve arg(X).
2) The proponent of argument P associates with B. But B is unsavory. Hence, we should disbelieve P.
- E.g: You support arg(X). You also support arg(Y). Since/if arg(Y) is invalid, we should disbelieve arg(X) based on the fact that you supported both arg(X) and arg(Y).
Ad Hominem: Tu Quoque
Undermining an argument against a certain behavior or action on the grounds that the proponent himself engages in the very same behavior or action. Yes, this person is hypocritical, but shouldn't you be more inclined to believe him since he has the experience?
- Proponent makes an arg(X) against a certain behavior or act(Q); but the proponent himself engages in act(Q). Hence, we should disbelieve arg(X).
- E.g. 'My dad always warns me against taking up smoking, but he himself gets through an entire pack every day! Why should I listen to his warnings?'
Affirming the consequent
P => Q means that if P is true, Q is true. However, if the consequent Q is true, it may or may not mean that the precedent/antecedent P is also true.
Ambiguity
An argument in which there is a term common to the premises and conclusion, or to more than one of the premises, but the term carries a different sense in each instance which cannot be equated.
- E.g.'Peter is a short professional basketball player. Therefore, he is a professional basketball player, and he is short.' To counter this argument, we need to examine how it is formulated. The statement 'Peter is short' equivocates between the attributive and predicative uses of the term 'short'. 'Peter is a short basketballer' means 'Peter is below the average height of professional basketballers', but 'Peter is short' means 'Peter is below mean/median height'. These meanings cannot be equated.
- E.g. 'You say you have a dog, and he has puppies, Therefore, since he is yours and he is a father, he is your father, and the puppies are your brothers.'
- Ambiguity embraces equivocation, where the same word has different meanings. Equivocation, specifically and strictly speaking, is a semantic ambiguity: the ambiguity arises because the same word may refer to different things. (Ambiguity, on the other hand, may also arise because of a syntax of a sentence, endowing the same word witha different meaning in the context of different sentences. So, in the basketball example, 'short' has a different meaning when qualified by the term 'basketballer'.)
- Syntax ambiguity is frequently a source of humor, as illustrated by the classic quip: 'I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know', or 'French push bottles up German rear'.
Anonymous authority
An argument's proponent justifies argument by appealing to an unindentified authority.
- Arg(X) is justified by appealing to an authoriy(A), who the argument's proponent does not or cannot name.
- E.g. 'Experts say..., therefore ...'
- While this means that their appeal to credentials cannot verified, and the appeal is illegitimate, it does not imply the argument is outright false.
Conclusion
Conclusion
Overall, a good book for understanding the various logical fallacies, but it also seems to proceed in a dictionary fashion, which isn't really all that captivating. The stories/examples provided are interesting, but may accentuates the author's biases on subjects like social, economic, or political issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment