Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

7.3 Fallacies of Clarity, LOGIC :check:, the straw man and appeal to…

- - - - It is perfectly appropriate to object to a policy that will truly have bad consequences.
      - A slippery slope fallacy, however, merely assumes that a chain of events will follow, leading to a terrible outcome, when such a chain is far from inevitable.
      - Such assumptions cause people to reject the policy out of fear rather than out of actual rational justification.
      - [resembles appeal to fear]
        
        One way to test if an argument commits a slippery slope fallacy, as opposed to merely raising legitimate questions about the difficulty of drawing a line, is to ask whether it would be possible to draw a line that would stop the slippery slope from continuing. ........The question is whether those consequences are likely to follow from the initial change. .........The trick is to find good reasons why a line should be drawn in one place rather than another.
- - - - The philosopher John Stuart Mill, for example, attempted to demonstrate his moral theory, known as utilitarianism, by arguing that, if the only thing that people desire is pleasure, then pleasure is the only thing that is desirable (Mill, 1879).
        Many philosophers think that Mill is equivocating between two different meanings of desirable. One interpretation means “able to be desired,” which he uses in the premise. The other interpretation is “thing that is good or should be desired,” which he uses in the conclusion. His argument would therefore be invalid, based on a subtle shift in meaning.
- - - - Closely related to the straw man fallacy is the appeal to ridicule, in which one simply seeks to make fun of another person’s view rather than actually refute it.
      - Furthermore, the attempt to ridicule other’s views is rationally counterproductive; it does not advance the discussion and seeks only to mock other people.
        
        When we seek to defend our own views, the intellectually responsible thing to do is to understand opposing viewpoints as fully as possible and to represent them fairly before we give the reasons for our own disagreement
        
        The same applies in philosophy and other academic topics. If someone want to pontificate about a topic without having understood what has already been done in that field, then that person simply sounds naive.
- - - - The fallacy of composition occurs when one reasons that a whole group must have a certain property because its parts do. Here is an example:
        
        Because the citizens of that country are rich; it follows that the country is rich. (This may not be the case at all; what if the government has outspent its revenue?)
        
        You should be able to see why this one reaches an incorrect conclusion:
        
        “If I stand up at a baseball game then I will be able to see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up at the baseball game, then everyone will be able to see better.”
        
        This statement seems to make the same mistake as the baseball example:
        
        If the government would just give everyone more money, then everyone would be wealthier. (Actually, giving away money to all would probably reduce the value of the nation’s currency.)
    - - Fallacy of Division
        
        Namely, it makes conclusions about members of a population because of characteristics of the whole. Examples might include the following:
        
        That country is wealthy; therefore, its citizens must be wealthy. (This one may not follow at all; the citizens could be much poorer than the country as a whole.)
        
        That team is the best; the players on the team must be the best in the league. (Although the ability of the team has a lot to do with the skills of the players, there are also reasons, including coaching and teamwork, why a team might outperform the average talent of its roster.)
        
        A similar fallacy, known as the fallacy of division, does the opposite.
      - Be Careful with these fallacies!
        
        These types of fallacies can lead to stereotyping as well, in which people arrive at erroneous conclusions about a group because of (often fallacious) generalizations about its members.
        
        Conversely, people often make assumptions about individuals because of (often fallacious) views about the whole group.
        
        We should be careful when reasoning about populations, lest we commit such harmful fallacies.