The presentation may contain content that is deemed objectionable to a particular viewer because of the view expressed or the conduct depicted. The views expressed are provided for learning purposes only, and do not necessarily express the views, or opinions, of Strayer University, your professor, or those participating in videos or other media.We will have two ten-minute breaks: at 7:30 and 9 pm. You will have the Discussion at 9:30 before you are dismissed at 10:00 pm.
"Fallacies and Errors in Sound Reasoning" Please respond to the following:
- Use the Internet to locate at least two (2) advertisements that exhibit any of the following fallacies: equivocation, false authority, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, or bandwagon. Post the videos in the discussion. Next, identify the fallacy used in the selected advertisements, discuss the primary reasons why you believe that the advertisers have used the fallacy in question, and examine whether or not their use of this type of fallacy is effective.
- From part 1 of this discussion, consider alternate strategies that the advertisers could have used in order to develop a more sound and persuasive argument. Explain the main reasons why you believe consumers ignore these errors in reasoning.
https://prezi.com/qolunfafmufp/fallacies-commonly-used-in-beauty-commercials/
This makeup commercial provides a false Dilemma: the makeup shows the audience two options and either looks perfect like the actress Halli Berry, or do not buy the product and look hideous with any other makeup.
Appeal To Authority: https://youtu.be/SOAPMjsHLDM
Appeal To Ignorance: https://youtu.be/SfAxUpeVhCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UWq26V01po
- A lot of fast food places use false advertising to get people to buy their products. When watching many fast food commercials make the customers believe that when they purchase the food it is going to look like it does in the commercial.
- In this commercial its the same thing. Some will look at this and say this commercial is false advertisement, one does not dance across after drinking the soda nor make one feel as though I want to dance.
Week 4 Course Learning Outcomes
Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
REVIEW
What are the four categorical propositions?
What does "S" and "P" stand for?
What two aspects can each of the following have?
Quantity
Quality
Distribution
What are the three terms of the syllogism called?
What is the form of the classic syllogism according to Aristotle?
Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion. Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises (not updated for gender).
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
What are the rules of the categorical syllogism?
Summary
Rule 1: There must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms
Fallacy = Four terms
Rule 2: Middle term must be distributed at least once.
Fallacy = Undistributed Middle
Rule 3: All terms distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in one of the premises.
Fallacy = Illicit major; Illicit minor
HINT: Mark all distributed terms first Remember from Chapter 1 that a deductive argument may not contain more information in the conclusion than is contained in the premises. Thus, arguments that commit the fallacies of illicit major and illicit minor commit this error.
Rule 4: Two negative premises are not allowed.
Fallacy = Exclusive premises The key is that "nothing is said about the relation between the S class and the P class."
Rule 5: A negative premise requires a negative conclusion, and a negative conclusion requires a negative premise.
Fallacy = Drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise. OR
Drawing a negative conclusion from affirmative premises. OR Any syllogism having exactly one negative statement is invalid.
Note the following sub-rule: No valid syllogism can have two particular premises. The last rule is dependent on quantity.
Rule 6: If both premises are universal, the conclusion cannot be particular.
Fallacy =Existential Fallacy}}
4.1 Fallacies
Ground Rules
Fallacies that Violate Rules of Rational Argumentation, 4:08
http://www.criticalthinkeracademy.com Some fallacies are purely logical, some rely on false premises, but there are other types of fallacies that are best viewed as violations of basic rules or conditions that are required to have a genuinely rational discussion.
https://youtu.be/3LUWy1qDpDg
Tips for Spotting Fallacies
Fallacies
There are many different ways our reasoning can be flawed, but some of these mistakes are so common that they have names. This chapter explores fallacies, inhabitants of the often ridiculous but not always obvious world of flawed reasoning.A fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, while a fallacious argument is an argument that commits a fallacy. There are two great reasons to study fallacies: to prevent yourself from being fooled by them, and to prevent yourself from committing them unintentionally.
Ground Rules
- Fallacies can be found in both deductive and inductive arguments.
- Fallacies can seem very plausible and, when undetected, are often persuasive.
- The presence of a fallacy doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the logic is flawed and so the argument isn’t compelling.
Tips for Spotting Fallacies
- Become familiar with the common ones.
- Evaluate assumptions in an argument.
- Find the conclusion, and then ask yourself if the premises are relevant to it.
- Look for things in the argument that distract your attention from the main point.
