fandomhigh | Logic, Reason and Critical Thinking, Class 3: Period 4, Thursday, September 17

"Today," Miss Bennet said, "we shall discuss logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an argument that sounds persuasive, seems convincing, but -- to be perfectly frank -- does not prove what it sets out to prove. Many individuals fall into logical fallacies when arguing, without even realizing that they are doing so. If you can be aware of these pitfalls, and if you can note them in the speech of others, you will have traveled a fair distance towards forming more rational arguments."

"There are three subcategories to logical fallacies; we'll take the first today, and leave the other two for later weeks. Our first, then, will be what are known as fallacies of relevance. These arguments appear compelling, but they are not structurally sound. The hypotheses do not hold up the conclusion. More frequently, those hypotheses would be termed non sequitors. If I were to say to you, 'The sky is blue today, therefore, my first name is Elizabeth,' that would be a particularly egregious example. All of you would easily spot the essential disconnect -- there is no way in which the color of the sky affects my first name. Most fallacies of relevance are far more insidious, but they operate on this same principle: using a fact or opinion which does not essentially support the heart of the argument.

"One particular type of relevance fallacy would be the genetic fallacy, wherein one dismisses -- or credits -- an idea, not based on its merits, but its source. For example, let's say I teach a class on accounting, and I show off a new method of tallying one's books, only to have one student raise his hand and say that that's exactly the form of accounting that fascist dictatorships use. We don't want to use that sort of accounting, do we? Surprisingly, the political positions of others who use this system are completely irrelevant. Alternatively, I might note that this particular form of bookkeeping was favored by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and imply that all of you should therefore adopt it post-haste. With all due respect to Her Royal Highness, I should like to keep my books by whatever method I find to be most functional, and not simply take her word on the matter.

"One can extend these further. An ad hominem attack is one where one attempts to discredit the argument by instead discrediting he who argues. Let's say you tell everyone that you believe vegetarianism is a moral good, and I say that no one should listen to you, as you've had detention three times this semester alone. Clearly, I would be a rude, unpleasant teacher, but more importantly: the number of times you sit in detention has no bearing on the ultimate moral value of vegetarianism. The other side of that particular fallacy would be the appeal to authority. You instead note that the deceased philosopher Socrates has personally assured you that vegetarianism is morally fit and right. After all, he is Socrates; who are any of us to argue with Socrates? But the truth is that just because someone is an authority on the subject does not mean that his or her word is law, especially if the authority in question isn't an authority on the subject being discussed. Just because an individual is revered does not make him or her infallible.

"Many fallacies pair off in that fashion -- for example, the appeal to tradition notes that the way we have always done things is clearly what is right, while the appeal to novelty says that the previous idea is outdated, and obviously, what is new is correct. The moralistic fallacy argues that what should be is the same as what is; there's no need to lock one's door, for theft is immoral, which means one's possessions are safe. By contrast, the naturalistic fallacy argues that what is natural is morally acceptable. It is only natural to feel anger and resentment, for example, when one's goods are stolen, and therefore one was morally justified in assaulting the thief."

Miss Bennet stopped, finally, eyes twinkling with amusement. "And now that I've committed the fallacy of talking far too much for a class which occurs directly after lunch, I shall pass out some handouts, and we can discuss. Shall we?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The handouts (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/) have some basic information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Relevance_fallacies) on the common types of relevance fallacies.

If you are feeling particularly brave -- and Miss Bennet* will be so very pleased, if you are -- then please select one of the fallacies we did not discuss. Explain it to your fellow classmates, and invent your own example for a demonstration of how it works. Why do you think this particular fallacy exists?

(*And so would the player, for that matter.)

"Base rate fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy)," Turtle offered, immediately drawn to the one having to do with statistics, "appears to be about basing an argument around the misinterpretation of a statistic, which can be pretty easy to do. Because let's say that a gremlin will bite 75 percent of the male population, and fifteen percent of biting the female population. One could make the argument, then, that three times as many boys are going to be victims of gremlin bite than girls, but if there are more girls in the population than there are boys, then that fifteen percent is actually bigger than it would be for the boys."

