1

Philosophy 1100Title: Critical ReasoningInstructor: Paul DickeyE-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.eduWebsite:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm

Reading Assignment for January 24Chapter 7 of your text.

Homework Assignment:Student Presentation on a Chapter 7 Logical Fallacy.

Next class: Midterm Exam, Pt. II(Chapters 5-7)

2

Chapter Seven - More Fallacies

Kristin – Ad Hominem (types)

Steph – Slippery Slope / Misplacing the Burden of “Proof”

Sara – Straw Man / Genetic Fallacy

Keith – False Dilemma (types)

Chapter Five:

Persuasion Through Rhetoric

• Rhetoric tries to persuade through use of the emotional power of language and is an art in itself.

• Though it can be psychologically influential, rhetoric has no logical strength.

• Rhetoric does not make your argument any better, even if it convinces everyone.

• Can you recognize rhetoric?

5

Chapter Six:

Psychological and Related Fallacies

6

• Logical fallacies pretend to give an argument with a premise and conclusion, but the premises do not support the conclusion and only evoke emotions that make us “want” to believe or “satisfy” some pre-judgment.

• In most cases, logical fallacies suggest that something that is IRRELEVANT should be considered.

• There are of course many different kinds of logical errors. There are some recurring patterns of these that are found so frequently that they have been characterized and defined as common “logical fallacies.”

• Thus, a logical fallacy is a particular type of logical error that occurs frequently and can be understood in terms of general characteristics or in the form of the supposed argument.

Psychological & Related Fallacies

• Student Presentations

(Chapter Five and Six)

• An analogy is a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

• An argument from analogy involves the drawing of a conclusion about one object or event because the same can obviously be said about a similar object or event.

• An argument from analogy can be a good inductive argument that supports its conclusion.

• The strength of any argument from analogy largely depends on the strength and relevance of the employed analogy.

Analogies

• But a rhetorical analogy attempts to persuade by use of a comparison (often clever and humorous) without giving us an argument.

Hilary’s eyes are bulgy like a Chihuahua.

Dick Cheney has steel in his backbone.

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Rhetorical Deceptions & Dirty Tricks

Video

• An honest definition attempts to clarify meaning. A rhetorical definition uses emotionally tinged words to elicit an attitude that is vague (often intentionally) and pre-judges the issue.

Bill Maher’s defined a conservative as“one who thinks all problems can be solved either by more guns or more Jesus.”

Abortion is the murder of innocent, unborn children.

Definitions

• A rhetoric explanation is similarly deceptive and attempts to trash a person or idea under a mask or pretense of giving an explanation.

• The War in Vietnam was lost because the American people lost their nerve.”

• Students who drop my classes do so because they are idiots.

• Liberals who criticize the U.S. Army’s actions in Iraq do so only because they are disloyal to their country.

Rhetorical Explanations

• Weaseling is a method of hedging a bet. You can sometimes spot weaseling by an inappropriate and frequent use of qualifiers, such as “perhaps,” “possibly,” maybe,” etc.

• Weaseling protects you from criticism by watering down your claim.

• Be careful. qualifiers also are used often to carefully say what can legitimately be said about an issue and are not weasel words. You need to assess the context carefully.

Weaseling

• Words and devices that add no argument but only suggest that a source or a claim is less significant than what the claim or premises suggest is called downplaying or minimizing, e.g. Are you going to vote for a “hockey mom?” Or “just another liberal?”

• You can sometimes spot this by a use of words or phrases like “so-called,” “merely,” “mere,” or “just another.”

• Downplayers often also make use of stereotypes.

Minimizing or Downplaying

“That’s just Dick Cheney”

• Ridicule and sarcasm is a powerful rhetorical device (often called The Old Horse Laugh Fallacy).

• Keep in mind that it adds absolutely nothing to the logical force of an argument.

• Questioning the “intelligence” of the person that makes a claim is logically irrelevant to whether the claim itself is true or false.

Ridicule / Sarcasm

Video

• It is interesting after watching a spirited debate (for example, one of political candidates) to analyze whether the person who came off more “humorous” or “entertaining” and the one whom we might have thought “won” the debate actually took advantage of his opponent unfairly through this method.

• If so, we should re-examine ourselves whether we were thinking critically during the debate.

Ridicule / Sarcasm

Video

• Hyperbole basically means exaggeration or an extravagant overstatement.

• e.g. “My boss is a fascist dictator. He won’t let anybody do things their own way. It is always his way or the highway.”

