Traditional fallacies hamblin
Download as PPT, PDF0 likes40 views
This document discusses several types of traditional logical fallacies: 1) Arguments from authority, such as using the Koran to prove itself or vouching for someone's trustworthiness based on an untrustworthy source. 2) Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, which are invalid deductive forms. 3) The false cause fallacy, which incorrectly infers that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. 4) Ad hominem arguments, which analyze the motives or background of the argument's supporters rather than addressing the argument itself.
More Related Content
More from Giovanni Damele (11)
Recently uploaded (20)
Traditional fallacies hamblin
- 1. GIOVANNI DAMELE Traditional Fallacies (Ch. Hamblin)
- 2. Traditional Fallacies A fallacious argument, as almost every account from Aristotle onwards tells you, is one that seems to be valid but is not so.
- 3. Traditional Fallacies 束Cohen and Nagel (p. 379) say it would be arguing in a circle to try to prove the infallibility of the Koran by the proposition that it was composed by Gods prophet (Mahomet), if the truth about Mahomet's being Gods prophet depends upon the authority of the Koran. Black (p. 236) has, in essence, the same example in the shape of a dialogue between a man and his bank manager: 'My friend Jones will vouch for me.' `How do we know he can be trusted ?"0h, I assure you he can.' Copi refers to the argument that Shakespeare is greater than Spillane because people with good taste prefer him, the good taste being demonstrated by . . . etc., etc. ; and Oesterle (pp. 2S7-8) has a partly similar example concerning proving the existence of God from the idea of God as existing in the human mind and arguing the reliability of human powers of knowing from the existence of God. All these arguments are at least partly arguments from authority損
- 4. Traditional Fallacies AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT One must not confuse the valid form modus ponens with the clearly invalid form displayed by the following argument. If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer. Bacon was a great writer. Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet. Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. If Bacon wrote Hamlet then Bacon was a great writer. Bacon did not write Hamlet. Therefore Bacon was not a great writer.
- 5. Traditional Fallacies FALSE CAUSE Copi, after explaining that various analyses have been given to this Fallacy, says (p. 64) We shall regard any argument that incorrectly attempts to establish a causal connection as an instance of the fallacy of false cause. Schipper and Schuh continue (p. 3 5 ) In practice, however, the false-cause fallacy has come to mean a specific kind of illicit argument, that is, one which involves an inference from a merely temporal sequence of events to a causal sequence. The Latin expression for this fallacy precisely describes its nature: post hoc, ergo proper hoc after this, therefore because of this.
- 6. Traditional Fallacies According to modern tradition an argument ad hominem is committed when a case is argued not on its merits but by analyzing (usually unfavourably) the motives or background of its supporters or opponents.
- 7. Traditional Fallacies `AD VERECUNDIAM' Verecundia means 'shame' or 'shyness' or 'modesty' but an argument ad verecundiam is usually, not quite appropriately, regarded as an argument which rests on respect for authority; what Bentham calls the 'wisdom of our ancestors, or Chinese argument. Presumably I can respect authorities without being ashamed, shy or (particularly) modest.
- 8. Traditional Fallacies `AD MISERICORDIAM' Copi (p. 5 8) quotes the speech of barrister Clarence Darrow in the defence of a union member charged with criminal conspiracy,, Misericordia means 'pity', and this appeal to pity 'was sufficiently moving to make the average juror want to throw questions of evidence and of law out the window'. The fallacious argument proceeds by engaging the hearer's emotions to the detriment of his good judgement.
- 9. Traditional Fallacies `AD IGNORANTIAM' `The argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any.' However, 'this mode of argument is not fallacious in a court of law, because there the guiding principle is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty (Copi, p. 57).
- 10. Traditional Fallacies The other 'arguments ad' are more rarely mentioned. Most of them are appeals to one or other specified emotion. The argumentum ad populum is an appeal to popular favour, which, to preserve uniformity, must be purely emotional, though it is not clear from its name that it does not consist of the purest valid reasoning, and only an anti-democrat could unhesitatingly assume the contrary. The argumentum ad baculum is dignified with a paragraph by Copi (p. 5 3): baculum means 'stick', so this is argument by threat.