Pause.

"Which is pretty complex if you're not a statistics person, so most people just go with the simpler perspective as fact. Of course, there is a built in fallacy in this that 89.45 percent of all statistics are just made up on the spot."

"Another example. People seem to think that paying about fifteen percent more for an item at Pixie Dust means that the quality must be fifteen percent better for the same, less expensive item at Turtle & Canary. This is, in fact, not true. But people still fall for it, go figure."

Edited 2009-09-17 12:50 (UTC)

"It has been said that statistics can be made to say whatever it is one would like for them to say," Miss Bennet smiled. "Your explanation is greatly appreciated, though perhaps the advertisement less so."

Turtle blinked, tilting her head. "Advertisement?" she asked innocently. "But that was an example. You said to include examples."

"I did," Miss Bennet said, and her smile was less amused, now. "That was clever, but there shall be no more of that in this class. Do we understand one another?"

Turtle tried to remind herself of axe-induced wedding interruptions to sway her from attempting to argue the point, but it wasn't working.

"But I've always felt that examples work better if drawn from real life experiences, Miss Bennet. Ma'am."

There was even a little bit of a curtsy in there. Kind of. She was wearing jeans, so she had to modify.

"I am not stupid, Miss Wexler, and you will do me the honour of not presuming me to be so." Miss Bennet was no longer smiling. "Whatever examples you use in the future will not include promotional tidbits for your shop. This is a classroom, and I find that to be highly inappropriate. I am not asking you. This will stop, or there will be consequences."

Edited 2009-09-19 05:22 (UTC)

Turtle felt very firmly that Miss Bennet was being a little unreasonable here, especially since she was used to teachers who took it in stride, and she highly doubted if Miss Bennet would cause nearly such a fuss if someone was trying to promote other things more in line with her personal likings, but, whatever. If she wasn't going to be willing to let her reason it out, Turtle wasn't going to push.

She thought it was a little ridiculous, though.

"Yes, ma'am," she said, biting her lip and wondering if she'd just be better of not saying anything. Clearly, Miss Bennet wasn't much of a fan of freedom of expression, but, then again, this was a woman who tried to stop a wedding with an axe.

Triela was rather interested to see a fallacy she found familiar on the list.

"An appeal to force is built on the personal consequences of accepting, or failing to accept, the argument. If I try to convince you that tea is better than coffee by pointing out that if you don't agree I'll punch you in the face, then I'm making an appeal to force because my argument has nothing to do with what I'm trying to convince you of."

Personally, Triela was rather a fan of the appeal to force. It was quite effective for some things.

"Quite right, on all counts," Miss Bennet agreed. "In some cases, it might be prudent to concede the argument, in the interests of not being hurt, but one has not won from the logical merits."

"Though if all you are looking for is results, like maybe getting someone to buy you some tea, then it can be more efficient than convincing them with logic." There were, of course, consequences to doing that, but... sometimes it was easier.

"Two wrongs make a right?" Rose tried, eyeing the handout. "Which is pretty much just what it says. Because one person cheated on his test, it's not logically right for another person to do it?"

"Very much so," Miss Bennet nodded. "All too often, people will retaliate when wronged, and argue justification from what was done to them. 'He stole my jacket, therefore, it is morally acceptable for me to steal his hat.' But if theft is wrong, then both acts are wrong."

"The argumentum ad temperantiam, or argument to moderation fallacy, asserts that a middle position between two given positions, or a compromise, must be correct. While this position may be pleasing in some ways to both parties, it is not necessarily correct and may be quite wrong. For example, if one person states that arsenic is poisonous to Humans, while another insists it is a necessary part of the Human diet, the answer is not somewhere in between. Arsenic is still a poison."

"You're quite right," Miss Bennet nodded. The argumentum ad temperantiam attempts to appease both sides and seek middle ground, which is well-intentioned but not logically sound, or even advisable in all situations. Well done."

Logic, Reason and Critical Thinking, Class 3: Period 4, Thursday, September 17

Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]

Re: Discussion #2: The Handouts [LOG-3]