Textbook Notes (363,452)
PHIL 210 (6)
Chapter 4

# phil-chapter 4.docx

8 Pages
134 Views

School
Concordia University
Department
Philosophy
Course
PHIL 210
Professor
Gregory Lavers
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 4: Fallacies: When Arguments turn bad Three categories of fallacies: • Logical • Evidential • Procedural Logical fallacies: Arguments with irrelevant conclusions Types of logical fallacies with conditional arguments: Affirming the Consequent: • If P then Q • Q • Therefore P Denying the Antecedent: • If P then Q • It is not the case that P • Therefore, it is not the case that Q Tells us the truth of the antecedent is enough for the truth of the consequent, but the antecedent does not necessarily lead to the truth of the consequent. Scope fallacies: • Misordering of a universal quantifier (all, every, each) and an existential quantifier (some,a,the,one) resulting in a invalid inference. • Examples: 1. Every(u.q) person shops for clothes at one(e.q) store in town. 2. There is one (e.q) store in town which every (u.q) person shops for clothing. A scope fallacy is committed when the universal quantifier moves to the existential quantifier. Fallacy of Equivocation: • To argue by switching meaning. It disguises an invalid inference by using a single expression in two different ways. • Example: the world expect; which could mean encourage, or predict 1 Evidential Fallacies : • Are deductively invalid but also inductively unreliable. • A good evidential argument shows its conclusion to be reasonably likely- with all the vagueness and context-dependence that reasonably likely suggests. Types of Evidential Fallacies: Argument from Ignorance (Argument from Lack of Evidence): • We have no evidence that P, • Therefore, • It is not the case that P. Just because something is true doesn`t mean that we can assert as being false, like saying something doesn`t exist because there is no information on it. A.I is always a logical fallacy, but that is not its interest. Not the argument from Ignorance: • We have excellent evidence that P. • Therefore, • P This argument is invalid because the premise can be true while the conclusion is false. It shows the conclusion to be reasonable in light of the information available. However the truth of the claim does not validly follow from the fact that we have excellent evidence in its favour. An argument from lack of evidence is reasonable when it can correctly be framed in the form of Modus Tollen argument: 1 Evidential reasoning is to detect and characterize correlations between objects, trends, and abstract phenomena. • If P were true, then we should expect to find evidence that P is investigative means M. • Using investigative means M, we have been unable to find evidence that P. • Therefore, • There are good grounds to regard P as untrue. The truth is (1) is crucial—requiring us to have reason to regard M as an appropriate means of revealing whether P is true. What distinguishes evidential fallacies from logical fallacies is their failure to provide to good evidence for their conclusions. Evidential fallacies are patterns of reasoning that are often appealing, despite having weak or absent evidential connections between premises and conclusions. They are much more frequently committed than logical fallacies. Overgeneralization: Hasty generalizations or sweeping generalizations consists of drawing a general inference too strong for the specific evidence in hand. Conspiracy Theories: A planned cooperative effort, usually to do with something illegal and usually with the aim of keeping it quiet, Argument of conspiracy: • There is no evidence that P • No evidence is exactly what we should expect, if P is true. • Therefore • P Argument of Authority or Genetic fallacy: Evaluating a claim on the basis of irrelevant facts about its origins, rather than on the basis of the evidence for it, the justification may be evidentially cogent. The argument is based on the fact that so and so said so, usually someone famous or someone with expertise in a given field. Fallacy of appeal to vicarious authority: • Professor X said that P. • Therefore, • P Standards for evaluating expert opinion: • Relevant expertise • Recent expertise • Reason to believe that the opinion flow from the expert knowledge rather than from other commitments or motives • Degree of consistency with broader expert opinion Knowing enough to evaluate expert opinion by these standards requires you to learn something about the field, that is, independently of believing the specific opinion in question. Appeal to popular opinion: • It is widely believed that P • Therefore • P Fallacy of False Dichotomy: either the popular belief is correct, or the people who hold it are stupid. Argument from majority opinion among experts: • Inference from “most relevantly defined experts say that P” to “It is true that p” to is logically invalid. • As evidential argument, this one is much stronger than the case of a single authority very much stronger than the case of an irrelevant authority, and vastly stronger than the case of mere popular opinion. • It’s prima facie (first glance) rational to believe what the majority of experts in a field assert. • Always defensible. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, or Magical thinkin
More Less

Related notes for PHIL 210

OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Join to view

OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.