20246920
Descripción
Fichas por Da Whale-Badger, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Da Whale-Badger
hace alrededor de 5 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| 3 Types of Fallacy | Formal, Substantive and other |
| Formal Fallacy | The standard kinds of invalid argument The main one being deriving an “Ought” from an “Is”. The fallacy of inferring an evaluative or prescriptive conclusion – about what is good or what ought to be done, etc. – from purely non-evaluative or non-prescriptive premises |
| Substantive Fallacies | when an argument has, as one of its premises, a very general false assumption. The dubious premise is usually left implicit by the arguer, but when it is made explicit it becomes clear that it is false |
| Ad Hominem | When an argument involves responding to or rejecting particular claims or arguments because of some disapproval or dislike for the person who makes it |
| Ad Hominem Circumstantial | this involves rejecting or discounting someone’s arguments in favour of something on the grounds that they would benefit from our believing/doing it |
| Tu Quoque | rejecting or discounting someone’s arguments in favour of acting/not acting in a certain way, on the grounds that they themselves do not act/do act in this way |
| Popular Belief | The fallacy of concluding on the basis of the fact that belief in some proposition, p, is popular, that p is true |
| Conflating morality and legality | this involves assuming that anything legal must be moral, or, that anything illegal must be immoral e.g. the legality of slavery and the illegality of women voting |
| Perfectionist | Involves rejecting/discounting someone’s arguments in favour of a proposal to address a problem, on the grounds that it won’t completely solve that problem Often used to prevent policies being passed like climate change policies |
| Post hoc, ergo procter hoc | Occurs when we mistakenly infer that an event, X, caused by another event, Y, merely on the basis of the fact that Y occurred after X “look at all the good that has happened since I’ve come to office” Cockerels make the sun come up |
| Correlation for cause | Mistakenly taking the fact that one type of event/state of affairs, X, is usually found in conjunction with another type of event/state of affairs, Y, to be sufficient to establish that X causes Y e.g. a very strong correlation between violent crimes and ice cream sales |
| Weak Analogy | This involves assuming that, because one thing is similar to another in one respect, it is similar to it in all relevant respects |
| False Dilemma | The technique of limiting the options on a particular issue to just two, when in fact there are more options. The arguer sets up a dilemma where none in fact exists: e.g. Morality comes from God or morality doesn’t exist e.g. “You’re either with us or you’re against us in the fight against terror” – George W Bush |
| Straw Target Fallacy | (often wilfully) misrepresent, distort, simplify or exaggerate the position of an opponent so that they become easier to refute The idea: you turn your own opponent into a target that can be more easily be knocked down The arguments can often be valid but include at least one premise which misrepresents the position of the opponent This constitutes a failure to engage with the opponent’s position |
| Slippery Slope | the technique is employed when an arguer assumes that to permit or forbid a certain course of action will inevitable lead to further related and undesirable events, without providing good reasons to suppose that the further events will indeed follow e.g. legalising cannabis then we’ll eventually legalise all drugs and many people will become addicted to hard drugs |
| Begging the Question | When the truth of its conclusion is assumed in one of its premises, and the truth of one of the premises depends for its justification on the truth of the conclusion |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.