Chapter 12 Informal Fallacies II: Assumptions and Induction www.criticalthinking1ce.nelson.com Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition Joel.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Advertisements

Copyright © 1995–2007 by Pearson Education, publishing as Longman Publishers Fowler/Aaron, The Little, Brown Handbook, Tenth Edition ARGUMENT.

Understanding Logical Fallacies

Deductive Validity Truth preserving: The conclusion logically follows from the premises. It is logically impossible for the premises to be true and the.

Developing Arguments for the Science Classroom Kris Carroll CPDD Curriculum & Professional Development Division, Science Health & Foreign Language June,

©2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 16 Thinking and Speaking Critically.

Causation Reasoning about how and why things happen.

C82MCP Diploma Statistics School of Psychology University of Nottingham 1 Overview of Lecture Independent and Dependent Variables Between and Within Designs.

Building Logical Arguments. Critical Thinking Skills Understand and use principles of scientific investigation Apply rules of formal and informal logic.

Critical Thinking Lecture 12 Causal Arguments

Philosophy 200 unwarranted assumption. Begging the Question This is a form of circular reasoning. Question- begging premises are distinct from their conclusions,

 Read the following argument. Examine it closely. Do you think it is logically sound? Why?  [T]he acceptance of abortion does not end with the killing.

Persuasive Strategies Copyright 2006 IRA/NCTE. All rights reserved. ReadWriteThink.org materials may be reproduced for educational purposes. Images ©2006.

Age of the Sage Advertising, Inc. “I cannot teach anybody anything; I can only make him think.” Socrates.

Chapter 31: Fallacies of Weak Induction. Appeal to Authority (pp ) The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when someone is taken to be an authority.

Persuasion Principles of Speech Chapter What is Persuasion? How have you been persuaded today? Used in all aspects of life Both verbal and non-verbal.

Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 8 Lecture Notes Chapter 8.

Grading Criteria for Assigment 1 Structure – –sense of time, present and past –conflict with two distinct sides –description of cause of conflict –shared.

The Method Argumentative or Persuasive writings act as an exchange between two or more parties (the Writer and Reader) where one side tries to convince.

Chapter 10 Evaluating Premises: Self-Evidence, Consistency, Indirect Proof Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian.

Reason: as a Way of Knowing Richard van de Lagemaat, Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma (Cambridge: CUP, 2005)

Informal Fallacies 1: Language, Relevance, Authority

McGraw-Hill©Stephen E. Lucas 2001 All rights reserved. CHAPTER SIXTEEN Methods of Persuasion.

SOCIAL STUDIES Unit 1: Thinking Critically. Unit Overview Critical Thinking Perception Thought Patterns Problem Solving Facts Vs. Opinions Propaganda.

Informal Reasoning. Fallacies The ten deadly fallacies Ad IgnorantiamClaiming something is true because it cannot be proved to be false Hasty generalizationGeneralizing.

FALLACIES COMMON AND RECURRENT ERRORS IN REASONING

INFORMAL FALLACIES The aim of this tutorial is to help you learn to recognize and resist fallacious arguments.

Logic Fallacies Debate Class Production Spain Park High School

NOTE: To change the image on this slide, select the picture and delete it. Then click the Pictures icon in the placeholder to insert your own image. INFORMAL.

Logical Fallacies Guided Notes

{ Methods of Persuasion Speech class.  The audience perceives the speaker as having high credibility  The audience is won over by the speaker’s evidence.

Chapter 10 Lecture Notes Causal Inductive Arguments.

Invitation to Critical Thinking Chapter 12 Lecture Notes Chapter 12.

Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Review Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.

Chapter 7 Evaluating Deductive Arguments II: Truth Functional Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.

Chapter 6 Evaluating Deductive Arguments 1: Categorical Logic Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition.

Fallacies The quickest ways to lose arguments. Introduction to Logic O Argument: The assertion of a conclusion based on logical premises O Premise: Proposition.

Spotting Fallacies. Fallacy Fallacies are those arguments which display errors in reasoning.

Errors in Reasoning. Fallacies A Fallacy is “any error in reasoning that makes an argument fail to establish its conclusion.” There are two kinds of fallacies.

Argumentum Ad Hominem Attacking the person’s character or personal traits rather than the argument at hand Rejecting a claim based on the person defending.

Chapter Two: Good Reasoning Applying Ethics: A Text with Readings (10 th ed.) Julie C. Van Camp, Jeffrey Olen, Vincent Barry Cengage Learning/Wadsworth.

Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is an element of an argument that is flawed If spotted one can essentially render an entire line of reasoning invalid.

Reason Pt. 2. Inductive Reasoning Induction moves from the particular to the general. As a result, it involves generalizing: moving from observable facts.

Rhetorical Proofs and Fallacies Week 10 – Wednesday, October 28.

LOGICAL FALLACIES. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc “After this, therefore because of this.”

Evaluate Inductive Reasoning and Spot Inductive Fallacies

Chapter 24: Persuasive Speaking

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) An attempt to discredit the argument by discrediting the character of the person advancing it.

