Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the causal reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and toward the "strong" end of the continuum. (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#3)
Fallacies are generally classified into:
(1) RHETORICAL FALLACIES (errors of understanding / erroros of interpretation)
a.) Incorrect Obversion (changing of the original proposition from affirmative to negative or vice versa withour changing the meaning of the original proposition.
b.) Incorrect Conversion (transposition of the subject and the predicate of the proposition without changing the meaning of the original proposition.)
c.)The Fallacy of accent(creates unnecessary ambiguity due to a shift of emphasis)
d.)The Fallacy of Amphibology(is result to faulty grammatical structure)
(2) LOGICAL FALLACIES (an error of reasoning / mistake in reasoning)
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above. (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/)
Fallacies of Presumption(1) Begging the question: making use of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support.
(2) Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. "Ignoratio elenchi" can be roughly translated by ignorance of refutation, that is, ignorance of what a refutation is; "elenchi" is from the Greek έλεγχος, meaning an argument of disproof or refutation. (Some sources give by ignorance of the issues or even by ignoring the issues as a translation of ignoratio elenchi.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi )
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_as_informal_fallacy)
Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
(http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)
| Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric. | ||||
| (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.htm) Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the improper authority. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html) Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html | ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment