MODR 1730 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Smoke Screen, Deductive Reasoning, Ad Hominem

77 views4 pages
Published on 6 Nov 2011
School
York University
Department
Modes Of Reasoning
Course
MODR 1730
Lecture Seven: Fallacies
November 2, 2011
What is a Fallacy?
Definition - A problem which arises in certain arguments, which makes a deductive
argument invalid and an inductive argument weak.
Fallacies must meet the two following conditions
-The argument must follow a pattern of reasoning
-There must be fundamentally wrong with that pattern of reasoning
Steps to Correcting Fallacies
1. Map the argument
2. Identify a fallacy in the argument (by finding the faults with the given pattern of
argumentation that it follows)
3. Justify the selection of the fallacy (show how the pattern violates one or more of the
constitutional rules or argumentation, or show that this pattern doesn't necessarily
prove the truth of the conclusion)
4. Identify the premise/premises that is/are a fallacy and logically deduce what the
premise should state to justify the conclusion.
Fallacy Families
Family of Relevance - the premise or premises are not relevant to it or their
conclusions.
Modes of Reasoning
Necessity - “must” “has to”
Impossibility - “cannot”
Actuality - “is” “are”
Possibility - “may” “might” “could”
Normatively - “ought” “should”
Fallacy One: Appeal to Force or Threats
Force/Threats - coercion of a physical, psychological (such as persuasion) or verbal
nature to influence a person into accepting your conclusion.
Unlock document

This preview shows page 1 of the document.
Unlock all 4 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Definition - a problem which arises in certain arguments, which makes a deductive argument invalid and an inductive argument weak. The argument must follow a pattern of reasoning. There must be fundamentally wrong with that pattern of reasoning. Family of relevance - the premise or premises are not relevant to it or their conclusions. Force/threats - coercion of a physical, psychological (such as persuasion) or verbal nature to influence a person into accepting your conclusion. The threat or negative incentive is in place of where a reason, or premise, should be in the argument. There is no actual proof of reasoning provided for the conclusion, just a threat of some sort. The argument tries to prove its conclusion by issuing a threat. Other than the threat, there is no actual justification for the conclusion. I don"t think it would be wise to run a story about my son"s driving escapades.

Get OneClass Grade+

Unlimited access to all notes and study guides.

YearlyMost Popular
75% OFF
$9.98/m
Monthly
$39.98/m
Single doc
$39.98

or

You will be charged $119.76 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.