May 31, 2016
Podcast from Irreligiosophy (originally broadcast in July 2013) - notes as I listen
VALID argument v. SOUND argument
A VALID argument:
"If A, then B" or "If A, therefore B"
A SOUND argument:
An argument in which the premises are true, and therefore the conclusion is true.
Let's see if I remembered the above correctly: (nope)
Fallacy : a bad argument; a defect in logic or reasoning
People often think they WIN the argument by pointing out that the other party has used a fallacy (e.g., "That's just a straw man" or "that's a fallacy" or "that's a non sequitur")
Pointing out a fallacy just means the ARGUMENT is bad. It doesn't tell you anything about the conclusion. The conclusion may be TRUE. It just means they can't use that particular argument to support their conclusion.
Aside about ARGUMENT:
VALID ARGUMENT: logically correct. If Premises are true, conclusion must necessarily follow (If A, then B. A, therefore B)
SOUND ARGUMENT: A valid argument whose Premises are true.
You CAN trust wholeheartedly the conclusion of a SOUND argument. You CAN NOT trust a VALID argument, because the premises may be false, may be true.
If the premises are false, the argument could still be VALID. It doesn't matter how VALID the argument is..... the conclusion could still be false.
E.G. Believers will say, "If there is no God, then you can't have morality." It's a valid argument, but not a sound one.
Just pointing out FALLACIES doesn't mean that the conclusion is wrong. Don't just name the fallacy (e.g., "straw man"), should explain WHY.
1. Ad hominim (meaning "to the man")
When a claim is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of the claim.
(e.g., "don't listen to Laurie's claims about X because she's an idiot." Laurie may well be an idiot, but that should not influence your decision about whether or not to listen to her claims about X.)
2. Ad populum (meaning "to the popular position")
When the arguer takes the most popular view, in order to fit in.
(e.g., Christians will say "90% of the people believe in God, so I must also believe in God.")
Appeal to popularity; the "bandwagon philosophy" - usually used for something that's "new & improved." (another e.g., "You should buy Taylor Swift's album because it just went Platinum.")
3. Affirming the consequence
Generally, it's a CONDITIONAL statement, or an "If-Then" statement.
The "THEN" portion is found to be true. So the arguer FLIPS IT AROUND, and says the "IF" portion must also be true.
(e.g., "IF she is Brazilian, THEN she speaks Portuguese." The FLIP: "She DOES speak Portuguese. Therefore she IS Brazilian." Obviously, she could also be from Portugal.)
The FLAW: In an If-Then statement, there are MANY possible causes that could lead to that conclusion. So..... just because you have a substantiated, true conclusion, doesn't mean that any single cause is true.
Another e.g.: "If it's raining, then the sidewalk will be wet. -- The sidewalk is wet, therefore it's raining." -- there could be OTHER reasons that the sidewalk is wet.
4. Appeal to consequences
The consequences of the belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.
(e.g., "Islam can't be true because it promotes terrorism." This is meaningless since it does not help decide whether Islam is true or not. IOW, you cannot conclude anything about the Premise (Islam is/isn't true) simply because it has a consequence you don't like (terrorism).
Hard to find a "secular example" for this fallacy, since it's all about BELIEF.
5. Appeal to emotion (VERY common fallacy)
Attempt to manipulate people's emotions in order to get them to accept that the claim is true.
e.g., "I know the exam is graded on performance. But you should give me an A anyway, since my cat was sick, and my car broke down, and I had a cold, so I couldn't study."
NOTE: Chuck used the term "informal logic" - referring to the student getting a low grade in "informal logic." Suggests that there could be "Formal logic." But he gives no additional information about the (possible) divisions of the field of logic here.
6. Appeal to ignorance.
Attempt to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion, as proof of the validity of the conclusion.
(e.g., "You can't prove I'm wrong. Therefore I must be right." Can be used for existence of God, Big Foot, Chubacabra, etc.)
Believers will state: "Well, you can't prove God DOESN'T exist." === This is an appeal to ignorance.
You have to go to the "burden of proof" explanation to respond to the use of this fallacy.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH THE ONE WHO MAKES THE CLAIM.
Believers will often retort: "Well, YOU make the claim that God DOES NOT exist. Prove THAT!"
Logicians reply: "NO! I am not making that claim. I'm claiming that there is no good evidence for the existence of God. Refute THAT!"
