logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking

This mistake in reasoning, made possible by the natural schema-forming function of the brain, is a contributing factor in many phobias. Converse Accident: “when a principle applying only to an individual case is applied to the great run of cases,” (1). “ False stereotype: to assume that members of a certain group are or think more alike than they actually are or do,” (3).ĥ(b). A related fallacy is the hasty generalization, not mentioned here, but found here. This mistake in reasoning does not allow for exceptions. Accident: “applying a generalization to individual cases not properly governed by the generalization,” (1). “(Therefore) X is not fully reasonable in holding A,” (3).ĥ(a). “In holding this, X violates legitimate rational standards (for example, X is inconsistent, biased, or misinformed). Note: Arguing against the person is not a fallacy when proving the person is not reasonable because (s)he violates reasonable standards. “Our opponent believes A, therefore A is false,' (3). Also known as Opposition (or out-group bias): Prejudice: proclaiming the conclusion(s) of a person to be untrustworthy by virtue of group membership or conviction. “Poisoning the well” - starting the debate off on the wrong foot by announcing the opponent’s first loyalty is not to the truth (actually happened between clergyman and priest).į. “It’s okay for me to do A because you do A, or something similar.”Į. “Senator Jones was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, so his proposal to limit military spending has no merit,” (2).ĭ. Inconsistency: when the person’s view is attacked chiefly because it is inconsistent with their previous views. Circumstantial ad hominem: “when the attack is indirectly against persons, suggesting that they adopt their views chiefly because of their special circumstances or interests,” (1).Ĭ. Abusive ad hominem: “when the attack, directly against persons, seeks to defame or discredit them,” (1).ī. Arguing about the person ( Ad Hominem) as opposed to “on the issue” (ad rem) is “an attack on the person proposing an argument rather than on the argument itself,” (2). Proper response: “Your question presumes something that is false – namely that I have a wife and used to beat her,” (3).Ĥ. A “no” answer would imply “I am no longer beating my wife.” “Are you still beating your wife?” (3) – (when person questioned was never married). “Often, no answer is sought,” (3) because the questioner prefers the “assumed truth” (which is not firmly true) to stay assumed. Complex Question: “a question that assumes the truth of” (3) “some assumption buried in that question,” (1) making it “misleading” (3) to answer with a simple “yes” or “no”. (Therefore) Wheaties is very nutritious,” (3).ģ. “Most people think Wheaties is very nutritious.

“Everyone knows that smoking marijuana is physically addictive and psychologically harmful,” (2). Also known as the bandwagon or groupthink fallacy. Appeal to the Crowd ( Ad Populum): A claim that one should accept an idea because a large number of people favor it or believe it is true. That argument Locke named ad verecundiam – an appeal to the modesty of those who might be so bold as to oppose authority,” (1).Ģ (b).

“The name was originated by John Locke, whose criticism was directed chiefly at those who think that citing learned authorities is enough to win any argument, who think it 'a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question authority,' and who 'style it impudence in anyone who shall stand out against them,'. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority ( Ad Verecundiam): “when parties are appealed to which have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. It is a way of misplacing the burden of proof.Ģ (a). Appeal to Ignorance ( Ad Ignorantium): to claim that if an idea has not proved false, then it is true or if an idea has not proved true, then it is false. It is “a deceptive error of thinking,” (3).įallacies of Relevance: “In these, the mistaken arguments rely on premises (reasons) that may seem to be relevant to the conclusion but in fact are not,” (1).ġ. “A fallacy is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves on examination not to be so,” (1). Becoming familiar with some common errors, or fallacies, is step in the right direction. It is important in apologetics to reason clearly, and to do that we must be able to spot errors in our thinking. “…arguments, like men, are often pretenders.” – Plato

Logical fallacies utep tu quaqua look whose talking