Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Argument and Logic - Coggle Diagram
Argument and Logic
Appeal to Fear
Examples:
- "You know, Professor Smith, I really need to get an A in this class. I'd like to stop by during your office hours later to discuss my grade. I'll be in your building anyways, visiting my father. He's you dean, by the way. I'll see you later."
- "I don't think a Red Ryder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you'll put your eye out. Now, don't you agree that you should think of another gift idea?"
- You must believe that God exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of God, then you will face the horrors of hell."
- "You shouldn't say such things against multiculturalism! If the chair heard what you were saying, you would never receive tenure. So, you had just better learn to accept that it is simply wrong to speak out against it."
It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.
For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your department chairperson because you fear he will make life tough for you. However, this does not provide evidence for the claim that the son deserves to pass the class.
Appeal to Fear follows this format,
- Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
- Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
Appeal to Flattery
Appeal to Flattery generally follows this format,
- Person A is flattered by person B.
- Person B makes claim X.
- Therefore X is true.
The basic idea behind this fallacy is that flattery is presented in the place of evidence for accepting a claim. this sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because flattery is not, in fact, evidence for a claim. This is especially clear in a case like this: "My Bill, that is a really nice tie. By the way, it is quite clear that one plus one is equal to forty three."
Examples:
- "That was a singularly brilliant idea. I have never seen such a clear and eloquent defense of Plato's position. If you do not mind, I'll base my paper on it. Provided that you allow me a little extra time past the deadline to work on it."
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Popularity follows the general format of,
- Most people approve of X (have favourable emotions towards X).
- Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim.
Example:
Suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Novelty follows the general format,
- X is new.
- Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the novelty or newness of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something older.
Example:
Joe has proposed that 1+1 should now be equal to 3. When asked why people should accept this, he says that he just came up with the idea. Since it is newer than the idea that 1+1=2, it must be better.
Appeal to Pity or Victim
Appeal to Pity follows the general format of,
- P is presented, with the intent to create pity
- Therefore, claim C is true
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim.
Example:
"You must accept that 1+1=46, after all I'm dying..."
While you may pity me because I am dying, it would hardly make my claim true.
Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Ridicule follows the general format,
- X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
- Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.
-
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Spite follows the general format of,
- Claim X is presented with the intent of generating spite.
- Therefore claim C is false (or true).
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because a feeling of spite does not count as evidence for or against a claim. Is usually due to a negative behaviour that X committed, therefore that automatically makes X wrong even if the behaviour has nothing to do with the claim.
Example:
"Bill claims that the earth revolves around the sun. But remember that dirty trick he pulled on you last week. Now, doesn't my claim that the sun revolves around the earth make sense to you?"
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Tradition follows the general format of,
- X is old or traditional
- Therefore, X is correct or better
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer.
Example:
The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.