Day 18 Research Vocab Practice—quiz Monday Researching—at least ten note cards on your topic—Group into ideas/categories Fallacies of Relevance

Module 4: Fallacies Fallacies What mistake!!! of Relevance Fallacies 2. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

4.0 What is a Fallacy? A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning. Fallacies can be divided into two general types: Fallacies of Relevance Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

Fallacies of Relevance “There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get him off the thing he was educated in” - Will Rogers

4.1 Fallacies of Relevance A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false. There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or irrelevant to another: A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true. A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false. A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or false.

4.1 Fallacies of Relevance Personal Attack Appeal to Pity Attacking the Motive Bandwagon Argument Look Who’s Talking Straw Man Begging the Question Red Herring Scare Tactics Equivocation Two Wrongs Make a Right

4.1.1 Personal Attack Example: Personal Attack/Ad Hominem When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim by attacking the person’s character rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself. Example: Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in our F2F classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a selfish bigheaded fool. I absolutely refuse to listen to him. 1. X is a bad person. 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad. Pattern

4.1.2 Attacking the Motive Example: When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself. Example: Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously, Trump’s argument is a lot of self-serving nonsense. X has biased or has questionable motives. Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected. Pattern

4.1.3 Look Who’s Talking Example: Doctor: You should quit smoking. Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) When an arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because that person is a hypocrite. Example: Doctor: You should quit smoking. Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack! X fails to follow his or her own advice. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected. Pattern

4.1.4 Two Wrongs Make a Right Examples: When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse. Examples: “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on the Zaid’s online quiz. Half the class cheats on his quiz.” “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.” 1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. 2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified. Pattern

4.1.5 Scare Tactics Example: When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion. Example: Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim. Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often causes us to think and behave irrationally. Remember

4.1.6 Appeal to Pity Appeal to Pity When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion, where such feelings, however understandable, are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion. Example: Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my quizzes and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend told me she has found someone else. With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really deserve an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a D? P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C is true. Pattern

4.1.7 Bandwagon Argument Example: Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure) When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant reasons or evidence. Example: All the really cool students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too. 1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X. 2. Therefore, you should believe or do X. Pattern

4.1.8 Straw Man Straw Man When an arguer misrepresents another person’s position to make it easier to attack. Example: Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets: Suzie: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“ Singh: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?" Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous." 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. Pattern

4.1.9 Red Herring Red Herring When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original issue has been effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion. Example: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned. Pattern

4.1.10 Equivocation Example: When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two (or more) different senses. Example: In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very night. To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Londoners were intoxicated almost every night. Hot dogs are better than nothing Nothing is better than steak. Therefore, hot dogs are better than steak. Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot because they often appear valid, but they aren’t. Remember

4.1.11 Begging the Question Example: When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason) the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion. Example: I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say whatever I please. Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A. Reason

4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 1 I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself as a security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in this area. I can only come up with two solutions. One, he is either a member of the criminal element, or two, he is a frustrated security guard who can never make it as a police officer and figures he can take cheap shots at cops through the newspaper (adapted from a newspaper call-in column). Which fallacy? Loaded Question Personal Attack Bandwagon Argument Scare Tactics

4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 2 The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of the suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What do they want the U.S. to do with them, put them on the beaches of Florida for a vacation or take them skiing in the Rockies? Come on, let's worry about the Americans. (adapted from a newspaper call-in column) Which fallacy? Bandwagon Argument Personal Attack Straw Man Scare Tactics