How will I grade these weekly assignments?
Total: 10 points.
In Logic, the object of study is reasoning. Logic is a study of both how we do reason and how we ought to reason. Logicians categorize and explain different forms of successful reasoning along with mistakes in reasoning, with the goal of understanding what to do right and what to avoid. A traditional dialectic is a debate or discussion between at least two people who hold differing views where the goal in not "winning," but to get closer to the truth.
Almost all the work in this class should be an argument (using a process of reasoning and rationality). You may want to respond to some of the discussion questions, think of your own argument, or engage with the readings in the text. Whatever you choose the argument should be a well-polished piece of writing, one page in length, and with one scholarly, MLA formatted works cited entry. Here is the general form:
(also show in relation to X)
Two features of good argument:
Reason appeals to the universal, to the objective - for example, with addition, 2+2=4
Reason explains connections among issues -- “A reasonable person is one who asks why, who looks for good reasons for doing something, and who is willing, when asked, to supply reasons why. ” - David Stewart
Fallacies are critical mistakes made within arguments that render the argument either invalid, unsound, or weak within a determined context. are The primary purpose of studying fallacies is to avoid falling for them.
Identify fallacies by paying attention to the following:
The ad baculum is a sort of intimidation, either literally by physical power or any other kind of threat, so someone feels forced to accept the conclusion independently of its truth. Think, for instance, of when someone raises their voice as a form of intimidation to force the acceptance of a conclusion, without giving reasons. Using intimidation instead of reasoning and arguing, abandons logic.
These are arguments that invoke the name of some an authority rather than independent reason to support their cases. We identify it when the speaker starts to drop names instead of stating reasons to establish their conclusion. An appeal to authority can be legitimate if the authority invoked really is an authority on the subject such as if you cite Aristotle in discussing matters of philosophy. but even the highest authority’s opinion on some subject is not enough by itself to establish a conclusion. No conclusion is true or false just because some specialist has said so, independent evidence must be provided.
This fallacy assumes that lack of evidence for a position is enough to demonstrate that the position is false, and also assumes the lack of evidence for something being false means that it's true. Lack of evidence is a flaw in knowledge, not a property of the claim itself. The rational attitude to have when we have no evidence for either position is to suspend judgement on the matter.
This argument suggests that a claim or argument is correct simply because it’s widely accepted as correct, or an argument that must be mistaken because it’s not what most everyone believes. Popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, nor is deviation from popular opinion a reliable sign of error. Popularity does not prove validity, but because it's based on psychology - a desire to belong or fit in - it's often effective.
Instead of providing reasons, this argument appeals to sentiment or emotion to conclude that something is true. Using sentiment or emotion is not always fallacious, it can be perfectly reasonable, for example, to combine reason with an emotional appeal. The fallacy occurs when appealing to emotions absolutely replaces giving reasons—aiming at persuasion through eliciting emotions solely, without attempting to rationally support the conclusion. Example: You have to give me an A in this course or I will lose my scholarship and have to drop out of school.
This fallacy consists in attacking the person instead of treating the argument that the person is proposing. The personal circumstances or moral character of one who makes or rejects a claim are irrelevant to the truth of what is claimed. This is a very common fallacy and it takes various forms. Examples:
Sometimes evidence used to support a claim is simply a repetition of the claim itself just using different words. This is called circular reasoning or begging the question. These arguments are logically invalid because they offer no justification for their conclusion, but the sheer repetition makes the argument seem convincing. Example: It's time for you to go to bed! - Why? - Because it's your bedtime!
The fallacy of asking a question that assumes a specfic answer and implies something (often questionable) but protects the person who is asking the question against accusations of false claims or slander. Example: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? To answer "Yes" implies you used to beat your wife, but have stopped, and to answer ‘No’ means you are still beating her. The question rests on the assumption that you beat your wife, and so either answer presupposes the idea you beat your wife is correct.
Image Source: "Equivcitis." What Games Are
A form of doublespeak, this fallacy occurs when one uses an ambiguous term or phrase with more than one meaning in a way that is misleading. One meaning is used in one part of an argument and the other meaning used in another part of the argument.
Also known as an overgeneralization fallacy, is committed whenever one jumps to a conclusion without sufficient data to support it. In other words, the speaker makes a conclusion based on a few or irrelevant confirming instances of something. Example: Climate change is a hoax, we got 28" of snow the last day of April.
The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption argues that because things are a certain way, that's the way they should be. Likewise, It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, it means it should never occur. Knowledge of how the world is (descriptive statements), doesn't automatically prove that's how the world ought to be (prescriptive statements). It is in fact, impossible to derive the second based solely on the information of the first.
Example:
Why are you so upset about my cheating on the exam? I saw an article saying 70% of college students admit to cheating so it's to be expected that people will do whatever they have to to get the outcome they want.
This fallacy gets its name from a smelly smoked fish, a red herring. used to train hunting dogs. Hunters dragged the red herring along a path as practice for the dogs learning to track smells. A red herring fallacy is like a strawman, except the arguer completely ignores their opponent’s position by simply changing the subject and diverts the audience's attention to a new subject or path of reasoning to something tangentially related.
Slippery slope fallacy occurs when a person asserts that a relatively small step will lead to a chain of events that result in a drastic change or a negative outcome - "one thing inevitably leads to another."
Examples:
If I don’t pass tomorrow’s exam, I will not get the GPA I need to go to a good college, and then I won’t be able to find a job and earn a living. If I don’t pass the exam, my life is ruined!
If you two go and drink coffee together one thing will lead to another and next thing you know you'll be pregnant and end up spending your life living on welfare.
Men made of straw can easily be knocked over. Hence, a strawman argument occurs when a speaker twists what the opponent is saying by presenting a weaker version of the opponent's position to make the position easier to defeat. They take the opponent’s argument, repackage it, and attack the new version of the argument instead of their opponent’s actual position.