Tips for Spotting Fallacies, 8:11
Spotting logical fallacies animation as a final project for Logic. The whole process of the animation took about a week and a half. There are some parts or scenes that aren't altered or detail-oriented due to the limited time the professor had given us for the video project. It shouldn't be more than 10 minutes so i did my best to make the animation short as possible and only focus to the generic scenes. This is an amateur animation & ofcourse, this was also my first time in case you're wondering.
https://youtu.be/AM5IQW-E-AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM5IQW-E-AM&feature=youtu.be
Common Fallacies
1. Begging the Question
To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.[1]
The term "begging the question", as this is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates as "assuming the initial point".[2] In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes used to mean "to invite the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge a question".[2] These usages are often criticized as being mistaken.[3]
Begging the Question Fallacy, 2:25
https://youtu.be/gArxRlD5yVc
2. Appeal to popularity
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy (also known as a vox populi),[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
Ad Populum example - Camel commercial 1949, :58
This fallacious reasoning claims that if something is supported by many people, or the majority, it has to be true/good.
Nowadays smoking is considered bad for our health. Some decades ago things were different. Even doctors would be used in tobacco advertisements.
This video is an 1949 commercial for a Camel. Their motto is:
"More Doctors Smoke Camels, than any other cigarette.
https://youtu.be/3pSdTuRAdqo
STAR TREK Logical Thinking #1 - Argumentum Ad Populum (Appeal to the Majority), 1:58
Educational PSA where Mister Spock corrects some crewmembers after overhearing them employing a logical fallacy in their discussions. Had NBC decided to teach principles of sound reasoning in the mid-1970's they could do no better than to have the logical Mister Spock do the teaching. As an addition to the the two-dozen or so Public Service Announcements I created featuring the animated crew of the Starship Enterprise, I have created a new series of PSAs featuring Mr. Spock called "Logical Thinking." Using the Vulcan science officer to educate people in proper reasoning is "Only Logical" as he states at the end of each PSA. Done in the style of Filmation's 1973-75 Animated STAR TREK series, this PSA was written and animated by Curt Danhauser. For more info: http://www.danhausertrek.com/Animated...
https://youtu.be/xkoMdnCS6Og
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.
The following is a simple example:
The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, 5:41
In this video, Paul explains the post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. This is an informal fallacy committed when a person reasons that because one event happened after another event, the first event caused the second. He also discusses why it is sometimes hasty to conclude that your cat scratch
caused your fever. Speaker: Paul Henne, Duke University.
post hoc ergo propter hoc (logical fallacy) - from The West Wing, 1:43
https://youtu.be/rsI36TzIikY
4. Appeal to ignorance
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
- true
- false
- unknown between true or false
- being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
4.1 Practice: Fallacies
Appeal To Ignorance...:34
Short clip showing Appeal To Ignorance in the movie super 8.
https://youtu.be/fbu0shSpsaY
Prehistoric Theories of Causation
Causality (also referred to as 'causation',[1] or 'cause and effect') is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of many other effects, which all lie in its future.
Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it.[2] Accordingly, causality is built into the conceptual structure of ordinary language.[3]
In Aristotelian philosophy, the word 'cause' is also used to mean 'explanation' or 'answer to a why question', including Aristotle's material, formal, efficient, and final "causes"; then the "cause" is the explanans for the explanandum. In this case, failure to recognize that different kinds of "cause" are being considered can lead to futile debate. Of Aristotle's four explanatory modes, the one nearest to the concerns of the present article is the "efficient" one.
The topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy.
Aristotle identified four kinds of answer or explanatory mode to various "Why?" questions. He thought that, for any given topic, all four kinds of explanatory mode were important, each in its own right. As a result of traditional specialized philosophical peculiarities of language, with translations between ancient Greek, Latin, and English, the word 'cause' is nowadays in specialized philosophical writings used to label Aristotle's four kinds.[15][52] In ordinary language, there are various meanings of the word cause, the commonest referring to efficient cause, the topic of the present article.
- Material cause, the material whence a thing has come or that which persists while it changes, as for example, one's mother or the bronze of a statue (see also substance theory).[53]
- Formal cause, whereby a thing's dynamic form or static shape determines the thing's properties and function, as a human differs from a statue of a human or as a statue differs from a lump of bronze.[54]
- Efficient cause, which imparts the first relevant movement, as a human lifts a rock or raises a statue. This is the main topic of the present article.
- Final cause, the criterion of completion, or the end; it may refer to an action or to an inanimate process. Examples: Socrates takes a walk after dinner for the sake of his health; earth falls to the lowest level because that is its nature.
Aristotle assumed efficient causality as referring to a basic fact of experience, not explicable by, or reducible to, anything more fundamental or basic.
