Monday’s class focused on introducing common fallacies through definition and by the use of examples. Early in the class, one student respectfully questioned the purpose of learning them in the first place. Dr. Layne answered that by recognizing fallacies, we can learn to avoid them, which will help us make stronger arguments and leave us better suited to engage in responsible dialogue later on. The first common fallacy we discussed was “Faulty Cause”; which is based merely off superstition. “Faulty Cause” is when we associate a cause with another because it just so correlated at the same time. One example was a black cat crossing someone who’s involved in a car accident later that same day. The next common fallacy was “Hasty or Sweeping Generalization”. This is when we assume that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances. One example was claiming that because one student is lazy, all students are lazy. We then covered “Faulty Analogy” which can apply literally or figuratively. “Faulty Analogy” occurs when we assume that because two things are alike in some respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects. We used the analogy “Life is like a toilet paper, long and useful” as an example. There was then a discussion on the use of analogies in an argument. One student argued that starting off an argument with an analogy makes it weak, while Dr. Layne believed that an analogy is usually better than using than a definition because it appeals to all people rather than just one. We then moved on to cover “Appeal to Ignorance”. This fallacy attempts to use an opponent’s inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion. So by saying “You can’t prove I’m wrong” you’re practicing “Appeal to Ignorance”. The next fallacy was “Appeal to Pity”. This occurs when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. A student making excuses to his teacher about a grade is a perfect example of this fallacy. We then discussed “Appeal to Force”; which is the kind of argument that basically says if you don’t agree with my conclusion, bad things will happen to you. The seventh fallacy we covered was “Bifurcation/False Dilemma”, which is an “all or nothing” fallacy that offers no grey area. The quote “Either you’re with us or against us” directly applies here. “Ad hominen” followed afterward. This fallacy attempts to refute an argument by slandering the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself. The example we used was “There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!” The next fallacy dealt with pointing out the hypocrisy of the person making the argument. This fallacy is referred to as “Tu Quoque”. One example was the U.S. criticizing the human rights policies of third world nations. The tenth fallacy was “Equivocation”, which allows a word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. Dr. Layne’s example was “Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.” We then discussed “Begging the Question”, A.K.A. Complex Question, which entails making an argument with a conclusion based on an unproven assumption. One example was stating that abortion is murder since killing a baby is an act of murder. We then discussed “Tautology” which is a sub-category of circular argument. It deals with defining terms and qualifying them. The second to last fallacy, “Appeal to Authority”, attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known, not necessarily qualified, figure. And finally, the last fallacy we covered was “Appeal to Tradition”. This fallacy means that we should simply continue to do things as they have been done in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment