Term
| The Burden of Proof Principle |
|
Definition
| The Burden of Proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If a participants argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be carefully expressed in its stongest possible version that is consistent with what is believed to be the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about any implicit part of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation and/or, when possible, given the opportunity to amend it. |
|
|
Term
| The Sufficiency Principle |
|
Definition
| One who presents and argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons for the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which, the premises, support or provide evidence for another, the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
| Deductive and Inductive Arguments |
|
Definition
Deductive is one whose form is such that the conclusion follows with logical necessity from its premises.
Inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A properly constrcuted moral argument will have most or all of the features of an ordinary argument, but it must have a moral premise-a general moral principle from which a particular moral judgement is drawn in its conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A fallacy is a mistake in an argument that violates one or more of the five criteria of a good argument, but it may violate a criterion in a number of different ways, all of which share some common features with other violations of that same criterion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Either explicitly or implicitly asserting, in the premise of an argument, what is asserted in the conclusion of that argument. |
|
|
Term
| Question-Begging Language |
|
Definition
| Discussing an issue by means of language that assumes a position on the very question at issue, in such a way as to direct the listener to that same conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Formulating a question in a way that inappropriately presuposes that a definite answer has already been given to an unasked question about an open issue or that treats a series of questions as if the same asnwe will be given to each of the questions in the series. |
|
|
Term
| Question-Begging Definition |
|
Definition
| Using a highly questionable definition, disguised as an irrefutable empirical premise, which has the effect of making the empirical claim at issue true by definition. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
2. Sean: The criminal mind simply cannot be rehabilitated. The prions are wasting time and resources.
Jeannie: That's not true. I know several criminals who have been completely rehabilitated as a result of their prison experience.
Sean: Well, then, those people must never have had a truly ciminal mind.
4. Roy: Why should I do what the Bible says?
Dorothy: Because the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Roy: But how do you konw that the Bible is actually divinely inspired?
Dorothy: Because it says in the third chapter of 2 Timothy that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Denying the antecedent of a conditional statement and then inferring the denial of the consequent. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Evaluating a thing in terms of its earlier context and then carrying over that evaluation to the thing in the present, while ignoring the relevant changes that may have altered its character in the interim. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Using plausible-sounding but usually fake reasons to justify a particular position that is held on other, less respectable grounds. |
|
|
Term
| Drawing the Wrong Conclusion |
|
Definition
| Drawing a conclusion other than the one supported by the evidence presented in the argument. |
|
|
Term
| Appeal to Irrelevant Authority |
|
Definition
| Attempting to support a claim by appealing to the judgement of one who is not an authority in the field, the judgement of an unidentified authority, or the judgement of an authority who is likely to be biased. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Urging the acceptance of a position simply on the grounds that a large number of people accept it or urging the rejection of a position on the grounds that very few people accept it. |
|
|
Term
| Appeal to Force or Threat |
|
Definition
| Attempting to persuade others of a position by threatening them with an undesirable state of affairs instead of presenting evidence for one's view. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attempting to persuade others of a point of view by appealing to their felings of reverence or respect for a tradition instead of to evidence especially when a more important principle or issue is at stake. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Urging an opponent to accept or reject a particular position by appealing solely to his or her personal circumstances or self interest, when a more important issue is at stake. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attempting to persuade others to accept a position by explaining their emotions instead of presenting evidence for the position. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Directing another person toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase employed in two different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Directing another person toward an unwarranted conlusion by placing improper or unusual emphasis on a word, phrase, or particular aspect of an issue or claim. This fallacy is sometimes committed by taking portions of anothers statement out of their original context in a way that conveys an unintended meaning. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A listeners inferring from anothers claim a related but unstated contrasting claim by improperly placing unusual emphasis on a word or phrase in the speakers or writers statement. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Directing another person toward a particular, usually derogatory, conclusion by a skillful choice of words that implicitly suggests but does not assert that conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming that small movements or differences on a continuum between a thing and its contrary have a negligible effect and that to make definite distinctions betwen points on that line is impossible or at least arbitrary. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming that what is true of the parts of a whole is therefore true of the whole. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming that because something is now the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, assuming that because something is not now the practice, it ought not to be the practice. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming that because one wants something to be true, it is or will be true. Conversely, assuming that because one does not want something to be true, then it is not or will not be true. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Drawing a conclusion or generalization from too small a sample of cases. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Arguing for the truth of a claim because there is no evidence or proof to the contrary or because of the inability or refusal of an opponent to present convincing evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Applying principles, rules, or criteria to another person while failing or refusing to apply them to oneself or to a situation that is of personal interest, without providing sufficient evidence to support such an exception. |
|
|
Term
| Casual Oversimplification |
|
Definition
| Oversimplifying the casual antecedents of an event by specifying casual factors that are insufficient to account for the event in question or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of those factors. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming that a particular event, B, is caused by another event, A, simply because B follows A in time. |
|
|
Term
| Neglect of a Common Cause |
|
Definition
| Failing to recognize that two seemingly related events may not be causally related at all, but rather are effects of a common cause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Assuming, without appropriate evidence, that a particular action or event is just one, usually the first, in a series of steps that will lead inevitably to a specific, usually undesirable, consequence. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Arguing that because a chance event has had a certain run in the past, the probability of its occurrence in the future is significantly altered. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Rejecting a criticism or argument presented by another person because of his or her personal circumstances or improper motives. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Attempting to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue. |
|
|
Term
| Resort to Ridicule or Humor |
|
Definition
| Injecting humor or ridicule into an argument in an effort to cover up an inability or unwillingness to respond appropriately to an opponents criticism or counterargument. |
|
|
