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?

Philosophy vs. Theology

So I spent much of Monday pondering how psychology, theology, and philosophy intertwine; a question that was first posed while learning about Kierkegaard’s notion of the “leap of faith” and later addressed in my World Religion class as we studied Taoism and Confucianism, two belief systems that seriously blur the lines between philosophical and religious beliefs, in Eastern Asia. The way I see it is the philosophy attempts to define how people think and the reasons people do the things that they do, while theology studies what it is people believe and how these beliefs fuel lifestyle choices.

Both of these practices are simply two different ways of studying the human mind, which would make them both, in some manner, smaller branches within the broad topic of psychology. However, neither theology nor philosophy fit into the scientific aspects of psychology, thus why they must be considered distinctly, as to leave a standard of credibility to the actual practice of psychology.

Many philosophers considered themselves above religions, but the practice of philosophy is a no less subjective study of the same topics that theology attempts to explain, except that philosophers claim credibility through “logic”, which is still as man-made a concept as any religious text can even be accused of being and thus open to the same flaws, particularly that man lack omniscience, or even any sort of truly known awareness beyond, what, 120 years, at most? That is also the most inherent flaw in both philosophy and theology, the fact that they both attempt to set such blanket terms on people across an innumerable set of times and places.

Chicken or Egg? Something always has to come first.

The discussion this week concerning the differences between a priori and a posteriori has left me with a lot of food for thought. In my opinion, a priori knowledge hardly exists beyond the presence of instincts, such as the necessity of breathing. The common example of a priori knowledge is that “all unmarried men are bachelors”. However, to truly understand this statement, one still had to learn the definition of a bachelor, not to mention the definitions of the other words in the statement. That is the main flaw in the theory of a priori knowledge: all language must be learned, and no idea can be either expressed or understood without language. Following this line of reasoning, all knowledge must be learned, or a posteriori. True a priori knowledge must arise completely in and of itself, which, short of the Big Bang Theory or the infinite existence of some higher power (neither of which can be proven), is not possible, for all things, including ideas, have to be produced from elsewhere.