Chapter 7 Relevance.docx

24 views2 pages
19 Mar 2012
Chapter 7 Relevance
7.1 Three kinds of Relevance relations possible between premises and the conclusion
- Positively relevant premise works to prove the conclusion.
- Negatively relevant premise works to disprove the conclusion
- Negatively relevant premise disproves rather than proves the conclusion.
- Irrelevant premise neither proves nor disproves the conclusion
Fallacies that occur in the counterarguments
7.2 Straw person fallacy
- The Straw person fallacy occurs, when someone misrepresents and argument while trying to counter it.
- The straw person fallacy can be seen as a violation of the principle of charity, which requires that we interpret an
argument in the most compelling way that it can be read
- When you commit a straw person fallacy, you attack a similar but weaker version of the argument.
- Two ways to commit the straw person fallacy
- One is to misread the original argument- to pretend that is said something different from what it
actually says
- The other is to introduce extra material into the debate; it may also undermine his confidence by
redirecting the argument to a more complicated set of topics.
7.3 Ad Hominem
- Latin for “against the person”
- is an attempted to refute an argument by attacking the person or people who put it forth.
- Such attacks are irrelevant because the quality of the argument isn’t necessarily related to the character of the arguer.
- A bad person can have a good argument; a good person can have a bad argument
- Abusive ad hominem: consists entirely of abuse of the opponent, often contains emotionally charged language.
- Circumstantial ad hominem: addresses not the personality but the circumstances of the arguer.
7.4 Tu Quoque
- Pronounced “too knokway” means “you too”
- This fallacy works by accusing the other person of hypocrisy.
- Hypocrisy is a bad thing, but it is often not relevant to the quality of one’s argument.
- This fallacy is committed when someone accuses another person of holding a position that contradicts his actions.
More fallacies of relevance
7.5 Fallacious appeal to authority
- An appeal to authority that contravenes one of these conditions is a fallacious appeal to authority.
- This fallacy is committed when someone supports a claim by appealing to an inappropriate authority-i.e., someone who
fails to satisfy one or more of the criteria for authority.
7.6 Appeal to tradition
- The appeal to tradition offers as a premise something like, “We’ve always done it this way.” But we need to cogent
argument to believe something not just a statement that it’s always been this way.
- This fallacy occurs when someone suggests that a belief is true because it has “always” been believed.
Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 2 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Get OneClass Notes+

Unlimited access to class notes and textbook notes.

YearlyBest Value
75% OFF
$8 USD/m
$30 USD/m
You will be charged $96 USD upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.