1 / 21

THE FALLACIES

PART 3:. THE FALLACIES. I. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. FAULTY INDUCTION : Inductive Fallacies quantity : not enough evidence upon which to draw a reasonable conclusion quality : unreliable data or sources bad Ethos implications, assumptions, inferences (not facts )

jun
Télécharger la présentation

THE FALLACIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PART 3: THE FALLACIES

  2. I. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

  3. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE • FAULTY INDUCTION: Inductive Fallacies • quantity: not enough evidence upon which to draw a reasonable conclusion • quality: unreliable data or sources • bad Ethos • implications, assumptions, inferences (not facts) • FAULTY DEDUCTION: Deductive Fallacies • flawed Major Premise (generalization) • flawed Minor Premise (specific, observation)

  4. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 1) OVERGENERALIZATIONS: • hasty, false, sweeping generalizations • dicto simpliciter (spoken simply) • implies ALL • uses INDEFINITE PRONOUNS: • all, everyone, everybody • no one, nothing • everything, anything, always

  5. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 1) OVERGENERALIZATIONS: • EASILY DISPROVED: too many exceptions and too many complications (life = too complex) • QUALIFY WITH: • many, some, few • usually, often, in my experience • DANGER with qualifying: too many maybe’s in your writing may make you look indecisive

  6. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE *EXAMPLES of OVERGENERALIZATIONS: • *stereotypes, prejudices, superstitions: • racism, ageism, sexism • “Teenagers today are fat and lazy.” • “Men don’t cry.” • Hasty generalization: “Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore, all Christians are insincere.” • Sweeping generalization: “Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists.” (senior citizens, Asians, guys, Americans = materialistic, war-mongers)

  7. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 2) STACKING the DECK (a.k.a. “card stacking”): • poker metaphor: • dealing yourself a good hand; • stacking the card deck in your favor • selecting only the data that supports your position • ignoring contradictory data • (only 1 side of the issue) • (*needs other side/s of the issue) • news bias, politicians, tobacco/oil industries • fraudulent, misleading

  8. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE *EXAMPLES of CARD STACKING: • “Ninety-five percent of the people I interviewed agreed with the Democratic Opposition.” • BUT I only interviewed people at the Democratic National Convention! • “According to a Left-Wing Nut magazine poll, the Vice President has a low approval rating.” • BUTonly those people who read—i.e., agree with the ideology of—this publication were polled.

  9. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 3) AD IGNORANTIUM: • since cannot disprove (or prove), then must be true • assumes a lack of information (“ignorance”) is a source of information (*needs more info) • yet, an absence of evidence is not evidence

  10. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE • CARD STACKING vs. AD IGNORANTIUM: • Don’t be fooled by the “ignoring” part – • CS: purposefullyignoresexisting evidence • data that will disprove or weaken that side • the data does exist but is ignored • AI: uses ignorance as evidence • uses the lack of existing evidence as evidence • the lack of evidence = the proof • the data does not exist

  11. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE *EXAMPLES of AD IGNORANTIUM: • “Since the library has no books on Eva Braun’s intimate relations with Adolf Hitler, then she must not have had any.” • “Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise.” • “Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real.” (aliens, ghosts)

  12. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 4) POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: • “after this, therefore b/c of this” • assumes a causal relationship; • no other explanations • faulty Cause-Effect relationship • assumes a later event was caused by an earlier one • simply because of chronology • *needs more info, more research • B follows A; therefore, A causes B

  13. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE • DISPROVE with: (more information) • prove A and B are merely coincidences • show how A is merely 1 cause of many • show how A is not even a significant cause of the many • *more than 1 cause of an effect, more than 1 effect of a cause • indirect and direct causes • complexity of life, of situations • OCCAM’S RAZOR: • simpler, more credible answer or explanation is best

  14. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE • PHEPH: Superstitions • <boston.com >

  15. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE *EXAMPLES of P.H.E.P.H.: • superstitions, astrology • Consider additional causes for the following: • “Because you left the milk out last night, it was spoiled this morning.” • “The Soviet Union collapsed after instituting state atheism. Therefore, we must avoid atheism for the same reasons.” • “A rooster crows every morning, and shortly after, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.”

  16. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE *EXAMPLE of P.H.E.P.H.: • “After the school principal suspends daily prayers in the classroom, acts of vandalism increase, and some parents are convinced that the failure to conduct prayer is responsible for the rise in vandalism.” • But…decline in disciplinary actions, a relaxation of academic standards, a change in school administration, changes in family structure in the school community.

  17. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE Post hoc ergo propter hoc: • after this (subsequency), therefore because of this Cum hoc ergo propter hoc: • with this (synchronicity), therefore because of this • mistakes a correlation for causation • overlooks coincidence, others causes • because of simultaneous occurrence • “Clinton had great economic policies because the economy was great during his two terms.”

  18. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 5) AD HOC: • “for this (specific purpose)” – “impromptu, provisional” • an after-the-fact explanation • does not apply to other situations (for this special case alone) • “God cured me of my cancer.” “But most patients with brain cancer die. Why did She save you? Are you special? Does She love you more than the rest of us?” “She moves in mysterious ways.” • because God treats all people equally, no special treatment • refuted by more evidence (radiation, medication, remission) • see also God & war, God & sports

  19. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 6) The Natural Law Fallacy -- Appeal to NATURE: • draws a false analogy between the human and natural worlds • assumes that humans are part of the natural world (animals) and should thus mimic “animalistic” behavior • assumes that whatever is “natural” or consistent with “nature” is good AND that whatever is “unnatural” is bad • supplements, herbal remedies • “law of the jungle” arguments for genocide, capitalism • “Homosexuality is natural because monkeys have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior.” (or the opposite)

  20. INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE 6) The Natural Law Fallacy -- Appeal to NATURE: • BUT • “natural” and “nature” = poorly defined • just because animals do it (or don’t) does not mean humans should (or shouldn’t) do so automatically, necessarily, unquestionably • naïve environmentalism • poison ivy, Ebola, climate, eat their young, eat bugs • bathrooms, plumbing, fire, literature, clothes, utensils

  21. ENDPART 3A

More Related