Fallacies
Ok, I recently got in a discussion with Mib, and it occurred to me that:
A. Some of Mib’s debating tactics were really pissing me off.
B. A good reply would be to post this and classify exactly what about his debating pisses me off.
C. That posting this would be beneficial to the forums as a whole.
Now I am less angry at you Mib, but I feel this is enough of a problem on the whole that it must be posted. Please don’t take this personally. I even fall into using these once in a while, but knowledge is the first defence. Hopefully, people will find this helpful, and if so, I would be thankful to see it stickied. So, I present a note I got from public speaking class.
I added relevent notes in quote boxes.
Oh, and a warning. Now that I have an online copy, I can easily go pendant on your ass. I’ve wanted to many times before, to many people, but didn’t want to go and get the sheet. Beware.
Fallacy: Faulty Reasoning: misleading argument. Used to deceive and distort.
Quote:
Note: this doesn’t happen on purpose most of the time, but it happens anyway.
Fallacies of Distraction:False Dilemma: two Choices are given when in fact there are three options.
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support:Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be more true because it is widely held to be true.
Changing the SubjectAttacking the Person
the person’s character is attacked.
the person’s circumstances are noted.
the person does not practice what is preached.
Appeal to Authority:
the authority is not an expert in the field.
experts in the field disagree.
the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the collusion.
Inductive FallaciesHasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.
False Analogy: the two objects of events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to contrary.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an argument is excluded from consideration.
Fallacies Involving Statistical SyllogismsAccident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.
Converse Accident: an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.
Causal Fallicies:Post Hoc: Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
Joint Effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both joint effects of an underlaying cause.
Insignificant: one thing is held to be cause another, and it does, but is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed.
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.
Missing the Point:Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Irrelevant Conclution: an argument in defence of one conclusion instead proves a different conclutions.
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker then) the oppositions best.
Quote:
Note: that Straw man has happened in reverse. When a weaker position is being attacked, the defender changes subject to a subject that has a stronger position.
Fallacies of Ambiguity:Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings.
Amphibole: The structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.
Catagory Errors:Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argues that the whole has that property.
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.
Non Sequitur:Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefor A.
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.
Quote:
syl-lo-gism
1. Logic. A form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion; for example, All humans are mortal, the major premise, I am a human, the minor premise, therefore, I am mortal, the conclusion.
2. Reasoning from the general to the specific; deduction.
3. A subtle or specious piece of reasoning.
Syllogistic Errors:Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms.
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property.
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premise only mention some cases of the term in the predicate.
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some of the term in the subject.
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises.
Fallacy of drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies.
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises.
Fallacies of Explanation:Subverted Support: the phenomenon being explained doesn’t exist.
Non-support: evidence for the phenomenon being explained is bias.
Untestability: the theory which explains cannot be tested
Limited Scope: the theory which explains can only explain one thing.
Limited Depth: the theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes.
Fallacies of Deginition:Too Broad: the definition includes items which should not be included.
Too Narow: the definition does not include all the items which should be included.
Failure to Elucidate: the definition is more difficult to understand then the word or concept being defined.
Circular Definition: the definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
Conflicting Conditions: the definition is self-contradictory.
Login
FAQ
Search