Chuck adds: BTW, Believers, the burden of proof lies with the one who is making a positive claim. Good luck in proving a negative when talking about God.
7. Appeal to Authority
Happens when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. (aside: CAN be a fallacy even if the person in question IS a legitimate authority...... if you don't present the logic of the argument, the proof, etc.)
But the classic examples are when the person makes a statement OUTSIDE their expertise on the subject.
(e.g., Actor Martin Sheen says we should get rid of the death penalty, so let's get rid of it.)
8. Begging the Question
Where the Premises include the claim that the conclusion is true. Or, directly or indirectly assume that the conclusion is true.
(e.g., Frosted Flakes box says "they're great." Therefore, they ARE great. e.g., "When did you stop beating your wife?" - assumes you WERE beating your wife)
Sub-fallacy: "JAQ"ing off - Just asking questions: "Did Glen Beck ever kidnap & murder a young boy? Just asking."
9. Fallacy of Composition - the OPPOSITE of Division below
When conclusion is drawn about a whole, based upon the features of its component parts. There is no justification for the conclusion, other than that it's composed of those parts.
(e.g., Each human cell is lightweight and microscopic. A human being is composed of cells. Therefore humans are lightweight and microscopic.
10. Fallacy of Division - the OPPOSITE of Composition above
When you attribute characteristics of the whole to each of the component parts.
11. False Dichotomy Fallacy
Arguer sets it up that there are only TWO choices, and then eliminates one of them, and concludes that the other must be the correct choice.
(e.g., Jesus or Evolution. I've disproved Evolution. Therefore, Jesus.)
(e.g., (secular): If you don't vote for Candidate A, you must be a Communist.)
12. Genetic Fallacy
Attempt to support or refute an argument based on it's ORIGIN, or GENESIS. in stead of the argument itself.
(e.g., I won't vote for the Chancellor's reforms, because I heard he was a Nazi.)
13. No True Scotsman
An ad hoc "rescue" generalization in which the arguer re-characterizes the situation solely to escape refutation of the generalization.
(e.g.,
A: If Christians are so moral, what about that guy who cheated people out of money?
B: Well, he's not a TRUE Christian.)
(e.g.,
A: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave
B: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.
A: It just shows that McDougal's not a TRUE Scotsman.
14. Slippery Slope Fallacy
(liked by Christians & Republicans)
Argument that a certain ludicrously terrible event must inevitably follow from another, and so on, etc.
(e.g., If the SCOTUS allows abortion, next they'll allow euthanasia, and soon society will dispose of all persons it deems unwanted or undesirable.)
(e.g., If you allow gay marriage, next they'll allow marrying dogs, and next dogs living together.)
15. Special Pleading Fallacy
Applying standards, rules, etc. to others while taking themselves to be exempt, without adequate justification.
(e.g., all DUI perpetrators should be locked up. But if MY WIFE has a DUI, she should be exempt because she's usually very careful.
(e.g., Lawyer: in ALL OTHER cases, this evidence would lead to a conviction of the defendant. But not in THIS case, your Honor.)
16. Straw Man Fallacy
(Overused)
A person ignores his opponent's actual position, and substitutes an exaggerated, distorted or misrepresentative version of that position, and then they attack THAT position. So they're not attacking the person, rather a "Straw Man" version of the person, who is easy to beat up.
(e.g.,
A: Sen. Jones does not want to support the attack submarine funding initiative.
B: I totally disagree with Sen. Jones. Why does he want to leave us defenseless like that?
Note: This is also an example of a False Dichotomy Fallacy (i.e., Either (you support attack submarine funding) / or (you want the USA to be defenseless).
Note: People just say "that's a Straw Man argument" but don't explain WHY it is a misrepresentation.
17. Tu Quoque - a type of Ad Hominum, meaning "you too"
When it is concluded that a person's claim is false because it is inconsistent with what he has said before,
or,
When a person says something inconsistent with his actions.
(e.g., A child might say "Tu quoque" when his father forbids the child from doing drugs, and yet he himself uses tobacco & liquor.)
However, a claim of hypocrisy does not affect the truth of the conclusion (i.e. smoking is bad for you)
Republican Senators who get caught sleeping around claim that Democratic Senators do it too.
Bill O'Reilly says: You should not excuse bad behavior just because worse behavior exists.