Rhetorical Fallacies A failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Faulty reasoning, misleading or unsound argument.

The Art and Craft of Persuasion Based upon: Moser, Joyce, and Ann Watters, ed. Creating America: Reading and Writing Arguments, 3 rd Ed. New Jersey:Prentice.

A Journey into the Mind Logic and Debate Unit. Week 2: May 23 through May 26 The Fallacies SWBAT: Identify the common fallacies in logic in order to be.

Critical Thinking Terminology Review. An attack on one’s opponent rather than one’s opponent’s argument. Ad hominem.

Argumentative Terms Quiz “Jeopardy Style”. Single Sided Arguments.

Chapter 9 Warranted Inferences. Chapter 9 Warranted Inferences.

Rhetorical Devices and Fallacies

Fallacies It’s not useful to think of ‘fallacies’ as a laundry list of forms to avoid, or as an algorithm for finding weaknesses in authors’ arguments.

How to Lie with Statistics

A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24

Errors in reasoning that invalidate the argument

Chapter 8-11 Study Guide.

Chapter 16 and 17 Review December 8, 2008.

More on Argument.

C/Maj Nicholas Schroder

Writing the Argumentative Essay

Chapter 14: Argumentation

SPEECH110 C.ShoreFall 2015 East San Gabriel Valley, ROP

More on Argument.

Chapter 6 Reasoning Errors

A POCKET GUIDE TO PUBLIC SPEAKING 5TH EDITION Chapter 24

3.1 Fallacies in General Fallacies: Making Bad Arguments Appear Good.

Presentation transcript:

Chapter 12 Informal Fallacies II: Assumptions and Induction Invitation to Critical Thinking First Canadian Edition Joel Rudinow Vincent E. Barry Mark Letteri

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-2 Overview  Fallacious Assumptions  Fallacies of Inductions

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-3 Fallacious Assumptions Informal fallacy of false dilemma Informal fallacy of false dilemma Loaded questions Loaded questions Informal fallacy of innuendo Informal fallacy of innuendo Informal fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning Informal fallacy of begging the question or circular reasoning

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-4 Fallacious Assumptions  False dilemma fallacy: a fallacy of underestimating or underrepresenting the number of possible alternatives for a given issue.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-5 Fallacious Assumptions  Loaded Questions: a question is so worded that you can’t answer it without also granting a particular answer to some other question.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-6 Fallacious Assumptions  Innuendo: a fallacy in which a judgment, usually derogatory, is implied by hinting.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-7 Fallacious Assumptions  Begging the question or circular reasoning: a fallacy of assuming or presupposing one's conclusion as a premise.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-8 Fallacies of Induction Generalizations  Small sample  Unrepresentative sample  Suppressed evidence  Bad baseline Analogies  False analogies  Arguing ad ignorantiam  Invincible ignorance Hypothetical and causal reasoning  Only game in town  Jumping from correlation to cause  Post hoc ergo propter hoc  Overlooking a common cause  Oversimplification  Slippery slope  Gambler’s fallacy

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited 12-9 Fallacies of Induction: Generalizations Small sample: a fallacy of statistical inference consisting of overestimating the statistical significance of evidence drawn from a small number of cases.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Generalizations Unrepresentative sample: a fallacy of statistical inference involving overestimating the statistical significance of evidence drawn from a sample of a particular kind.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Generalizations Suppressed evidence: persuasive strategy consisting of covering up available evidence that conflicts with an intended conclusion.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Generalizations Bad baseline: a fallacy of statistical inference based on an inappropriate basis of comparison.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Analogies Faulty analogy: An argument based on similarities that are irrelevant to the conclusion.  An argument that glosses over relevant differences.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Analogies Arguing ad ignorantiam: a fallacy of inferring a statement from the absence of evidence or lack of proof of its opposite.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Analogies Invincible ignorance: fallacy of refusing to give due consideration to evidence that conflicts with what one is already committed to believing.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Only game in town: concluding hastily that some explanation or solution holds true simply because one cannot think of a better one.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Jumping from correlation to cause: causal fallacy in which an observed statistical correlation is interpreted as showing a causal connection without first having made a reasonable attempt to isolate the cause by controlling the relevant variables experimentally.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Post hoc ergo propter hoc: a variety of causal fallacy in which order of events in time is taken to establish a cause and effect relationship.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Overlooking a common cause: causal fallacy in which one of two effects of some common cause is taken to cause the other.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Causal oversimplification: a variety of causal fallacy in which significant causal factors or variables are overlooked.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Gambler’s fallacy: any of a variety of fallacies of inductive reasoning concerning estimating or beating the odds, often based on the use of past outcomes to predict the future outcome of chance events.

© 2008 by Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Limited Fallacies of Induction: Hypothetical and Causal Reasoning Slippery slope: a fallacy consisting of objecting to something on the grounds that it will lead, by dubious causal reasoning, to some unacceptable set of consequences.