Informal Fallacy
A type of mistaken reasoning that occurs when an argument is psychologically or emotionally persuasive but logically incorrect. Informal fallacies include three groups: fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of relevance, and fallacies with unwarranted assumpt
Formal Fallacy
A type of mistaken reasoning in which the form of an argument itself is invalid. "Some high school dropouts are men. No doctors are high school dropouts. Therefore, no doctors are men.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
connection between premises and conclusion broken by ambiguous words and phrase whose meanings shift and change in the course of the argument. (equivocation, amphiboly, accent, and division).
Equivocation
A key term in an argument changes meaning during the course of the argument; when it has more than one meaning. "If you're a man and out of work, you may beat your wife." The word may has more than one meaning.
Amphiboly
occurs when an argument contains a grammatical mistake. "Terri's mother and her husband are on opposite sides of the issue." Not clear: Terri's husband or Terri's mother's husband? More than one conclusion.
Fallacies of accent
occurs when an argument's meaning changes depending on which words or phrases are emphasized. Mother: "Don't play with matches". Child: "I wasn't playing with them, I was using them". Argument changes with the word "playing".
Fallacies of division
occurs when we make erroneous inferences from group characteristics about those of individuals within the group.
Fallacies of Relevance
The premise is logically irrelevant, or unrelated to the conclusion. (personal attacks, force/scare tactics, appeals to pity, popular appeals, appeals to ignorance, hasty generalizations, straw man fallacies, and red herrings).
Personal attacks or ad hominem fallacies
instead of presenting a counterargument, we attack the character of the person who made the argument.
Appeals to force or scare tactics
the use or threat of force in an attempt to get another person to accept a conclusion as correct.
Appeals to pity
pity is evoked in an argument when pity is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Popular appeals
an appeal to popular opinion to gain support for our conclusion (bandwagon approach or snob approach).
Appeals to ignorance
the claim that something is true simply because no one has proven it to be false, or that something is false simply because no one has proven it to be true.
Hasty generalizations
a generalization is made from a sample that is too small or biased.
Straw man fallacies
an opponent's argument is distorted or misrepresented in order to make it easier to refuse.
Red herrings
A response is directed toward a conclusion that is different from that proposed by the original argument.
Fallacies involving Unwarranted Assumptions
A fallacious argument that contains an assumption that is not supported by evidence. (begging the question, inappropriate appeal to authority, loaded question, false dilemma, questionable cause or post hoc, slippery slope, and naturalistic).
Begging the question fallacy
occurs when an argument's conclusion is simply the rewording of its premise. This fallacy is also known as circular reasoning.
inappropriate appeal to authority fallacy
occurs when we look to an authority in a field that is unrelated or not under investigation.
loaded question fallacy
occurs when a question is asked that assumes a particular answer to another unasked question.
false dilemma fallacy
reduces responses to complex issues to an either/or choice. By doing so, this fallacy polarizes stands on issues and ignores common ground or other solutions.
questionable cause, or post hoc fallacy
occurs when a person assumes, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of another.
slippery slope fallacy
if we permit a certain action, then all actions of this type, even extreme ones, will soon be permissible.
naturalistic fallacy
based on the unwarranted assumption that what is natural is good or morally acceptable and that what is unnatural is bad or morally unacceptable.
Rhetoric
also known as the art of persuasion, is used to promote a particular position or world view. Goal is to "win"- to convince others of the correctness of our position.
Argumentation
The purpose of argumentation is to discover the truth. Goal is to present good reasons for a particular position or course of action and to offer a forum for evaluating the soundness of these reasons.
Propositions
statements that express a complete thought. It can either be true or false.
conclusion of an argument
the proposition that is supported or denied on the basis of other propositions or reasons. A conclusion can appear anywhere in an argument.
Premises
propositions that support or give reasons for acceptance of the argument.
Criteria for Evaluating Arguments (5)
Clarity, Credibility, Relevance, Completeness, & Soundness
Clarity
Is the argument clear and unambiguous? Clarifying another person's argument requires good listening skills and openness to ideas that may differ from your own.
Credibility
Are the premises supported by evidence? Examine each premise carefully. Be alert for assumptions that are passed off as facts
Relevance
Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? In addition to being true, the premises should provide good reasons for accepting the conclusion.
Completeness
Are there any unstated premises and conclusions? This is often the case within arguments that are incompletely researched or loaded with confirmation bias.
Soundness
Are the premises true, and do they support the conclusion? A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and they support the conclusion.
What are the 5 ways that individuals develop moral arguments, according to Jonathan Haidt?
