Philosophy 1100

1. Philosophy 1100 Title: Critical Reasoning Instructor: Paul Dickey E-mail Address: pdickey2@mccneb.edu Website:http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/NCW/dickey.htm Today: Discuss Second Editorial Analysis --- Instant Democracy is Never Doable Submit Midterm Exam Re-do Final Editorial Essay Discussion Discussion on Chapter Six & Seven Next Week: Portfolio Assignment #5 Your Student Portfolio is Due Read Chapter 8, pp. 253- 261, 264-266. pp.271-279 & pp. 281-284 Exercise 8-2 1

2. What is Rhetoric? ·        “Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate different forms of rhetoric. For each, write a description of the artifact selected, identify the form of rhetoric, and explain why this is an example of that particular form. ·  What are Logical Fallacies? ·        “Collect” 2-3 artifacts that illustrate different logical fallacies. For each, write a description of the artifact selected, identify the type of logical fallacy it is, and explain why this is an example of that particular logical fallacy. Portfolio Assignment #5

3. Chapter Six: Psychological and Related Fallacies 3

4. Psychological & Related Fallacies • Logical fallacies pretend to give an argument with a premise and conclusion, but the premises do not support the conclusion and typically only evoke emotions that make us “want” to believe or “satisfy” some pre-judgment. • There are of course many different kinds of logical errors. There are some recurring patterns of these that are found so frequently that they have been characterized and defined as common “logical fallacies.” • Thus, a logical fallacy is a particular type of logical error that occurs frequently and can be understood in terms of general characteristics or in the form of the supposed argument. 4

5. The “Argument” From Outrage • This fallacy consists of inflammatory words (or thoughts) followed by a “conclusion” of some sort. According to our text, it substitutes anger for reason or judgment. • Increasingly on TV, overt anger is being replaced with a “milder” form of “argument from outrage,” substituting a sense of incredulity (with a generous mix of facial expressions, etc) for overt anger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a2-9sPeSoA • The fallacy involved is basically the same –suggesting that the “other side” are “fools” or have a suspicious agenda. 5

6. Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair • One particular dangerous type of the “argument from outrage” is scape-goating – blaming a certain group of people or a single person (“illegal aliens” -- notice the dysphemism, Bill Clinton, George Bush, President Obama.) • See Limbaugh quote in the text. (p.184) • Scape-goating sends us on a “witch hunt” looking for “who to blame” rather than to determine what is reasonable to believe or how to solve the problem. Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 6

7. Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair • Trying to scare people into doing something or accepting a position is using scare tactics. • Democrats claimed in the 2004 Presidential election that George Bush was using 9/11 and terrorism as a scare tactic. • Both Democrats and Republicans claim that the other side is using scare tactics on the issue of Social Security. 7

8. Don’t Let ‘em Not Play Fair • Many current controversial issues are very prone to the use of scare tactics, e.g. same-sex marriage, global warming, abortion, failing banks, and on and on. • How can you tell the difference between a “scare tactic” and when a good reason to believe happens to be “scary?” • Question for in 2008 used as scare tactics to push emergency legislation that would not have otherwise passed? 8

9. Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair • The “argument from pity” and the “argument from envy” are also fallacies. • Whatever feelings one has for a victim of some situation or injustice is not in itself an argument for a claim although it can well be a justification for behavior on our part, including increasing our passion to search out and champion a logical argument for a position that will benefit the individual. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06qgaJ2A3Zs 9

10. Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair • Apple polishing occurs when an appeal to our pride is made by a proponent of a claim. “Come on, relax. Have a beer. Don’t worry about your parents. The one thing I like most about you is that you think for yourself and don’t let your parents tell you what to do. A guilt trip occurs when an appeal to our shame in taking an opposite position is made. Video 10

11. Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair • Our hopes, desires and personal needs can delude us and make us vulnerable to the fallacy of wishful thinking. • If a desire for acceptance within a group motivates us to accept a position without a logical argument, we have become victims to the fallacy of peer pressure. • Peer pressure can be quite subtle and is often very strong. People feel peer pressure even with strangers. 11

12. Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair • The group think fallacy occurs when one is motivated to accept a claim without argument because of membership in a group. An example of this is nationalism – my country right or wrong. “Ron is not guilty of anything. He is a member in good standing of TKE fraternity. He is one of us and we support him.” 12

13. Rationalizing is the process by which a false pretext is used (or a false reason given) to satisfy our own desires or needs. • In Psychology, this is referred to as a defense mechanism and may be pathological. • Rationalizing generally is done “after the fact” or after a behavior or decision is completed. In a logical decision making process, the decision and action typically comes after consideration of the premises. Video 13

14. Emotional Appeals & Not Playing Fair • The “argument” from popularity suggests that if everyone or a majority “knows” or believes something, it must be true. Two variations of this are: • The “argument” from common practice defends a position on the basis that it is common. • The “argument” from tradition defends a position on the basis that has always been done that way. 14

15. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • The relativist fallacy consists in thinking a moral standard of your own group is the “right” way but it doesn’t “apply to everyone.” • The subjectivist fallacy consists in thinking that something is true necessarily because someone thinks it is true. It also applies whenever objective standards of analysis are ignored in favor of suggesting that one can believe whatever they like. 15

16. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy that asserts that a wrongful act on one person’s part can be justified based on a previous wrongful act of the other person. Two pretty good examples: Video Video 16

17. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • A Red Herring occurs when a topic or claim is introduced that is irrelevant to the claim at issue with the intent only of distracting the argument. Cowgirl: “The animal rights people shouldn’t pick on rodeos. They should all come see how much fun all the kids are having. And those dudes who ride the bulls. Are they hot or what? Important Video 17

18. More Dirty Tricks & Not Playing Fair • Similarly, a smokescreen is when topics or claims are introduced that are irrelevant to the original issue with the specific intent to make the issue appear to be too complex or complicated to resolve. • So, trying to “clarify” a vague argument by “giving all the facts you have” may indeed be the absolutely WORST thing you can do. 18

19. Chapter Seven: Logical Fallacies Presenters: Zach: Ad Hominem Fallacy Jaime: The Genetic Fallacy Tracy: The Straw Man Jacquie: The False Dilemma & Perfectionism Jonathan: The Slippery Slope Anthony: Misplacing the Burden of Evidence/Proof Amber: Begging the Question Emmanuel: Formal Fallacies (Affirming the Consequent & Denying the Antecedent, The Undistributed Middle) In your presentation, you must define your fallacy type, give examples, and distinguish it from other logical fallacies that are similar. I encourage you to use powerpoint slides in your presentation if possible, but it is not necessary.

20. The Ad Hominem Fallacy • Maybe the most common of all logical mistakes. • The Ad Hominem Fallacy mistakes the qualities of the argument itself with the the person or personality of the individual making the claim. “BOB: Reality consists of more than just what can see and feel. God is real. BIKER: “If you weren’t so removed from reality, I might be more inclined to discuss it with you.” Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 20

21. The Ad Hominem Fallacy • Most ad hominem arguments are negative and typical examples of ad hominem arguments will be negative, but not always. • e.g. Heather is very nice and is always a very positive person, so if she is opposed to the war in Iraq, there must be something terribly wrong with it. • E.g. Ms. Gullible: “The Jehovah Witnesses that come to the door always seem to be the “sweetest” people so there must be something to what they believe.” 21

22. The Personal Attack Ad Hominem • Say you twist the example about Heather around. • e.g. My boss is a very negative person, so although he is opposed to the war in Iraq, that means nothing. He is against everything. • e.g. remember Rush Limbaugh in the video: “If you are going to start agreeing with Rosie O’Donnell, I would suggest rehab and treatment.” (Ridicule & Sasrcasm) Video 22

