Term
|
Definition
| an attack on the character or credibility of someone presenting an argument in order to undermine that argument. This is always a fallacy. |
|
|
Term
| Ad hominem argument/attack |
|
Definition
| an attack on the character or credibility of someone presenting a claim or argument in order to undermine that claim or argument. Sometimes a fallacy (see below). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of reasoning in the form 'If A, then B; B; therefore, A'. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| concluding that something if false just because it isn’t yet proven and concluding that something is true just because it hasn’t been proven false. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of using the premise that it would be very sad for someone if some statement were false to argue for the conclusion that that statement is true, in a case where the claim's truth or falsity does not depend on the person's happiness or sadness. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
argument is only legitimate if
a) the expert really has expertise on exactly the point under consideration;
b) there is no clear reason for suspecting that the expert might be biased or otherwise untrustworthy on this issue (and it is up to the person rejecting the argument to provide evidence of such bias or untrustworthiness); and
c) there are no other legitimate experts in this field who disagree with this expert (and again, it is up to the person rejecting the argument to provide such an expert).If any of these conditions do not hold, however, then the argument is a fallacy. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
only 3 ways to do this
Accept the analogy
Reject the principle in the original case and in the analogous case
Show that the two analogies do not support each other without committing the fallacy of analogical literalism |
|
|
Term
| Fallacy of analogical literalism |
|
Definition
| simply saying an argument is invalid because there is a difference between the two topics being compared in the analogy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of arguing from the premise that many people (or most of the people) believe something to the conclusion that it is true. Sometimes called the 'bandwagon fallacy' or the argumentum ad populum. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of arguing from the premise that something has been traditionally believed to the conclusion that it is true. Sometimes called the argumentum ad antiquitatem. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
an argument that compares the case at issue with a different case (possibly real, possibly hypothetical) in order to show that a principle that holds in the hypothetical case also holds in the case at issue. There are only three principled ways to respond to an argument by analogy:
1) Accept the argument.
2) Reject the argument by rejecting the principle in the case at issue and also in the analogous case.
3) Reject the argument by showing that the two cases are not similar in the exact way they need to be similar for the analogy to work. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| take for granted, while arguing for a position on an issue or while investigating that issue, that one's position on that issue is true. This is always a fallacy. Lecture example: someone argues that Raymond Chung is a grandmaster with the following two premises: 1. Grandmasters never lie, and 2. Raymond Chung is a grandmaster. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the obligation, held by only one side of an issue, to provide a convincing argument for the position it takes on that issue. See Ockham's razor for an example of this |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a collection of facts that are offered as though they are representative, though in fact they give a very biased impression. Please note, however, that it is sometimes appropriate to seek out facts that suit a particular purpose, as when someone makes a false general statement and you need to find a single counterexample to show that that general claim is incorrect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of assuming the truth of a controversial claim in a question one asks. For instance, if I ask you, "Are you still cheating in your courses?" when it's not yet clear that you ever cheated in your courses, I would commit this fallacy by asking a question that implies that you have. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of reasoning in the form 'If A, then B; Not-A; therefore, Not-B'. This is invalid reasoning, as can be seen by this counterexample: 'If you live in Wyoming, you live in the United States; you don't live in Wyoming; therefore, you don't live in the United States.' |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of arguing from a premise that only a limited number of alternatives exist when, in fact, there are other possibilities that the premise does not consider. To show that someone has committed the false alternatives fallacy, the right thing is always to provide an example of an option the speaker has failed to consider. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of arguing for some conclusion merely by pointing out that it's the midpoint between two extreme positions. This is always a fallacy because it's possible to express any position as the midpoint between two extreme positions, so long as the extreme positions can be whatever the arguer wants them to be. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a fallacy in which
a) a speaker's claim or argument is attacked not because of any internal implausibility but merely because some hated person has said a similar thing, or
b) a speaker's claim or argument is discredited merely because some hated person or group happens to be fans of, or to or be associated with, the speaker. |
|
|
Term
| Improper appeal to emotion |
|
Definition
| a general term for the practice of making an emotional appeal in order to get the audience to accept an invalid argument, or the practice of being swayed into faulty reasoning by one's own emotions. Some examples are the appeal to force or intimidation, the appeal to pity, the appeal to ridicule, the appeal to shame, and wishful thinking. |
|
|
Term
| Improper appeal to practice |
|
Definition
| the fallacy of concluding, merely because some others do something, that it's right to do that thing , or of concluding, merely because one doesn't know any or many other people who do something, that it's wrong to do it. |
|
|
Term
| Ignoring the counter-evidence |
|
Definition
| the dishonest and fallacious practice of confidentiality maintaining a belief that has had evidence presented against it by simply ignoring that evidence for no good reason. |
|
|
Term
| Inverse ad hominem argument |
|
Definition
| the praising of the character or credibility of someone presenting a claim or argument in order to support that claim or argument. |
|
|
Term
| Inverse ad hominem fallacy |
|
Definition