1. Harm/Care
2. Fairness/Reciprocity
3. Ingroup Loyalty
4. Authority/Respect
5. Purity/Sanctity
How do liberals and conservatives vary on the emphasis they place on each of these 5 ways?
Liberals: 1&2
Conservatives: 3-5
Deductive Argument
An argument that claims its conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.
Example: All men are mortal. (premise) Socrates was a man. (premise) Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
Inductive Argument
An Argument that only claims that its conclusion probably follows from the premise.
Example: Socrates was Greek. (premise) Most Greeks eat fish. (premise) Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
Generalizations
Used to draw a conclusion about a certain characteristic of a group or population based on a sample from that group.
How does sampling fit into inductive argumentation?
Data collected using inductive generalization techniques may be useful and credible, but is susceptible to problems.
Importance of recognizing and avoiding informal fallacies.
Problems with generalization
Bias in question wording:
slanted questions - to elicit particular response
push polls - present pollster's view before asking for response
loaded questions - contain more than one question but allow just one answer
self-serving errors - honesty of answer
Evaluating Inductive Arguments
1. Check whether the premises are true
Should be based on accurate information and credible evidence (watch for flawed research design, informal fallacies (e.g., popular appeal), and stereotyping
2. Decide if the sample is large enough
Hasty generalizatio
Causal Argument
A cause is an event that brings about a change or effect.
In causal arguments, something is claimed as the cause of something else.
Eating too many fries + not exercising= weight gain
*As with all inductive arguments, the conclusion is not 100% certain
Correlation
When two events occur together at rates higher than probability, the relationship is called a...
Inductive theory in the social sciences
occurs when empirical research produces generalizations that help to develop a theory or elaborate on an existing theory.
DATA to THEORY
Deductive theory in the social sciences
occurs when the process goes from ideas to data.
THEORY to DATA
Moral Reasoning
We engage in this when we make a decision about:
What we should or should not do
What is the most reasonable or just position or policy regarding a particular issue
Why are rhetoric and resistance common in ethical decisions?
Perhaps in no other area are people so prone to engage in rhetoric and resistance as in debates over controversial moral issues.
Moral values
those that benefit yourself and others and are worthwhile for their own sake.
altruism
compassion
tolerance
forgiveness
justice
Nonmoral values
Goal-oriented- They are a means to an end we wish to achieve.
independence
prestige
fame
popularity
wealth
Moral Tragedy
When we fail to take appropriate moral action or make a decision we later regret, we commit to this.
Conscience
A well-developed conscience provides us with knowledge about what is right and wrong.
Moral Sentiments
emotions that alert us to moral situations and motivate us to do what is right. (helper's high, empathy, compassion, moral outrage, resentment, and guilt).
Helper's high
occurs when you experience an endorphin rush after helping others. It aids in promoting relaxation, and enhances self-esteem.
Empathy
the capacity for and inclination to imagine the feelings of others.
Compassion
empathy in action, and involves taking steps to relieve others' unhappiness.
Moral outrage
also known as moral indignation, occurs when we witness an injustice or violation of moral decency. Motivates us to correct unjust situations through demands for justice.
Resentment
a type of moral outrage, occurs when we ourselves are treated unjustly.
Guilt
both alerts us to and motivates us to correct a wrong.
Three levels of moral development
preconventional, conventional, and postconventional
Preconventional
Earliest level of moral development, in which self-interest determines what is moral
Conventional
morality at this level of Kohlber'gs theory is determined by approval seeking and law and order. Right and wrong is determined by society's rules. There is respect for authority and majority rule.
Postconventional
Highest stage of moral development, in which decisions about morality depend on abstract principles
Moral relativists
claim that people create reality and that there are no universal or shared moral principles that apply to all.
According to ethical subjectivists, morality is nothing more than personal opinion or feelings.
What feels right for you is right for you at any
Cultural relativism
looks to public opinion and customs rather than to private opinion for moral standards.
two basic types of moral theories
Those that claim morality is relative
Those that claim morality is universal
Moral universalists
maintain that there are universal moral principles that apply to all.
utilitarianism
actions are evaluated based on their consequences.
Actions that bring the most happiness to the greatest number of people reflect the principle of utility (greatest happiness principle)
This idea, in combination with, figuring out the least amount of pain
Deontology (Duty-Based Ethics).
Duty is the foundation of morality. Some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences.
Moral principles or duties apply to everyone regardless of a person's feelings or culture.
A famous example of this is the Golden Rule, or the principle
Right-Based Ethics
Moral rights are not identical to legal rights.
The right to pursue our interests without interference from others is limited to our legitimate interests�those interests that do not harm other people by violating their similar and equal interests
Virtue ethics
emphasize character over right actions.