�ݺ�ߣ

Lecture 2 – Fallacies of RelevanceLogic 101 – Lecture 2

Reasoning meant to convince someone of something…which is not necessarily angry, impassioned, or loudWhat is an argument?

DeductionCompletely infallible proofEither Obama or McCain is president.McCain is not president.Therefore, Obama is president.InductionVery veryvery likely to be true, but not necessarily trueEither Obama or McCain will be president.Obama holds a 53% majority with 95% of precincts reportingTherefore, Obama will be president.Types of Logic

ValidityIf the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion must be trueIf I drink the arsenic, it will kill me. Therefore, it is lethal.This doesn’t care about whether or not they are ACTUALLY trueThe arsenic is lethal whether or not I drink itSoundnessValid argument w/ true premisesWhat makes an argument good?

Errors in inductive reasoningMay or may not be deductively true, but they are regardless invalid and not good logicLots of gray areasThese are patterns of reasoning that oftenfail- but these patterns may hold truthIt is up to you to be able to tell the differenceInformal Fallacies

Arguments that fail because of a lack of connection between premises and conclusionFallacies of Relevance

Dr. Bradshaw: “It appears that my colleague’s theory holds some weight. However, a little research shows that the theory of gravitation she is championing was first created by alchemists.”AngryPundit422: “Arizona politicians say that they are trying to protect our country’s interest by checking immigration status, but is there anything more Nazi-like than saying “papers, please”?Genetic Fallacy

Attacking the (perhaps dubious) origins of an argument instead of the argument itself.Nazis?Alchemists?(Fun fact of the day: Issac Newton was originally an alchemist- he wrote much more about alchemy than he did about physics)If the argument is valid, it does not matter where it came from. Valid argument is valid.Genetic Fallacy

Anderson: “Recently, Bradshaw has argued that the theological framework expressed in the Bible was a new development in the Mediterranean area. However, a careful examination of the historical precedents shows that all of the elements of this framework had been around for centuries in various cultures around or near the Mediterranean.Genetic Fallacy

David: “Barbara would like to argue that we should stop cutting down trees in the rain forest, as it would be damaging to our environment. However, Barbara took an IQ test last week and it came up negative.”Edgar: “In addition, one can easily recall that, during last election, Barbara donated $10,000 of her company’s money to the Communist party.Frank: “And don’t forget that Barbara’s husband owns a large northeastern logging company, and would stand to benefit greatly if the rain forest is protected from logging operations.”Ad Hominem

Attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. (Latin – “against the person”)Abusive – just plain being meanAssociative – implying the arguer associates with unpopular or undesirable people or groupsCircumstantial – citing (perhaps legitimate) ulterior motivesAgain, if the argument is valid, none of this matters. Maybe it would be wise to double-check the reasoning or the data, but it doesn’t invalidate the argument.Ad Hominem

Senator Hamm: “My opponent claims that he should be elected on the basis that he is unbiased and would help to ease racial tensions in our district. However, you may recall that he was the driving force behind the resurgence of the Neo-Nazi party in last term’s election.Ad Hominem

George: “My opponent claims that I have accepted donations from lobbying groups that will influence my voting as a Congressman. However, my opponent has taken just as much, if not more, in donations from several other prominent lobbying groups.”Ad Hominem TuQuoque

Claiming the argument applies to the arguer as well (Latin – “you too”)Two wrongs don’t make a right, and logic doesn’t care about hypocrisy.Again, if you’re right, you’re right. Notice the pattern yet?Just because you make a valid point about something doesn’t mean it negates the original argumentAd Hominem TuQuoque

Announcer: “Over 30 million people own a Chevy. Do they know something you don’t?”Perry: “You should join my golf club. It’s the most exclusive in the state.”Ad Populam

Citing something’s popularity as an argument (Latin – “to the people”)Band-wagoning: high popularity = goodSnobbery: low popularity = goodIncorrect logic knows no population limit (unfortunately)Ad Populam

Horace: “I’m sorry I was going 72 in a 55, officer, but I wasn’t speeding! My alarm clock didn’t go off, there was no hot water in the shower, my baby was up crying all night, and if I’m late to work one more time I’m going to get fired!”Ivan: “My friend Horace here was not speeding. If you give him a ticket, you’ll make me angry, and you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”Appeal to Pity / Force

“Everyone has a sob story, and even if they do, it’s no excuse.” –Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being A WallflowerMaybe the story will pull some heartstrings, but you were still breaking the law.On the other hand, beating somebody up may make them let you have your way, but it sure doesn’t change the logic.Appeal to Pity / Force

Horace: “You should not give me this ticket. I am a very influential man, and I can have funding for the police department withdrawn for a very long time.”This sounds like an appeal to force, but the conclusion is “you should not give me this ticket”, not that Horace wasn’t guilty of speeding. It may actually be in the officer’s best interest to let Horace off.Appeal to Pity / Force

Jules: “Some people believe the government should legalize marijuana. However, government endorsement of drug use will lead to a rapid increase in drug abuse, causing the costs of drug treatment and rehab centers to skyrocket, ultimately draining our already-strained economy.”Kelly: “I wore this outfit because you told me that you liked it the last time I wore it. You didn’t notice me wearing it today. I knew it! You think I’m ugly!”Straw Man

Addressing a weaker argument that is superficially related to the argument at hand.Legalizing pot is not the same thing as endorsing itWearing a nice outfit doesn’t make you attractive (or mean he was even commenting on your attractiveness)Straw Man

�ݺ�ߣ

Logic 101 lecture 2

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Logic 101 lecture 2 (20)

Logic 101 lecture 2