In some works of Aristotle, the four causes are listed as (1) the essential cause, (2) the logical ground, (3) the moving cause, and (4) the final cause. In this listing, a statement of essential cause is a demonstration that an indicated object conforms to a definition of the word that refers to it. A statement of logical ground is an argument as to why an object statement is true. These are further examples of the idea that a "cause" in general in the context of Aristotle's usage is an "explanation".[15]
The word "efficient" used here can also be translated from Aristotle as "moving" or "initiating".[15]
Efficient causation was connected with Aristotelian physics, which recognized the four elements (earth, air, fire, water), and added the fifth element (aether). Water and earth by their intrinsic property gravitas or heaviness intrinsically fall toward, whereas air and fire by their intrinsic property levitas or lightness intrinsically rise away from, Earth's center—the motionless center of the universe—in a straight line while accelerating during the substance's approach to its natural place.
As air remained on Earth, however, and did not escape Earth while eventually achieving infinite speed—an absurdity—Aristotle inferred that the universe is finite in size and contains an invisible substance that held planet Earth and its atmosphere, the sublunary sphere, centered in the universe. And since celestial bodies exhibit perpetual, unaccelerated motion orbiting planet Earth in unchanging relations, Aristotle inferred that the fifth element, aither, that fills space and composes celestial bodies intrinsically moves in perpetual circles, the only constant motion between two points. (An object traveling a straight line from point A to B and back must stop at either point before returning to the other.)
Left to itself, a thing exhibits natural motion, but can—according to Aristotelian metaphysics—exhibit enforced motion imparted by an efficient cause. The form of plants endows plants with the processes nutrition and reproduction, the form of animals adds locomotion, and the form of humankind adds reason atop these. A rock normally exhibits natural motion—explained by the rock's material cause of being composed of the element earth—but a living thing can lift the rock, an enforced motion diverting the rock from its natural place and natural motion. As a further kind of explanation, Aristotle identified the final cause, specifying a purpose or criterion of completion in light of which something should be understood.
Aristotle himself explained,
Cause means
(a) in one sense, that as the result of whose presence something comes into being—e.g., the bronze of a statue and the silver of a cup, and the classes which contain these [i.e., the material cause];
(b) in another sense, the form or pattern; that is, the essential formula and the classes which contain it—e.g. the ratio 2:1 and number in general is the cause of the octave—and the parts of the formula [i.e., the formal cause].
(c) The source of the first beginning of change or rest; e.g. the man who plans is a cause, and the father is the cause of the child, and in general that which produces is the cause of that which is produced, and that which changes of that which is changed [i.e., the efficient cause].
(d) The same as "end"; i.e. the final cause; e.g., as the "end" of walking is health. For why does a man walk? "To be healthy", we say, and by saying this we consider that we have supplied the cause [the final cause].
(e) All those means towards the end which arise at the instigation of something else, as, e.g., fat-reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for they all have the end as their object, although they differ from each other as being some instruments, others actions [i.e., necessary conditions].
Aristotle further discerned two modes of causation: proper (prior) causation and accidental (chance) causation. All causes, proper and accidental, can be spoken as potential or as actual, particular or generic. The same language refers to the effects of causes, so that generic effects are assigned to generic causes, particular effects to particular causes, and actual effects to operating causes.— Metaphysics, Book 5, section 1013a, translated by Hugh Tredennick[55]
Averting infinite regress, Aristotle inferred the first mover—an unmoved mover. The first mover's motion, too, must have been caused, but, being an unmoved mover, must have moved only toward a particular goal or desire.
Middle Ages
In line with Aristotelian cosmology, Thomas Aquinas posed a hierarchy prioritizing Aristotle's four causes: "final > efficient > material > formal".[56] Aquinas sought to identify the first efficient cause—now simply first cause—as everyone would agree, said Aquinas, to call it God. Later in the Middle Ages, many scholars conceded that the first cause was God, but explained that many earthly events occur within God's design or plan, and thereby scholars sought freedom to investigate the numerous secondary causes.After the Middle Ages
For Aristotelian philosophy before Aquinas, the word cause had a broad meaning. It meant 'answer to a why question' or 'explanation', and Aristotelian scholars recognized four kinds of such answers. With the end of the Middle Ages, in many philosophical usages, the meaning of the word 'cause' narrowed. It often lost that broad meaning, and was restricted to just one of the four kinds. For authors such as Niccolò Machiavelli, in the field of political thinking, and Francis Bacon, concerning science more generally, Aristotle's moving cause was the focus of their interest. A widely used modern definition of causality in this newly narrowed sense was assumed by David Hume.[56] He undertook an epistemological and metaphysical investigation of the notion of moving cause. He denied that we can ever perceive cause and effect, except by developing a habit or custom of mind where we come to associate two types of object or event, always contiguous and occurring one after the other.[57] In Part III, section XV of his book A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume expanded this to a list of eight ways of judging whether two things might be cause and effect. The first three:- 1. "The cause and effect must be contiguous in space and time."