| the praising of the character or credibility of someone presenting an argument in order to support that argument. This is always a fallacy because an argument may be unsound even if the source of the argument is praiseworthy; and the force of an argument comes only from the strength of its premises and its structure. However, if the speaker has not presented an argument that the critic is sidestepping by attacking the speaker, there is no inverse ad hominem fallacy. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the meaning of a term is switched between a broader one (the bailey) and a narrower one (the motte) just when it suits the arguer to do so. For instance, imagine an evangelist pushing for a greater and greater amount of public life to be given over to specifically Christian worship and other Christian activities, for large public statues of Jesus, etc. But when others object that not everyone in the country shares a love of Christianity, he replies, "Well, they should. Because regardless of whether you're a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist. or whatever else, you surely agree that we should treat others as we would have others treat us; and really, that's all there is to Christianity, and if you can't even agree to that, then I don't know what else there is to say." The bailey in this case is the very robust understanding of the term 'Christianity' that the evangelical is actually trying to put in place, while the motte is the meager definition that he contracts Christianity into when someone raises an objection against his trying to implement Christianity in the broader sense. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of first making an interesting-sounding and apparently falsifiable claim but then, when evidence is presented against the claim, using a trick of redefinition to make the claim immune to the criticism, but only at the expense of making that claim unfalsifiable. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of making the other side's argumentative task difficult by biasing the audience against the alternative view before any arguments have been presented. For example, an anti-abortionist who begins a dispute by claiming that abortion is immoral and then saying "I now want to give this pro-choice activist a chance to tell us why murdering babies is morally permissible" is guilty of poisoning the well, since the pro-choice activist presumably does not believe that abortion is murder or that the zygote, embryo or fetus in question is a baby. (Note: if, instead, the anti-abortionist were to argue for the conclusion that abortion is the murder of a baby, and then were to say "I've just argued that abortion is the act of murdering babies, but perhaps this pro-choice activist disagrees", no fallacy is committed. First, the claim is argued for and not just asserted without basis; and second, the anti-abortionist here concedes in advance the possibility that there's a response to his or her argument and gives the pro-choice activist a chance to rebut the insulting characterization if the pro-choice activist can reasonably do so). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a claim, whether argued for or not, that is given in reply to an interlocutor's claim or argument but doesn't address the matter at issue between the two parties. The result, or intended result, is that attention is diverted from the question at hand without a resolution of the original issue. Not surprisingly, this move is often made just when it is clear that the person throwing in a red herring is about to lose the dispute on the actual issue. The red herring is always a fallacy. Example: Someone asserts or argues that the reason why a male actor is paid more than his female co-star is sexism on the part of the producers, and a second person asserts or argues that there is no basis for thinking that sexism is the reason. Then the first person (or someone arguing on behalf of the first person) objects to the second person's claim by claiming or arguing that a culture of sexual harassment is still the norm in Hollywood, so there really is a problem for women in show business despite what the second person says. This last comment or argument is a red herring, since the second person wasn't arguing that there is no problem for women in show business: the point at issue was whether the basis for the pay difference between the two actors is sexism, and the comment about sexual harassment doesn't seem to shed any light on that question (unless, of course, the person bringing in the new issue of sexual harassment argues from this to the conclusion that sexism is the basis for the pay difference). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| an argument that some apparently innocuous action or practice is wrong or undesirable on the grounds that it will be the first step in a sequence that will end up with results that are clearly objectionable. Slippery slope arguments are not always fallacies: there are sometimes good reasons for thinking that each step down the slope is likely to lead to further steps down the slope. But if there are no good reasons for thinking that the first step is likely to lead to more and more, the argument is fallacious. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a distorted, weaker, or needlessly extreme version of an interlocutor's position or argument. The principle of charity demands that we consider the strongest arguments against us. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of responding to inconsistency or hypocrisy by pointing out this fault to one's interlocutor, and then treating that as a justification for not addressing one's own fault. For instance: A says, "You haven't been doing any work on the Slack discussions", and B replies, "Who are you to talk? You haven't, either" and then considers the matter to be dealt with and returns to being lazy. Really, what this suggests is that both A and B should do some more work. To get to the conclusion that nobody needs to do any work, an argument would have to be presented with that conclusion. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the fallacy of providing a premise or conclusion that a reasonable interlocutor could not assess as true or false because it is not possible to know, even in theory, what would count as evidence that the statement is false. An extreme example of a vague statement is "Silence is peace at the center of stillness." |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
consists entirely of premises and a conclusion, and every premise or conclusion must be a statement.
A set of statements, one of which is a conclusion, and the rest of which are the premises, that aim to support the conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a sentence that is either true or false
any sentence that asserts something |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| statements in an argument that leads, provides reasons, or supports the conclusion |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the principle that one should always interpret an interlocutor's argument or position that makes it as strong as possible. |
|
|
Term
| Essentials of an argument |
|
Definition
| Issue Position and Support |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a valid argument with all true premises (statements).
Has two components:
Has all true premises
It is valid |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
one whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true
one whose premises cannot both be true its conclusion is false.
to say that an argument is valid is to say that there's no way for the conclusion to be false and the premises to be true.
one whose conclusion follows logically from its premises |
|
|
