http://clevermsbennet.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
clevermsbennet.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2009-09-17 06:09 am
clevermsbennet.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2009-09-17 06:09 am
Entry tags:
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?"
"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?"
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Mmmm, analysis at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
"Which kinda makes sense, doesn't it? I mean, how is that a fallacy or whatever. If someone's actually an expert, they're an expert for a reason, right? Why shouldn't you believe them?"
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
"I wonder if someone actually would do that if they were told to," Rose wondered.
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
"I should have clarified, perhaps. Experts' opinions should be considered, and weighted, alongside other things that we know to be true. The problem in this fallacy is when someone uses, 'This expert agrees with me,' to win an argument. The expert might be wrong. The expert might have been speaking of conditional terms. Even if the expert is right, that doesn't make it a logically sound argument, to offer - as your only pillar of support - 'So-and-So said that it was true, and so it must be.'"
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]
Re: Discussion #1: Emotions and Logical Fallacies [LOG-3]