- 2. "The cause must be prior to the effect."
- 3. "There must be a constant union betwixt the cause and effect. 'Tis chiefly this quality, that constitutes the relation."
- 4. "The same cause always produces the same effect, and the same effect never arises but from the same cause. This principle we derive from experience, and is the source of most of our philosophical reasonings."
- 5. Hanging upon the above, Hume says that "where several different objects produce the same effect, it must be by means of some quality, which we discover to be common amongst them."
- 6. And "founded on the same reason": "The difference in the effects of two resembling objects must proceed from that particular, in which they differ."
- 7. "When any object increases or diminishes with the increase or diminution of its cause, 'tis to be regarded as a compounded effect, deriv'd from the union of the several different effects, which arise from the several different parts of the cause."
- 8. An "object, which exists for any time in its full perfection without any effect, is not the sole cause of that effect, but requires to be assisted by some other principle, which may forward its influence and operation."
Can we explain cause today for the issues that concern us? Let us consider crime.
Theories of Crime Causation, 1:56
https://youtu.be/RpSd9pNbewA
Fundamentals: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions, 3:14
In this video, Kelley discusses one of the most basic tools in the philosophers' tool kit: the distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions. Through the use of ordinary language glosses and plenty of examples this mighty distinction is brought down to earth and presented in a ready-to-use fashion. Speaker: Kelley Schiffman, Yale University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
https://youtu.be/5LqNm9d2__I
Fundamentals: More About Necessary and Sufficient Conditions, 7:52
In this video, Kelley builds on the understanding of necessary and sufficient conditions laid out in her previous video on the topic. In addition to providing further illustrative examples, Kelley addresses a new complexity: that our judgments of necessity and sufficiency very often rely on implicit background assumptions. Kelley also tackles the difficult question "What's so important about distinguishing necessary from sufficient conditions anyway?". Speaker: Kelley Schiffman, Yale University.
https://youtu.be/9uOF3AZI_Gc
4.2 More Fallacies
5. Appeal to emotion
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]
Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[3][4][5]
appeal to emotion video, 3:02
https://youtu.be/1eMmcMK_3Ao
6. Unqualified Authority
The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, when the authority cited is not a true expert or if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position.[1]
John Locke, in his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, was the first to identify argumentum ad verecundiam as a specific category of argument.[2] Although he did not call this type of argument a fallacy, he did note that it can be misused by taking advantage of the "respect" and "submission" of the reader or listener to persuade them to accept the conclusion.[3] Over time, logic textbooks started to adopt and change Locke's original terminology to refer more specifically to fallacious uses of the argument from authority.[4] By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious."[5]
Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority), 2:10
https://youtu.be/K4cFCGEaJEg
7. Ad hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.
Fallacies: Introduction to Ad Hominem, 6:38
In this video, Julianne Chung offers a brief introduction to ad hominem fallacies, or fallacies of personal attack. She surveys six different types (abusive ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, tu quoque, guilt by association, genetic fallacy, and ad feminam), offering examples of each along the way. For a more detailed discussion of ad hominem fallacies, please see the video on ad hominem fallacies by Paul Henne. Speaker: Julianne Chung, Yale University.
https://youtu.be/wnbK76m691I
Fallacies: Ad Hominem, 8:10
In this video, Paul Henne describes the ad hominem fallacy, which is an informal fallacy that arises when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than their argument. He also describes the four subtypes of this fallacy. Speaker: Paul Henne, Duke University. Created by Gaurav Vazirani.
https://youtu.be/qBkj-AYYg7w
This is a "two-fer."
Check out Hillary Clinton's most memorable fallacious statements from October 13th's Democratic Debate on CNN. *Disclaimer: This video is a part of our continuous series where we will analyze fallacies in both Republican and Democratic debates. For a detailed explanation on our methodologies and thought process, check out our blog post where we address those specifics!
http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/new...
For your reference: we've included short explanations about what each fallacy referenced in this video means.
Fallacy of Obfuscation: This fallacy occurs when someone fails to address the matter at hand and instead redirects the discussion to a more favorable topic.
Ad Hominem Attack: This fallacy occurs when an argument is directed at a person rather than the position being asserted.
Fallacy of Circularity: A fallacy that occurs less frequently than the charge is levied, circularity occurs when a person’s conclusion is treated as evidence to prove that conclusion.
https://youtu.be/yitAhRTrtO8
8. False dichotomy
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" ("false trichotomy," etc.) if something is reduced to only three options.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.
The false dilemma fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual, patterned, black-and-white and/or intensely political/politicized thinking whereby a model of binary (or polar) opposites is assigned or imposed to whatever regarded object/context, almost automatically—a process that may ignore both complexity and alternatives to more extreme juxtaposed archetypes; binary opposition is explored extensively in critical theory.