23. Specific Forms of Ad Hominems • The Inconsistency Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one can show that a person has made contradictory claims at different occasions, then the claims are thereby refuted, e.g. Hilary can’t be right that Obama is ready to be president as she is saying now. She said exactly the opposite during her political campaign. • The Circumstantial Ad Hominem suggests erroneously that if one’s claim is associated to the claimant’s circumstances in life, then the claim is refuted e..g. Of course, Sen. Nelson is for farm subsidies. He is from Nebraska. • Poisoning the Well occurs when an ad hominem is issued prior to allowing someone to make their argument. Interestingly, a speaker might have “the well poisoned against her” by the opponent making a denial of something unsavory about her, such as “Hilary may not be a bleeding heart liberal, but….” Video 23

24. The Genetic Fallacy • The Genetic Fallacy suggests erroneously that a claim is refuted by disputing its origin or history. • e.g. The constitution is a bogus document since it was primarily written with the intent to protect the property of the wealthy. • e.g. God does not exist because the whole idea of God originated with superstitious people who had no knowledge of science or the universe. Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 24

25. The Straw Man or “Straw Figure” • The Straw Man Fallacy occurs when a claim is made that distorts, exaggerates, or otherwise misinterprets an opponent’s position such that it becomes easy to refute. • e.g. “Congressmen who want us to set a timetable to leave Iraq are just saying that we should surrender.” • Important Video Is this a Straw man Bill Clinton is presenting? Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 25

26. The False Dilemma • The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when you limit considerations to only two alternatives although other alternatives may be available. • e.g. Either we keep all of our current forces in Iraq until victory or we just pull out now unconditionally and let the terrorists win. It is either one or the other, dude. • e.g. You don’t believe in allowing prayer in public schools? So what are you an atheist? • You want this? OR THIS? Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 26

27. The Perfectionist Fallacy • A specific type of The False Dilemma is the Perfectionist Fallacy which suggests that if a policy or a claim is not perfect then it must be rejected. • e.g. “If they don’t fit, you must acquit.” • Johnny Cochran’s defense of O.J. Simpson, referring to his purported gloves. • e. g. The National Football League’s instant replay rule is no good because you are still going to still have some bad calls. • The National Football League’s instant replay rule is no good because they seem to have to make adjustments to it every year. 27

28. The Line-Drawing Fallacy • Another type of The False Dilemma is the Line-Drawing Fallacy which suggests that a distinction cannot be made because there is no precisely known, agreed upon point at which a line can be drawn. • e.g. In the Rodney King case, when exactly did the beatings become excessive force?” • e.g. When did Bill Gates become rich? When he earned his first dollar? His first $100,000? His first $1M? $10M? $1B? Nonetheless, I can assure you that Bill Gates is rich. 28

29. The Slippery Slope • The Slippery Slope Fallacy asserts that we can’t let one thing happen because it could lead to something else where there is no argument or a weak argument that the first action does in fact lead to the second. • e.g. Making people register hand guns is just the first step to making guns illegal. • e.g. Marijuana use should be illegal because it can lead to harder drugs. Important Video Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 29

30. Misplacing/Shifting the Burden of Proof • The burden of proof in an argument rests on the person making the claim. It is her responsibility to give the premises and the reasons to believe her claim is true. • To try to shift the burden of proof onto the person who is listening to your argument and trying to make him show that you are wrong is called misplacing the burden of proof. • A particular example of this logical error is the appeal to ignorance which suggests that we should believe something because no one has proven or shown it to be wrong. • Another example is when a proponent of a claim suggests that his position is right because you haven’t give a good argument for the opposite claim. Video Want more advanced stuff on topic? Click here 30

31. The Burden of “Proof”? (But Mr. Dickey, you said ….) • BE VERY CAREFUL! • This terminology is misleading and seems to confuse the issue that we clarified in class earlier about proof and evidence. • Even if you agree to allow someone to say “proof” when they really mean evidence, be sure that you are clear about the difference between the forms of support in deductive and inductive arguments.. 31

32. Begging the Question • Circular Argument / “Petitio Principii” • To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate. • That is, you are assuming your conclusion as a premise. • How does it differ from a valid, deductive argument? • Be careful of a very common misuse of the term in which one confuses “begging the question” with “brings up the question.” 32

33. Formal Fallacies • Affirming the conseqent. • Denying the Antecedent. • The Undistributed Middle 33