Fandom High School

Rather than pastries and coffee, today Cindy was supplying individual bags of popcorn and bottles of soda for everyone. "Today we'll be watching a movie seemingly created to make anyone with even a basic grasp of natural science and logic cringe," Cindy said cheerfully. "Not only did it bomb in the box office, it actually helped spark a reaction to get real science into science fiction movies."

"Feel free to keep a list of the physical impossibilities and logical fallacies that you see portrayed in the film," she added. "If you'd prefer just to watch, here are some handouts that explain some of the more egregious crimes against science in this movie."

[OCD up]

Today there was iced coffee on the desk; it was far too hot for the regular kind. "So, I'm sure that any of you who are familiar with modern politics has heard of the slippery slope argument. It's entirely possible you've heard of it even if you don't follow modern politics. It's a common logical fallacy and such things transcend time and place."

"The slippery slope uses a kind of visual metaphor; once a rock is dropped down the slope, it will keep falling until it hits the bottom. In an argument, this is likened to a single idea or action that, once implemented, will continue to move towards a much bigger, negative conclusion. However, this chain cannot be linked together by facts or logic. For example, in the current debate about same-sex marriage, some politicians against such measures claim that once two people of the same sex are given the right to marry, then we are opening the door to three people marrying, incestuous marriages, and even inter-species marriages." Cindy rolled her eyes a bit. "Regardless of how you feel about the issue at hand, there's no cause for such sloppy and fallacious arguments."

"Not all arguments that suggest one action will lead to another is fallacious. If one can logically prove that Action A will lead to B, and Action B will lead to C, then saying Action A will lead to C is just the transitive property at work. For example, arguing that drinking my coffee will get me caffeinated and being caffeinated will keep me up all night, therefore, drinking my coffee will keep me up all night is accurate, assuming all three arguments were true. If, however, I wasn't particularly susceptible to caffeine and one cup of coffee would not keep me awake, then we're back to the slippery slope. There are several similar techniques; I've included in the handouts for you to look over."

[OCD up and ready!]

The box of pastries was back on Cindy's desk today (eclairs this time) as was a thermos of coffee and several small paper cups. "So, what is a logic fallacy anyway?" Cindy asked, handing out several sheets of paper to the students. "The simple answer is that it's a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in someone's argument. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in people, or take advantage of social relationships between people. People who know what they are doing can use rhetorical tricks to hide the fact that they are employing logical fallacies to make their arguments harder to rebut, including spreading the different bits of their fallacious logic over a lot argument, making it hard for their opponent to find a specific piece to object to. If you really need to win an argument, a logical fallacy is a good technique to use, but be careful because it can backfire. In most cases, I'd suggest letting the strength of your argument or ideals be the real test." She shrugged a bit. "That's not always possible, however, but the best reason to learn these fallacies is to make sure you're not accidentally falling prey to them, either while arguing or listening, and to point out when your opponent is."

She held up the two handouts she'd passed around. "Today, we're talking about two types of logical fallacy, the if-by-whiskey and the No true Scotsman fallacies. Both of these fallacies stem from the attempt of one interlocutor to define the issue under debate. They are both relativist fallacies; that is, a fallacy in which when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else. In the first case, the if-by-whiskey example, the claim is dependent upon the beliefs of the people listening. It allows the person arguing to make a strong claim on both sides of an issue, while the person listening only hears him agreeing with whatever they support. Most cases of the if-by-whiskey argument are not as obvious as this one; the interlocutor will make his case, and if someone disagrees, they then carefully rephrase to come out on the other side as well."

"As for the No True Scotsman argument," Cindy continued, "uses a tautology to force an assertion to be right in the face of other arguments. It comes into play when someone makes a universal claim, which is then challenged by a counterexample. Rather than rejecting the original claim, the interlocutor denies the validity of the counterexample by saying that his claim only extends to a true example of something, thus making the counterexample appear to be lesser and wrong. So, look over these handouts, familiarize yourselves with the terms, and let's talk."

[OCD here]