Some philosophers and scholars believe that "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction".[1] An exception is analytic philosopher John Searle, who called it an incorrect assumption that produces false dichotomies.[2] Searle insists that "it is a condition of the adequacy of a precise theory of an indeterminate phenomenon that it should precisely characterize that phenomenon as indeterminate; and a distinction is no less a distinction for allowing for a family of related, marginal, diverging cases."[2] Similarly, when two options are presented, they often are, although not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities; this may lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive of each other, even though they need not be.[3] Furthermore, the options in false dichotomies typically are presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy may be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.[4]
SkeptiFilm Presents- Logical Fallacies- False Dichotomy, 3:30
Logical Lad explains the False Dichotomy logical fallacy for Xander, who is engaged in an intense debate with his friend, Zoe. Produced by SkeptiFilm, LLC, in association with Masked Man Media.
If you greatly enjoy these videos, and would like to see more in the future, please feel free to donate here: http://skeptifilm.com/?page_id=2
https://youtu.be/JyjBHqALvls
4.2 Practice: More Fallacies
Put Up Your Hooves Jon Stewart John Hodgman
4.3 Even More Fallacies
9. Straw Man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.
Allegedly, straw-man tactics were once known in some parts of the United Kingdom as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[4][5]
Straw Man, 5:59
In this Wireless Philosophy video, Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) introduces you to the straw man fallacy. This fallacy is committed whenever someone misrepresents an opponent's claim in arguing against it.
Speaker: Joseph Wu, University of Cambridge.
https://youtu.be/hfil34ayaEU
Case
Dismissed CHALLENGE YOUR STRAWMAN IN COURT, 4:53
https://youtu.be/3cS2iZajNTU
10. Red herring
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.
The origin of the expression is not known. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.
Family guy red herring example, 1:10
https://youtu.be/f_ttbfTGs48
11. Slippery slope
A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical device in which a party asserts that a particular result will probably (or even must inevitably) follow from a given decision or circumstance, without necessarily providing any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the likelihood of the assumed consequence. A slippery slope argument proposes that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. This type of argument is sometimes used as a form of fear mongering, in which the probable consequences of a given action are exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.
Other idioms for the slippery slope argument are the thin end [or edge] of the wedge and the camel's nose in the tent.
Stephen baldwin's slippery slope logical fallacy, 1:52
https://youtu.be/BtckZ7CLBFI
12. Weak Analogy
A false analogy is a faulty instance of the argument from analogy.
An argument from analogy is weakened if it is inadequate in any of the above respects. The term "false analogy" comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill, who was one of the first individuals to engage in a detailed examination of analogical reasoning.[2] One of Mill's examples involved an inference that some person is lazy from the observation that his or her sibling is lazy. According to Mill, sharing parents is not all that relevant to the property of laziness.[2]
A basic example: "The model of the solar system is similar to that of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. Electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we should study ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit."
Another example is:
Person A: "I think that people can have some affection for their cultural heritage."
Person B: "You're just like Hitler!"
In the above example, Person B has evaded a reasoned discussion by tarring Person A with an irrelevant association to an idea that Hitler used. Of course no one person is identical to another to the extent that their proposals can be disparaged by a mere reference to that other person. It is a form of ad hominem: Attacking the messenger, rather than the message.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (False Analogy), :33
https://youtu.be/rpXrDye-SsI
Burgerland: False Analogy Project, 2:23
The video was created by: Nicole Ibanez, Jessica Farrell, & Alexis Gomillion False Analogy implies that because two items are similar in SOME respects, it automatically makes them similar in ALL respects. In our video, we demonstrated various examples of false analogy, see if you can catch all of em! Good Luck.
https://youtu.be/2rNmcjIboSY
4.3. Practice: Even More Fallacies
Hitlercare
4.1 Fallacies
Week 4 Assignment 1
Discussion Wk 4 Ch 4 Fallacies.ppt
6/1 for Week 4:
https://blackboard.strayer.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/PHI/210/1142/Week6/Lecture1/player.html
6/2 for Week 4:
https://blackboard.strayer.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/PHI/210/1142/Week6/Lecture2/player.html
For the e-Activity and Discussion: Definitions
Equivocation
Droid Razr commercial fallacy, 3:25
The fallacy is equivocation. The droid razr commercial shows the phone cutting through everything it passes, which, in real life, it cannot do. This video shows what that phone would do in real life if this fallacy was applied.
https://youtu.be/8AtMwsaecWQ
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
It is often confused with amphiboly; the difference is that equivocation arises from an ambiguous definition of a word, while amphiboly refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.