• This kind of statement, considered for exactly what it says, is silly and lacks credibility.

Hyperbole

• Interestingly, hyperbole often works even when no one believes it. In this example, we probably don’t believe the statement is actually true, but we would probably be reluctant to take a job working for this guy thinking something like “where there’s smoke, there must be fire.”

• Be careful: As critical thinkers, we have no more reason to believe the claim that the boss is a problematic one to work for than we do to believe the hyperbole.

• BREAKING NEWS!

Hyperbole

• A proof surrogate is an expression that suggests that there is evidence or authority for a claim without actually citing such evidence of authority.

• e.g. “informed sources say,” ”it is obvious that” or “studies show” are typical proof surrogates.

• Proof surrogates are not substitutes for evidence or authority.

Proof Surrogates

• The introduction of a proof surrogate does not support an argument.

• They may suggest sloppy research or even propaganda.

• The use of proof surrogates, on the other hand, should not be interpreted that evidence does not exist or could not be given. You just don’t know.

Proof Surrogates

Never drive in a storm without wiper blades.

& Never go into the fierce storms of an argument without your

WIPER SHIELD to protect you from the evil forms of rhetoric devices:

W easeling,I nnuendo,P roof SurrogatesE xplanations, Analogies & Definitions

(Rhetorical)R idicule/Sarcasm

S tereotypesH yperboleI mage RhetoricE uphemisms/DysphemismsL oaded Questions, and D ownplaying/Minimizing

22

• This fallacy consists of inflammatory words (or thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some sort. According to our text, it substitutes anger for reason or judgment.

• Increasingly on TV, overt anger is being replaced with a “milder” form of “argument from outrage,” substituting a sense of incredulity (with a generous mix of facial expressions, etc) for overt anger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2-9sPeSoA

• The fallacy involved is basically the same –suggesting that the “other side” are “fools” or have a suspicious agenda.

The “Argument” From Outrage

23

• The group think fallacy occurs when one is motivated to accept a claim without argument because of membership in a group.

An example of this is nationalism – my country right or wrong.

“Ron is not guilty of anything. He is a member in good standing of TKE fraternity. He is one of us and we support him.”

Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair

24

• The relativist fallacy consists in thinking a moral standard of your own group is the “right” way but it doesn’t “apply to everyone.”

• The subjectivist fallacy consists in thinking that something is true necessarily because someone thinks it is true. It also applies whenever objective standards of analysis are ignored in favor of suggesting that one can believe whatever they like.

More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair

25

• One particular dangerous type of the “argument from outrage” is scape-goating – blaming a certain group of people or a single person (“illegal aliens” -- notice the dysphemism, Bill Clinton, George Bush, President Obama.)

•See Limbaugh quote in the text. (p.184)

• Scape-goating sends us on a “witch hunt” looking for “who to blame” rather than to determine what is reasonable to believe or how to solve the problem.

Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair

Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here

26

• Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position is using scare tactics.

• Democrats claimed in the last Presidential election that George Bush was using 9/11 and terrorism as a scare tactic.

• Both Democrats and Republicans claim that the other side is using scare tactics on the issue of Social Security.

Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair

27

• Many current controversial issues are very prone to the use of scare tactics, e.g. same-sex marriage, global warming, abortion, failing banks, and on and on.

• How can you tell the difference between a “scare tactic” and when a good reason to believe happens to be “scary?”

• Question for the class: Was the “financial crisis” last fall used as scare tactics to push emergency legislation that would not have otherwise passed?

Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair

28

• The “argument from pity” and the “argument from envy” are also fallacies.

• Whatever feelings one has for a victim of some situation or injustice is not in itself an argument for a claim although it can well be a justification for behavior on our part, including increasing our passion to search out and champion a logical argument for a position that will benefit the individual.

Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qgaJ2A3Zs

29

• Apple polishing occurs when an appeal to our pride is made by a proponent of a claim.

“Come on, relax. Have a beer. Don’t worry about your parents. The one thing I like most about you is that you think for yourself and don’t let your parents tell you what to do.

A guilt trip occurs when an appeal to our shame in taking an opposite position is made.

Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair

Video

30

The Top Ten Fallacies of All Time(according to your author)

Group ThinkRed Herring“Argument” From Outrage“Argument” from PopularityPost Hoc, Ergo Propter HocStraw Man

Jump to ConclusionAd Hominem ArgumentWishful ThinkingScare Tactic

“GROPES JAWS”

BREAKING NEWS!Hominy Strawman outrageously steals jumpsuits, grouping reds with popular pinks.