Fallacies
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Fallacies

on

  • 1,685 views

Appeal to pity

Appeal to pity
Appeal to fear
Two wrongs dont make a right

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,685
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
1,685
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
29
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Fallacies Fallacies Presentation Transcript

    • FALLACIES Kavosa Assava
    • • A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. • An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true. • A fallacy can be either formal or informal. • An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. • An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. • Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.
    • TYPES OF FALLACIES • Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. • Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. • Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. • Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.[5] • Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.
    • FORMAL FALLACY • A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. • This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. • The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion. • Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument, but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. • By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one
    • ARISTOTLE • Aristotle was the first to systematize logical errors into a list. • Aristotle's "Sophistical Refutations" (De Sophisticis Elenchis) identifies thirteen fallacies. • He divided them up into two major types, 1. 2. those depending on language and those not depending on language. • These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. • A material fallacy is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a verbal fallacy is an error in how the arguer is talking. • Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.[7]
    • RICHARD WHATELY • Richard Whately divided fallacies into two groups: • logical • material. • According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. • Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion does follow from the premises. • He then divided the logical group into two groups: • purely logical and • semi-logical. • The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's sophisms except:ignoratio elenchi, petitio principii, and non causa pro causa, which are in the material group.[8]
    • INTENTIONAL FALLACIES • Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. • In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, or advertising, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true. • For instance, the speaker or writer might divert the argument to unrelated issues using a red herring; • insult someone's character (argumentum ad hominem), assume they are right by "begging the question" (petitio principi); • make jumps in logic non-sequitur; • identify a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc);
    • • assert that everyone agrees, the bandwagoning; • create a "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified; • selectively use facts or "card-stacking"; • make false or misleading comparisons with "false equivalence", and "false analogy"; • generalize quickly and sloppily with a "false generalization"; and many more.
    • DEDUCTIVE FALLACY • In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: • a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. • Logic is the use of valid reasoning; • A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. • Therefore, the clause is contradictory... However, the same terms are used in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason.
    • • A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. • Logical form alone can guarantee that given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. • However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false. • Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. The so-called fallacy is a failure to understand that all bets are off unless the argument is formally flawless and all premises are true.
    • QUINCY ARGUMENTUM AD MISERECORDIAM APPEAL TO PITY/ MISERY This strategy is an attempt to persuade someone to agree with you or give you what you want by making them pity or feel sorry for you. This fallacy can make the other person seem cruel or insensitive if they do not comply. It is an attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity.
    • • This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they “ feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. • The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone. • Its mostly evident in politics(where it has been proven to be counter productive) and T.V commercials
    • JUSTIFIED ARGUMENTS EVOKING PITY • This fallacy should not be confused with a justified argument that evokes pity. An example is when a student argues that he or she should be excused for being absent because he or she was hit by a lorry on that day • This argument may evoke pity but it is justified. • Whoever the student is appealing to would be justified in excusing the student because being hit by a lorry is a good enough reason to miss class
    • An example of a typical appeal to pity fallacy would be when a student argues that he or she should get an A because he or she spent 8 straight hours doing the assignment Regardless of whether the statement is true or not it does not determine the quality of the work done