Example
Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
- A feather is light.
- What is light cannot be dark.
- Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
THE FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION-- a textbook definition illustrated, 1:38
Words have more than one meaning. When we use the word in more than one way in the same sentence we equivocate. When this is done in a syllogism or argument it is the informal fallacy of equivocation.
http://youtu.be/MmhhYcJirl8
Fallacies: Equivocation, 6:29
Joseph Wu (University of Cambridge) explains the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy that occurs when the same term is used with different meanings in an argument. Along the way, he discusses whether Miley Cyrus is an exploding ball of gas. Speaker: Joseph Wu, University of Cambridge.
https://youtu.be/bmIqWT7qMj4
false authority
Argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when misused.
In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish a statistical syllogism. The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:
- A is an authority on a particular topic
- A says something about that topic
- A is probably correct
Faulty Appeal to Authority, 2:47
http://youtu.be/k7zT4m0MYjA
ad hominem
Ad Hominem Fallacy, 1:22
http://youtu.be/ebT1Oo6yDMI
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Fallacious Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance. Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact.
SkeptiFilm Presents- Logical Fallacies- Ad Hominem Attacks, 3:31
Logical Lad explains the Ad Hominem logical fallacy for Alycia, and why curing cancer with cigarettes might call medical advice into question. Produced by SkeptiFilm, LLC, in association with Masked Man Media.
http://youtu.be/eTulZD8tRH8
Ad hominem arguments are the converse of appeals to authority, and may be used in response to such appeals.
appeal to ignorance
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance) and Weak Analogy Fallacies, 3:18
http://youtu.be/rB2jmuZAJtw
Contact: Occam's Razor, 2:34
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
http://youtu.be/oAp3jT8n6Qs
)
bandwagon (or, sometimes called the appeal to popularity)
The Bandwagon Fallacy, 3:47
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.
http://youtu.be/VnTzn9AFWLo
A fallacious argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example, in a 1977 appeal of a U.S. bank robbery conviction, a prosecuting attorney said in his closing argument
I submit to you that if you can't take this evidence and find these defendants guilty on this evidence then we might as well open all the banks and say, "Come on and get the money, boys", because we'll never be able to convict them.The prosecutor was using this "straw man" to attempt to alarm the appellate judges; the chance that any precedent set by this one particular case would literally make it impossible to convict any bank robbers was undoubtedly remote.
4.1 Fallacies
1. Begging the Question
Fallacies: Begging the Question, 3:54
In this video Matthew C. Harris of Duke University explains the informal logical fallacy called begging the question and the associated concept of circular reasoning. Speaker: Matthew C. Harris, Duke University
https://youtu.be/IODR5mJMwOU
Begging the Question - Don't Be Dumb, 2:20
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.
The term "begging the question" originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of Latin petitio principii "assuming the initial point". In modern vernacular usage, "to beg the question" is sometimes used to mean "to raise the question" (as in "This begs the question of whether...") or "to dodge the question".
http://youtu.be/pvm6goJQbFI
2. Appeal to popularity
CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Appeal to the People [HD], 4:24
In this video, Jordan MacKenzie discusses a type of informal fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum fallacy, or the appeal to the people fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one attempts to establish the truth of a conclusion by appealing to the fact that the conclusion is widely believed to be true. Speaker: Jordan MacKenzie, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
https://youtu.be/aF6EHTtyYqw
Fallacies: Appeal to Popular Belief, 4:24
This video introduces the fallacies known as "appeal to popular belief" and "appeal to popular practice".
http://youtu.be/NvBjMO8RAWs
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον απαγωγή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:
- Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
- Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
- There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
Review, Crazy Wisdom: Daniel Dennett on Reductio ad Absurdum, if needed.
With his new book "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking," (http://goo.gl/FtKWl) philosopher Daniel Dennett offers a kind of self-help book for deep thinkers -- a series of thought experiments designed as a workout for the deliberative mind. Here he discusses reductio ad absurdum, "the workhorse of philosophical argumentation", wherewith thinkers test the validity of an opponent's argument by taking it to its most illogical extreme.
Transcript -- One of the reasons I wrote this book is because oddly enough, philosophers who are famous -- notorious for being naval gazers, for being reflective. I think, in fact, philosophers are often remarkably unreflective about their own methodology. I wanted to draw attention to how philosophers actually go about their business and get them thinking more self-consciously about the tools they use and how they use them.
A tool that everybody should be familiar with and, in fact, people use it all the time is reductio ad absurdum arguments. It's the sort of general purpose crowbar of rational argument where you take your opponents premises and deduce something absurd from them. That is, you deduce a contradiction officially. We use it all the time without paying much attention to it. If you say something like -- if he gets here in time for supper, he'll have to fly like Superman. Which is absurd -- nobody can fly that fast. You don't bother spelling it out, you just say -- you point out that something that somebody imagined or proposed has a ridiculous consequence.
