Fallacies
Logical fallacies
come down to bad logic
deliberative argument
has the proof and a choice
deductive logic
starts with the general then applies to specific situation
verboten in logic- commit one and the rest of your logic is kaput
who cares?
does the proof lead to the conclusion?1~
wrong ending- proof doesn't lead to conclusion
red herring- proof is a distraction
tautology- when proof and conclusion are identical
am I given the right number of choices?
aka the false choice- offering a fake dichotomy or linking multiple issuesq
e.g Israel vs Palestine- you can believe both govts are corrupt and the citizens are victims
does the proof hold up?
sins:
bad example
reductio ad absurdem
if everyone else jumped off a clifff, would you?
reducing an argument to absurdity
false comparison(lumping examples into wrong categories
unit comparison fallacy
someone with a margin at the beginning of the year of 12% and made 20% more profit isn't making 32% profit
the 20% is 20% of the original margin, not of the whole, so they made 14.4% margin or 120% of last year's margin
as both units measure the same thing, people assume that they have the same worth
"I'm a good businessman so I'll be a good mayor"
two very different things- business skills != people skills
puts running a city and running a business as the same
appeal to popularity
because everyone else does, I should do too
e.g because something is in the same group as things that are good for you, it must be good for you
e.g. has us assume that all natural things are good and that all members of the same family share the same traits
rhetoric
no rules
commit any fallacy you can get away with
relies on ethos
is a sin because there's a disconnect between examples and choice
while examples may be true, that doesn't mean they're relevant
remember what skin speakers have in the game!
eg newscasters misrepresent crime bc their views depend on crime
hasty generalizatiun
actually pretty similar to false conclusion tbh
observations on one thing in a class may not hold for all people in said class
ignorance as proof
the assumption that their examples cover all possible scenarios
e.g. when doctors say nothing is wrong w/ a sick person when their scans come up fine
defeat by suggesting more examples
larger boxes are better- people associate bulk units falsely with lower unit cost
reverse is if we can't disprove it it must exist
e.g you can trust our candidate because he's a honest man
how do we know he's a honest man? that's not proof
this is a sin because the proof doesn't suppose th claim as the proof is the claim
do you support government-financed abortions and a woman's right to choose?
no matter what you answer, it makes you answer in a way that assumed that to be pro-woman's right to choose you must be pro-government abortion
when did you stop beating your wife?
also, offering only two choices
e.g if you want to target cat owners, you don't have to focus on cat shows- cat owners go many places
complex cause- more than one cause but only one gets called out
a drunk driver who's helmet failed can't blame his injury on only one- situations aren't binary like that
irrelevant issue-chewbacca doesn't matter for abuse
Johnie Cochran forced the OJ Simpson case into revolving around DNA on the glove instead of paying attention to other issues
e.g. porn on TV hijacked into an argument about government interference
made it easier to fight
does a campus being white mean that affirmative cation is needed?
slippery slope- one thing leads to another which leads to another which leads to--
mixes up cause and effect
chanticleer fallacy-
asumes that the more of the cause you do, the proportionally more effect you'll receive
fallacy of antecedent
if something hasn't happened yet, it never will
take the burden of proof from you onto your opponent
REMEMBER CORRELATION IS A THING
covers superstition