|
genetic fallacy
|
claim is true or false based on the source of the argument or statement
|
|
|
composition
|
what is true of the parts must be true of the whole
Going from a distributive use of a term to a collective use of a turn
|
|
|
division
|
what is true of the whole must be true of the parts moving from a collective use to a distributive use
|
|
|
appeal to the person (ad hominem
|
rejecting a claim by criticizing the person who makes the claim rather than the claim itself
|
|
|
equivocation
|
using a word in two different senses in an argument
|
|
|
appeal to ignorance
|
Assert something as true b/c it has not been shown to be false, or assert something is false b/c it has not been proven true.
A. there are times when the absence of evidence does allow us to assert there is evidence of absence
B On whom does the burden of proof fall?, the person asserting the positive claim
|
|
|
appeal to emotion
|
the use of emotions as premises in an argument
|
|
|
straw man
|
the distorting, weakening, or oversimplifying of someone's position so that it can be more easily attacked or refuted
|
|
|
begging the question/circular argument/circular reasoning
|
the conclusion is presupposed by the premises or the conclusion is included as one of the premises
|
|
|
false dilemma
|
one asserts that there are only two options/alternatives when there are actually more, and alternatives that are posed are not exhaustive of the possibilties
|
|
|
slippery slope
|
arguing w/o good reason that doing one thing will inevitably result in something else.
|
|
|
hasty generalization
|
drawing a conclusion about a whole group based on an inadequate sample of the group
|
|
|
faulty analogies
|
the things being compared are not sufficiently similar in relevant ways
|
|
|
Irrelevant conclusion
|
premises prove something but not that particular conclusion
|
|
|
Ad Hominum: Circumstantial
|
An attempt to dismiss or disprove a claim on the basis of circumstances of the person holding it
|
|
|
Ad Hominum: Abusive:
|
When you attack the character or impugn the integrity of the person rather than criticizing the argument itself
|
|
|
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
|
up claims by saying others with some sort of authority can prove it
|
|
|
What are arguments?
|
collection of propositions/group of propositions where at least one can be inferred from the others. The assertion of reasons in support of a statement.
|
|
|
Two major kinds of arguments
|
Deductive--Formal & Informal
Inductive
|
|
|
Valid Argument
|
If the premises are true, do they warrant the conclusion?
|
|
|
What are propositions?
|
anything that can be asserted or denied.
|
|
|
Property of propositions
|
All are either true or false
|
|
|
Statement--
|
linguistic expression of a proposition
|
|
|
Simple propositions
|
it asserts or denies only one fact or state of affairs
|
|
|
Complex propositions
|
assert multiple facts/Each fact is asserted as true
|
|
|
Disjunctive proposition
|
(either/or statement)--Just because the whole proposition is being asserted as true, the parts themselves not being asserted as being true. One of them is true, but the proposition does not show which one is true.
|
|
|
Conditional/Hypothetical propositions
|
Don’t know if either simple proposition is true. Both statements can be false while the whole can still be true.None of these propositions have to be true for the proposition to be true.
|
|
|
Inference
|
a process by which one proposition (conclusion) is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of other propositions (premises).
|
|
|
Two kinds of propositions
|
the conclusion and the premises.
|
|
|
Non-declarative premise
|
Rhetorical questions--and Enthymemes--unstated assumptions, sometimes unstated conclusion
|
|
|
Bacon’s Idols
|
Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, Idols of the Marketplace, Idols of the Theatre
|
|
|
Subjective Relativism
|
subjectivist fallacy--the truth depends on what you believe, or, truth varies from one individual to another. Truth is relative to persons.
|
|
|
Idols of the Cave
|
coupled with a particular custom, habit, education
|
|
|
Idols of the Marketplace
|
result from the misuse of language. Philosophical confusion can result from linguistic confusion. Language often contains terms for things that do not exist.
|
|
|
Idols of the Theatre
|
neither innate (tribe) nor language (marketplace) but from an unduly strong attachment to our ideas.
|
|
|
Social Relativism
|
cultural relativism--truth varies not according to individuals but rather to societies or cultures.
|
|
|
two types of Bacon’s Idols
|
1. Those that are due to how we think (reasoning)
2. Those that are due to what we think, the content of reasoning.
|
|
|
Deductive arguments
|
the conclusion follows the premises regardless of what else is true in the world.
You cannot add additional premises to a deductive argument to strengthen it.
|
|
|
Valid Deductive argument
|
to be valid, it is supposing the premises are true, therefore, the conclusion must be true
|
|
|
Sound and unsound arguments
|
Sound--premises are true, conclusion must be true
Unsound --premises are not true
|
|
|
Inductive argument
|
only probability in inductive arguments, never provide conclusive evidence. Only are weak or strong. They cannot be valid or invalid. If the premises are true, the conclusion is only probably true. You can add premises to an inductive argument to either strengthen it or weaken it
|
|
|
Disjunctive--non conditional
|
At least one (not ONLY one) is true. You can never infer the falsity of one of the disjuncts.
Either p or q
Not p (or q)
Therefore, q
The truth of one does not necessarily negate the other
|
|
|
Mixed hypothetical syllogisms
|
They contain as a premise a hypothetical/conditional statement. Only one of the premises is hypothetical.
|
|
|
Modus ponens
|
Modus Ponens-- if p then q (if p=antecendent) (then q=consequent)
P
Therefore, q
|
|
|
Modus tollens
|
If p, then q
Not q.
Therefore, not p
|
|
|
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
|
Pure Hypothetical Syllogism
If p, then q
If q, then r
If p, then r
|
|
|
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
|
If A, then B
B____
Therefore, A
|
|
|
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent
|
If p, then q
Not p
Not q
|
|
|
An independent premise
|
offers at least partial support for the conclusion w/o other premises.
|
|
|
A dependent premise
|
offers support for the conclusion only in conjunction w/ other premises
|
|