Well, let's look at one of the great granddaddy reductio ad absurdum arguments of all times. And that's Galileo's proof that heavy things don't fall faster than light things leaving friction aside. He argued as follows. Okay, suppose you take the premise that you're gonna show is false. Suppose heavier things do fall faster than light things. Now, take a stone A which is heavier than another stone B. That means if we tied B to A with a string, B should act as a drag on A when we drop it because A will fall faster, B will fall slower and so A tied to B should fall slower than A by itself.
But A-B tied together is heavier than A by itself so it should fall faster. It should fall both faster and slower than A by itself. That's a manifest contradiction. So we know that our premise with which we began has to be false. That's a classic reductio ad absurdum. That's been known and named for several millennia I guess. And, as I say, it's the workhorse of philosophical argumentation.
Directed / Produced by Jonathan Fowler and Elizabeth Rodd
http://youtu.be/sVUMAqMmy7o
The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategy (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic.
The origin of the expression is not known. Conventional wisdom has long supposed it to be the use of a kipper (a strong-smelling smoked fish) to train hounds to follow a scent, or to divert them from the correct route when hunting; however, modern linguistic research suggests that the term was probably invented in 1807 by English polemicist William Cobbett, referring to one occasion on which he had supposedly used a kipper to divert hounds from chasing a hare, and was never an actual practice of hunters. The phrase was later borrowed to provide a formal name for the logical fallacy and literary device.
As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.
The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.
The "Red Herring" Fallacy, 3:42
http://youtu.be/exdK7Lirngg
8. False Dilemma/Dichotomy
False Dilemma, :24
http://youtu.be/Dln3DJEcghY
A false dilemma fallacy on the TV show According to Jim.
SkeptiFilm Presents- Logical Fallacies- False Dichotomy, 3:29
Logical Lad explains the False Dichotomy logical fallacy for Xander, who is engaged in an intense debate with his friend, Zoe. Produced by SkeptiFilm, LLC, in association with Masked Man Media.
http://youtu.be/JyjBHqALvls
To meet the overall objectives we will cover the following topics in Lecture 1:
- Informal deductive fallacies
- Fallacy of division
- Circular reasoning
- Either/or fallacy
- Reductio ad Absurdum
- Distinguishing between deductive and inductive arguments
Pre-Built Course Content
To meet the overall objectives we will cover the following topics in Lecture 2:
- Recognizing inductive arguments (analogies and causation)
- Identifying informal inductive fallacies
-
- Hasty generalization
- Composition
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
- Extravagant hypothesis
- False analogy
- Slippery slope
- Genetic fallacy
- Appeal to authority
- Appeal to tradition
- Is/ought fallacy
- Bandwagon
- Appeal to ignorance
- Lecture 2
-
Week 6 Lecture 2
Lectures require Flash enabled browsers.
Instructors, training on how to grade is within the Instructor Center.
Assignment 1.2: Conflicting Viewpoints Essay – Part II
Synthesizing and Writing
Due Week 4 and worth 100 points
When looking for information about a particular issue, how often do you try to resist biases toward your own point of view? This assignment asks you to engage in this aspect of critical thinking.
The assignment is divided into two (2) parts.
For Part I of the assignment (due Week 2), you read a book excerpt about critical thinking processes, reviewed the Procon.org Website in order to gather information, and engaged in prewriting to examine your thoughts.
* Remember that in the Week 2 Discussion, you examined the biases discussed in Chapter 2 of the webtext.
In Part II of the assignment (due Week 4), you will write a paper to synthesize your ideas.
Part II – Writing
Write at three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
1. State your position on the topic you selected for Assignment 1.1.
2. Identify (3) three premises (reasons) from the Procon.org website that support your position and explain why you selected these specific reasons.
3. Explain your answers to the “believing” questions about the three (3) premises opposing your position from the Procon.org website.
4. Examine at least two (2) types of biases that you likely experienced as you evaluated the premises for and against your position.
5. Discuss the effects of your own enculturation or group identification that may have influenced your biases.
6. Discuss whether or not your thinking about the topic has changed after playing the “Believing Game,” even if your position on the issue has stayed the same.
The paper should follow guidelines for clear and organized writing:
- Include an introductory paragraph and concluding paragraph.
- Address main ideas in body paragraphs with a topic sentence and supporting sentences.
- Adhere to standard rules of English grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and spelling.
- Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA Style format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
- Submit the essay to Turnitin.com and then submit the originality report and final essay with any needed revisions to Blackboard.
