Class Synopsis for January 24

On Monday, January 24, we covered nineteen common logical fallacies of philosophical arguments. Knowledge of these logical fallacies is important in disproving philosophical arguments, by giving one the tools to devalue an opposition:

Faulty Clause- Mistakes correlation/association with causation
Ex. Lightning struck a small home in Asia this morning, and then I ran late for class. Therefore, whenever lightning strikes in Asia, I am late for class.

Hasty or Sweeping Generalization- Assumes what is true of the whole must be true of the part, or that what is true most of the time will be true all of the time
Ex. All old people are bad drivers. Gene is old, thus Gene must be a bad driver.

Appeal to Ignorance- Uses the opponent’s inability to refute an argument to prove the argument
Ex. Heaven is made of cheese. Since there is no proof that it isn’t, it must be true.

Appeal to Pity- Acquiring acceptance of an argument by making the audience feel sorry for someone
Ex. I could not make it to class today because I found out that I lost my job and that my girlfriend is sleeping with my best friend. Please don’t make this day any worse for me than its already been.

Appeal to Force- Threat
Ex. Agree or else.

Bifurcation or False Dilemma- Assumes two conclusions are mutually exclusive, so that it implies one of two outcomes is inevitable
Ex. If you are not with us, then you are against us.



Ad Hominem- Slanders the source of an argument’s evidence, as opposed to the validity of the evidence itself
Ex. So what if Bill Clinton says we should consider marriage counseling, look what he got caught doing with Monica.

Tu Quoque- Pointing out a similar error committed in another situation
Ex. How can he represent animal rights? I’ve seen the leather boots he bought his wife for Christmas.

Equivocation- Shifts the meaning of a key word or term in an argument, so that the conclusion is not concerned with the same issue as the premise
Ex. Wood is sturdier than nothing. Nothing is sturdier than bricks. Wood is sturdier than bricks.

Begging the Question- Basing a conclusion on an unproven assumption
Ex. The Bible is an infallible source of facts, because it says it is.

Tautology- Qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument.
Ex. People’s actions reflect the manner in which those people choose to act.

Appeal to Authority- Justifying an argument by citing a celebrity or respected individual in favor of the argument’s conclusion
Ex. Everyone should buy Nike, because Michael Jordan buys Nike.

Appeal to Tradition- Things should continue to be done as has been done in the past
Ex. Gay marriage can never be legal, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Appeal to the Crowd- Referring to popular or majority opinion to support an argument
Ex. The majority of Americans do not want to pay taxes, so we should not have to pay taxes.

Straw Man- Re-stating an opponent’s argument in an extreme, exaggerated form, or attacking a minor or irrelevant part of one’s argument
Ex. We should distrust neopaganism because demonology is evil and dangerous.

Slippery Slope- Suggests than if one action is taken, it will invariably lead to similar actions, the end results of which are negative
Ex. Allowing eighteen-year-olds to drink is opening the doors to alcoholic pre-teens.

Non Sequitar- An argument which fails to establish a connection between its premises and its conclusion
Ex. There are hundreds of homeless pets in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area, so I shouldn’t have to do anymore Philosophy homework for the semester.

Red Herring- A diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated.
Ex. Sure, crime rates have risen over the past year, but did you not see the new parks that we put in?

Class Synopsis for Monday (1/24/2011)

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.