9/9/17 VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF DEDUCTION FALLACIES VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF DEDUCTION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "9/9/17 VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF DEDUCTION FALLACIES VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF DEDUCTION"

Morris Houston
5 years ago
Views:

1 FALLACIES We ve already seen how violations of the Universal Laws of Deduction lead to Arguments that make no sense How to Spot an Invalid Argument For This is avalid Use of MPP For This is avalid Use of MPP [1] P à Q If it is raining, then it is cloudy. [2] P It is raining. [3] Q It is cloudy. For This is an Invalid Use of MPP [1] P à Q If it is raining, then it is cloudy. [2] Q It is cloudy. [3] P It is raining. BUT HERE ARE SOME OTHER, GENERAL COMMON FALLACIES Here are a few common fallacies you want to avoid making in your arguments, and that you want to spot in other people s arguments, as well. 1

BUT HERE ARE SOME OTHER, GENERAL COMMON FALLACIES Here are a few common fallacies you want to avoid making in your arguments, and that you want to spot in other people s arguments, as well.

2 BUT HERE ARE SOME OTHER, GENERAL COMMON FALLACIES Here are a few common fallacies you want to avoid making in your arguments, and that you want to spot in other people s arguments, as well. When I attack the person giving the argument rather than analyzing the argument itself. For each of these, we can determine why they are Invalid by either [a] demonstrating exactly which rule they break in the Symbolic Language of Deduction and/or, [b] simply demonstrating why the Conclusions don t follow from the Premises Your argument is bad because you re a bloody hypocrite and a fool! Your argument is bad because you re a bloody hypocrite and a fool! This has absolutely no relevance to the quality of the argument. One can easily be a foolish hypocrite and yet still be right and provide a good argument. Whenever someone dismisses an argument as absurd without proving that the argument is, in fact, absurd. The idea that humans are responsible for global warming insane! Why is that so insane? It clearly just is. 2

3 The idea that humans are responsible for global warming insane! Whenever someone maintains that a certain Conclusion is True because it cannot, or has not, been proven to be False Why is that so insane? It clearly just is. Without a demonstrated proof, this is an Invalid Conclusion Just because something hasn t been proven to exist, it does not follow from this Premise that this must mean it does exist. Advanced alien civilizations must exist! Advanced alien civilizations must exist! Why is that? Why is that? Because no one has ever proven that they haven t. Because no one has ever proven that they haven t. I don t have to provide a proof that my argument is True, you have to prove that it is False. The young man engaged in rioting as a result of the social unrest in the area. What social unrest are you talking about? Look it up yourself! 3

4 The young man engaged in rioting as a result of the social unrest in the area. What social unrest are you talking about? Look it up yourself! If the person making the argument cannot provide evidence in support of his/her Argument, it cannot be assumed to be Sound. We, the audience, must see the line-by-line progression of thought in order to figure out if it s Sound & Valid When translating Arguments into, and out of, Symbolic Form and Everyday Language, a person either purposefully or accidentally uses the ambiguities of Everyday Language to invalidly bolster the Argument. English can be messy. I once saw an Argument in Symbolic Form that attempted to demonstrate the intellectual superiority of humanity over other animals. Then I saw a follow-up argument, claiming to stem from that original position. It looked like this [1] If man is rational, then man is intellectually superior to beasts. [2] Jessica is not a man. [3] Therefore, Jessica is not intellectually superior to beasts. I once saw an Argument in Symbolic Form that attempted The original Argument to demonstrate was about man the as in mankind / humanity but the intellectual superiority of humanity over other animals. Then I saw a follow-up imbecile who wrote this second argument, argument, claiming to stem from that original position. claiming it It came looked as a result like of this the first argument, misidentified the subject as [1] If man is rational, then man is intellectually superior man to beasts. in male humans [2] Jessica is not a man. This would be like P suddenly and [3] Therefore, Jessica is not intellectually superior to beasts. inexplicably becoming a different Proposition halfway through an Argument The smoke-and-mirrors, prestidigitation of Argument-making; a Red Herring is a line [either in Symbolic Form or Everyday Language] that, though convincing and potentially True, has absolutely no relevance to the Argument itself, and is meant to distract the listener from the point that s being made. It would be a foolish financial mistake to invest in the creation of this new skyscraper. I mean, look what happened to the Tower of Babel! 4

5 It would be a foolish financial mistake to invest in the creation of this new skyscraper. I mean, look what happened to the Tower of Babel! Simply because someone in a position of authority makes an Argument, the authority that that person wields is not, itself, proof that the Argument is either Sound or Valid. Although it sounds like maybe the second sentence has some relevance to the Argument, it does not: the Argument is about whether or not its financially feasible to construct a new skyscraper. The appeal to a Biblical Story has no bearing on the Argument but, rather, is meant to distract the reader with a cautionary tale about God getting pissed off when buildings get too tall. The President says it s okay, so it s gotta be okay. Otherwise, he wouldn t be President, right? The President says it s okay, so it s gotta be okay. Otherwise, he wouldn t be President, right? Whether the President s statement was it s never okay to murder puppies for no reason or it s always okay to murder puppies for no reason, in neither case is the statement True or False, nor the Argum ent Valid or Invalid, sim ply and only because he has authority. All Arguments must be assessed on their own terms regardless of source because they either will be, or won t be, objectively good arguments. Having power doesn t make an Argument good or a statement True. CONFIRMATION BIAS CONFIRMATION BIAS When new information is discovered and the person changes the facts to fit his/her pre-existing theory, rather than what he/she should do: change the theory to fit the facts. There have been some fabulous articles in the last week or so [I ll link them on elearn if you re curious] written by Flat-Earthers. These articles are all about that recent solar eclipse and follow the same Argumentative trajectory,all of which committing the fallacy of Confirmation Bias: instead of assessing whether or not the solar eclipse ought to make them rethink their theory that the Earth is flat, instead, each article, in its own way, attempting to ham-fistedly shoehorn the fact of the eclipse into the Flat Earth theory itself [it s a disk, spinning on a turtle s shell, etc., etc.] 5

HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13

HANDBOOK. IV. Argument Construction Determine the Ultimate Conclusion Construct the Chain of Reasoning Communicate the Argument 13 1 HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Argument Recognition 2 II. Argument Analysis 3 1. Identify Important Ideas 3 2. Identify Argumentative Role of These Ideas 4 3. Identify Inferences 5 4. Reconstruct the