- Identify the informal fallacies, assumptions, and biases involved in manipulative appeals and abuses of language.
- Create written work utilizing the concepts of critical thinking.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in critical thinking skills and informal logic.
Fallacies
There are many different ways our reasoning can be flawed, but some of these mistakes are so common that they have names. This chapter explores fallacies, inhabitants of the often ridiculous but not always obvious world of flawed reasoning.A fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, while a fallacious argument is an argument that commits a fallacy. There are two great reasons to study fallacies: to prevent yourself from being fooled by them, and to prevent yourself from committing them unintentionally.
Ground Rules
- Fallacies can be found in both deductive and inductive arguments.
- Fallacies can seem very plausible and, when undetected, are often persuasive.
- The presence of a fallacy doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the logic is flawed and so the argument isn’t compelling.
Tips for Spotting Fallacies
- Become familiar with the common ones.
- Evaluate assumptions in an argument.
- Find the conclusion, and then ask yourself if the premises are relevant to it.
- Look for things in the argument that distract your attention from the main point.
Common Fallacies
For the rest of the chapter, we are going to explore 12 of the most common fallacies.1. Red herring: fallacy in which the arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the opponent or audience from what is really at stake.
I don’t know why you’re arguing that working a full day on Saturday drains you and makes you less productive in the work week. You should consider yourself lucky—before there were unions, factory laborers would have to work 14 hours a day for six days a week!
Family guy red herring example, 1:10
https://youtu.be/f_ttbfTGs48
What is the difference between the red herring and the straw man?
Red Herring vs. Straw Man, 3:30
This video discusses the difference between the red herring and straw man fallacies.
https://youtu.be/Kl48A9Y5ls8
Obama's War on Straw Men | SuperCuts #67, 1:19
The president unleashes his favorite logical fallacy and then declares triumphant victory.
https://youtu.be/5ln7chQuKyg
comedy of fallacies, 4:12
Political video clips of common informal fallacies: —ad hominem —ad populum —ad misericordiam
https://youtu.be/e-lbpnRnjQ8
Fallacies in the Debate: Hillary Clinton, 2:17
Check out Hillary Clinton's most memorable fallacious statements from October 13th's Democratic Debate on CNN. *Disclaimer: This video is a part of our continuous series where we will analyze fallacies in both Republican and Democratic debates. For a detailed explanation on our methodologies and thought process, check out our blog post where we address those specifics! http://blueprintlsat.com/lsatblog/new... For your reference: we've included short explanations about what each fallacy referenced in this video means. Fallacy of Obfuscation: This fallacy occurs when someone fails to address the matter at hand and instead redirects the discussion to a more favorable topic. Ad Hominem Attack: This fallacy occurs when an argument is directed at a person rather than the position being asserted. Fallacy of Circularity: A fallacy that occurs less frequently than the charge is levied, circularity occurs when a person’s conclusion is treated as evidence to prove that conclusion.
https://youtu.be/yitAhRTrtO8
2. Appeal to popularity: fallacy in which the arguer attempts to bolster his or her argument by mentioning that “everybody” (or a large group of people) shares the same belief, preference, or habit.
Diane, getting an iPhone will make your life better. I mean, look around—practically everyone in America has an iPhone by this point!
Logical Fallacies Episode 07: Appeal to Majority/Argument from Popularity, 2:28
The seventh episode of my logical fallacy series, in which I discuss both the appeal to majority and the argument from popularity.
https://youtu.be/5i33OM109Gw
3. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: fallacy in which the arguer assumes that because there is a correlation between two events (i.e., one preceded the other), then the first must have caused the second. The phrase is Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”
In the years after nutrition facts were added to food packaging, obesity rates in the United States rose higher than ever before. Therefore, listing nutrition facts causes people to get fatter.
4. Appeal to ignorance: fallacy in which the arguer claims that because something cannot be proven false, it must be true unless the opponent can disprove the conclusion.
Well, you can’t prove that the Loch Ness Monster DOESN’T exist, can you? So until then, we can assume that the beast is real.
DISCUSSION
"Fallacies and Errors in Sound Reasoning" Please respond to the following:
Use the Internet to locate at least two (2) advertisements that exhibit any of the following fallacies: equivocation, false authority, ad hominem, appeal to ignorance, or bandwagon. Post the videos in the discussion. Next, identify the fallacy used in the selected advertisements, discuss the primary reasons why you believe that the advertisers have used the fallacy in question, and examine whether or not their use of this type of fallacy is effective.
From part 1 of this discussion, consider alternate strategies that the advertisers could have used in order to develop a more sound and persuasive argument. Explain the main reasons why you believe consumers ignore these errors in reasoning.
