Presumption, Ambiguity, & Illicit Transference 2/17/2016 C.G. Parker | PHIL 15041

 Presumption fallacies ◦ Begging the question ◦ Complex question ◦ False dichotomy ◦ Suppressed Evidence 2/17/2016 C.G. Parker | PHIL 15042

 Presumption fallacies ◦ Begging the question ◦ Complex question ◦ False dichotomy ◦ Suppressed Evidence  Ambiguity fallacies ◦ Equivocation ◦ Amphiboly 2/17/2016 C.G. Parker | PHIL 15043

 Presumption fallacies ◦ Begging the question ◦ Complex question ◦ False dichotomy ◦ Suppressed Evidence  Ambiguity fallacies ◦ Equivocation ◦ Amphiboly  Illicit transference fallacies ◦ Composition ◦ Division 2/17/2016 C.G. Parker | PHIL 15044

 Fallacies of Presumption assume that which needs to be proven. 2/17/20165C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

 The fallacy of Begging the Question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion. 2/17/20166C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

When you beg the question, you assume the conclusion is true in your premises; or, alternatively, you leave out a key premises that you have assumed to be true. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL 15047

When you beg the question, you assume the conclusion is true in your premises; or, alternatively, you leave out a key premises that you have assumed to be true. The source of support for the conclusion is missing. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL 15048

Premise: Murder is morally wrong. Conclusion: It follows that abortion is morally wrong. Missing key premise: Abortion is murder. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL 15049

It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given money from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL Conclusion Premise

It’s obvious that the poor in this country should be given money from the government. After all, these people earn less than the average citizen. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL Conclusion Premise Missing key premise: the government should give money to those who earn less than average.

Sometimes question-begging is disguised through the use of synonymous terms. “We know the death penalty is an acceptable punishment, because it’s acceptable to execute someone for a crime.” 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

Sometimes question-begging is disguised through the use of synonymous terms. “We know the death penalty is an acceptable punishment, because it’s acceptable to execute someone for a crime.” “Death penalty” and “executing someone for a crime” mean the same thing, but the arguer acts as if the conclusion is informative. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

Sometimes this will be hidden in terms of a generalization. If the generalization is unsupported, then this can be begging the question. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

Sometimes this will be hidden in terms of a generalization. If the generalization is unsupported, then this can be begging the question. “Mary shouldn’t eat chicken, because eating meat is something that people shouldn’t do.” Note that this is a valid argument – it’s just not informative. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

 “We designed the polygraph test by taking liars, asking them questions, and noting what physiological signs they displayed while answering. We know they were liars, because they failed the polygraph test.” 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

 “We designed the polygraph test by taking liars, asking them questions, and noting what physiological signs they displayed while answering. We know they were liars, because they failed the polygraph test.”  “Future events will resemble current and past events. We know this because, historically, this has always been the case.” 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

 “We designed the polygraph test by taking liars, asking them questions, and noting what physiological signs they displayed while answering. We know they were liars, because they failed the polygraph test.”  “Future events will resemble current and past events. We know this because, historically, this has always been the case.”  “There are no frost giants on Earth because Thor killed them. Therefore, Thor exists.” 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

A complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question, that presumes a particular answer is true. 2/17/201619C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

A complex question is committed when two (or more) questions are asked in the guise of a single question, that presumes a particular answer is true. Complex questions are usually trap questions. 2/17/201620C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

 “What is it that makes women such naturally better caregivers?”  “When did you start hating America?” 2/17/201621C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

A false dichotomy is presented when a disjunctive (“either... or...”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available. 2/17/201622C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

A false dichotomy is presented when a disjunctive (“either... or...”) premise presents two unlikely alternatives as if they were the only ones available. Typically, this is done so the arguer can eliminate the undesirable alternative, leaving the desirable one as the conclusion. 2/17/201623C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

(P1) Either claim X is true or claim Y is true. (P2) Claim Y is false. (C) Therefore claim X is true. This pattern is fallacious when the first premise is false (e.g., there are other options available)

Examples:  “You can join PETA, or continue to condone the suffering of animals.”  “I thought you were a nice person, but I didn’t see you at church on Sunday.” A person can not want to be involved in PETA, but still fight against the suffering of animals. And missing church doesn’t imply that the person isn’t nice.

The fallacy of suppressed evidence occurs when in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. 2/17/201626C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Sometimes, in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. 2/17/201627C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Sometimes, in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.  This is a case of the suppressed evidence fallacy, which occurs when true and relevant information is left out. 2/17/201628C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Sometimes, in an inductive argument, the arguer ignores important evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion.  This is a case of the suppressed evidence fallacy, which occurs when true and relevant information is left out.  We’re calling this a Fallacy of Presumption because it involves the presumption that the true premises are complete. 2/17/201629C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

 Fallacies of Ambiguity rely upon shifts in meaning that occur between the premise and conclusion. 2/17/2016C.G. Parker | PHIL

Equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. 2/17/201631C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Equivocation occurs when the conclusion of an argument depends on the fact that a word or phrase is used, either explicitly or implicitly, in two different senses in the argument. P1) No man has two noses. P2) One man has one more nose than no man does. C) Therefore, one man has three noses. 2/17/201632C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. 2/17/201633C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the arguer misinterprets an ambiguous statement and then draws a conclusion based on this faulty interpretation. P1) Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about strangulation in the biology lecture hall. P2) There must have been a lot of strangulations there lately. C) We should demand that campus police post extra security at the biology lecture hall. 2/17/201634C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

 Fallacies of Illicit Transference rely upon a deceptive similarity in linguistic structure. 2/17/201635C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Composition: this fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts to the whole. 2/17/201636C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Composition: this fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of an attribute from the parts to the whole. P1) Salt is made of sodium and chlorine. P2) Sodium and chlorine are deadly poisons. C) Therefore, salt is a deadly poison. 2/17/201637C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Division: this fallacy is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. 2/17/201638C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Division: this fallacy is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. P1) The 2nd grade at Lovelace Elementary School eats a lot of ice cream. P2) Carlos is a 2nd grader at Lovelace Elementary. C) Therefore, Carlos eats a lot of ice cream. 2/17/201639C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504

Division: this fallacy is the exact reverse of composition. As composition goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to parts. P1) Caroline is a lovely girl. C) Caroline has a lovely small intestine. 2/17/201640C.G. Parker | PHIL 1504