    • Realistic manifestations of this fallacy Very common and the most persuasive Tactic used by street dwellers, they would come to the street with their children , send the children to borrow because one would be emotionally inclined to feel pity for the child and part away with some money. However if one was to think critically about what would help this kids.one would realize that giving them money is what keeps them on the street because to the mothers or guardians who put them there this is one of the easiest way of making money hence we fall prey to this fallacy. Thus if we really feel pity for them we should either take them to a children’s home where they are assured of 3 meals a day and education or better yet report them to the relevant authorities
    • POLITICS Hillary Clinton spoke of trying to break into the "boys' club" when the male candidates were attacking her. The statement, made to a women's group, quickly got out; in today's world, after all, no statement by a public figure can be expected to be private, much less one made on a campaign stop. However she intended it (most likely as a catch-phrase to pander to women who feel underrepresented in politics), the interpretation that emerged was that people should vote for Clinton because she is a solitary woman dealing with all the nasty men campaigning against her.
    • IN COURT During the trial of a self confessed plotter of 911 a Mr Zacarius Mouassoi The prosecutors showed the jury photos Of charred victims of the 911 saga in orde To appeal to the jury’s emotion so that They may recommend the ultimate Death Penalty.
    • INTERNATIONAL MEDIA; SYRIA CRISIS • Youtube’s policy for videos is that graphic and brutal content will not be allowed to stay because it is disturbing, however with regards to the Syrian crisis, someone somewhere with the influence over youtube administrators pulled the necessary strings and made youtube allow the oncoming video to be viewed by the world so that it can appeal to our emotions (and not the true facts regarding the conflict) which would then change our world opinion against syria’s army so that the much needed and ILLEGAL ‘Nato intervention’ would be warranted or seem as the most relevant humanitarian thing to do. • If one was to closely investigate the Syria crisis one would find out that its actually not the military killing its own citizens but hired mercenaries because the people support president Bashir al Assad (the same happened in Libya under colonel Gaddafi) • The coming video might be tragic but believe you me its on youtube ( the last place it should be given their stringent policies on graphic and disturbing content)
    • SYRIA CRISIS
    • SCARE TACTICS/ APPEAL TO FEAR THIS IS A LOGICAL ERROR IN REASONING THAT DWELLS ON SOMEONE FEAR IN ORDER TO ALTER THEIR REASONING, IT SUBSTITUTES FEAR FOR EVIDENCE THEREBY TRYING TO ALTER THAT THE CLAIM IS TRUE. THIS LINE OF "REASONING" IS FALLACIOUS BECAUSE CREATING FEAR IN PEOPLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE FOR A CLAIM.
    • • AN APPEAL TO FEAR (ALSO CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD METUM OR ARGUMENTUM IN TERROREM) IS A FALLACY IN WHICH A PERSON ATTEMPTS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR AN IDEA BY USING DECEPTION AND PROPAGANDA IN ATTEMPTS TO INCREASE FEAR AND PREJUDICE TOWARD A COMPETITOR. THE APPEAL TO FEAR IS COMMON IN MARKETING AND POLITICS.
    • MOST FAITHS APPEAL TO OUR FEAR OF BEING ANNIHILATED OR PUNISHED OR SUFFERING IN ORDER TO GET US TO DO GOOD, FOR INSTANCE IN CHRISTIANITY (NO OFFENCE) IF YOU DO NOT DO GOOD YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY. THUS AS MUCH AS THIS CLAIM MAY BE TRUE IT HAS APPEALED TO OUR FEAR. AND IF YOU DO GOOD IN ALL YOUR WAYS YOU’LL MAKE IT TO HEAVEN. AN INTELLIGENT MAN DOES NOT NEED THE PROMISE OF HEAVEN TO DO GOOD
    • • TEACHERS IN SCHOOL GENERALLY HIGH SCHOOL AND PRIMARY SCHOOL ALWAYS THREATEN STUDENTS THAT IF THEY DO NOT READ HARD THEY WILL NEVER MAKE IT IN LIFE, YOU WILL GET A MEAGRE JOB AND THIS MIGHT LEAD TO YOU GETTING INVOLVED IN CRIME SO AS TO SUSTAIN A BETTER LIVING. WHEREAS EDUCATION IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO MAKING IT IN LIFE ITS JUST AN EASIER AVENUE BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPLORED ON THEIR TALENTS AND HAVE MADE IT IN LIFE, SOCCER STARS & MUSICIANS ARTISTS E.T.C
    • • THE APPEAL TO FEAR CAN BE VALID IF BASED ON GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THE ACTION CAN LEAD TO FRIGHTENING CONSEQUENCES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARGUMENT THAT ALCOHOL DRINKING OVER – A LONG PERIOD – CAN LEAD TO LIVER FAILURE AND CONSEQUENTLY DEATH IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. THE ONCOMING VIDEO EMPHASIZES MORE
    • TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT?
    • DEFINITION • Two wrongs make a right is the name given to a type of fallacy wherein a person seeks to justify their own or {someone they support's behavior} by deflecting attention onto the wrongdoing of others, often their accusers.
    • EXAMPLE ONE • Bob took shots of tequila and got a hangover the next day. Millo asked Bob why she took the shots. Bob shouted at Millo saying “ you took shots of Tequila as well!” • Bob tries to justify her wrong action by Highlighting that Millo too partook in the shot taking as well.
    • EXAMPLE TWO • This fallacy is often committed by children. An example: • Parent: Laquisha, why did you pull your sister's hair, don't you know that's wrong. • Laquisha: I know, but she pinched me first. • To this, the parent may respond, "two wrongs don't make a right".
    • EXAMPLE THREE • Capital punishment: in the case of murder. • It justifies the notion that since the persons committed murder in the first place, we are then justified to kill them as well. • The law tries to justify the taking of human life by claiming that the defendants took human life in the first place.
    • CREATIVE ACTIVITY • Watch and learn!!!! 