Fallacies

Slide 1: Module 4: Fallacies Zaid Ali Alsagoff zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com

Slide 2: Man or Woman? Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/manwoman.htm

Slide 3: How many legs does this elephant have? Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/elephantlegs.htm

Slide 4: Which officer is the tallest? Source: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/optical_illusions_images_2/giant_man.htm

Slide 5: Is this wave moving? Source: http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/oblong_wave/

Slide 6: Analyze + Evaluate = Your Opinion? Target Audience? AirAsia + Girls = Fun

Slide 7: Module 4: Fallacies 1. Fallacies What of Relevance mistake!!! 2. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence

Slide 8: 4.0 What is a Fallacy? A (logical) fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning. reasoning Fallacies can be divided into two general types:  Fallacies of Relevance Arguments in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.  Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.

Slide 9: “There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get him off the thing he was educated in” - Will Rogers

Slide 10: 4.1 Fallacies of Relevance A statement is RELEVANT to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true or false. There are three ways in which a statement can be relevant or irrelevant to another:  A statement is positively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is true.  A statement is negatively relevant to another statement if it provides at least some reason for thinking that the second statement is false.  A statement is logically irrelevant to another statement if it provides no reason for thinking that the second statement is either true or false.

Slide 11: 4.1 Fallacies of Relevance Personal Attack Appeal to Pity Attacking the Motive Bandwagon Argument Look Who’s Talking Straw Man Begging the Question Red Herring Scare Tactics Equivocation Two Wrongs Make a Right

Slide 12: 4.1.1 Personal Attack Personal Attack When an arguer rejects a person’s argument or claim by attacking the person’s character rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself. Example: Professor Doogie has argued for more emphasis on music in our F2F classes to facilitate creativity. But Doogie is a selfish bigheaded fool. I absolutely refuse to listen to him. 1. X is a bad person. Pattern 2. Therefore X's argument must be bad.

Slide 13: 4.1.2 Attacking the Motive Attacking the Motive When an arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself. Example: Donald Trump has argued that we need to build a new campus. But Trump is the owner of Trump’s Construction Company. He’ll make a fortune if his company is picked to build the new campus. Obviously, Trump’s argument is a lot of self-serving nonsense. 1. X has biased or has questionable motives. Pattern 2. Therefore, X’s arguments or claim should be rejected.

Slide 14: 4.1.3 Look Who’s Talking Look Who’s Talking (tu quoque) When an arguer rejects another person’s argument or claim because that person is a hypocrite. Example: Doctor: You should quite smoking. Patient: Look who’s talking! I’ll quit when you do, Dr. Smokestack! 1. X fails to follow his or her own advice. Pattern 2. Therefore, X’s claim or argument should be rejected.

Slide 15: 4.1.4 Two Wrongs Make a Right Two Wrongs Make a Right When an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse. Examples: • “I don’t feel guilty about cheating on Zaid’s online quiz. Half the class cheats on his quiz.” • “Why pick on me, officer? Everyone else is using drugs.” 1. Others are committing worse or equally bad acts. Pattern 2. Therefore my wrongful act is justified.

Slide 16: 4.1.5 Scare Tactics Scare Tactics When an arguer threatens harm to a reader or listener and this threat is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion. Example: Diplomat to diplomat: I’m sure you’ll agree that we are the rightful rulers of the Iraq. It would be regrettable if we had to send armed forces to demonstrate the validity of our claim. Fear is a powerful motivator – so powerful that it often Remember causes us to think and behave irrationally.

Slide 17: 4.1.6 Appeal to Pity Appeal to Pity When an arguer attempts to evoke feelings of pity or compassion, where such feelings, however understandable, are not relevant to the truth of the arguer’s conclusion. Example: Student to Lecturer: I know I missed half your classes and failed all my quizzes and assignments. First my cat died. Then my girlfriend told me she has found someone else. With all I went through this semester, I don’t think I really deserve an F. Any chance you might cut me some slack and change my grade to a C or a D? 1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. Pattern 2. Therefore claim C is true.

Slide 18: 4.1.7 Bandwagon Argument Bandwagon Argument (Peer Pressure) When an arguer appeals to a person’s desire to be popular, accepted, or valued, rather than to logically relevant reasons or evidence. Example: All the really cool UNITAR students smoke cigarettes. Therefore, you should, too. 1. Most (or a select group of) people believe or do X. Pattern 2. Therefore, you should believe or do X.

Slide 19: 4.1.8 Straw Man Straw Man When an arguer misrepresents another person’s position to make it easier to attack. Example: Singh and Karen are arguing about cleaning out their closets:  Suzie: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.“  Singh: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"  Suzie: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous." 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Pattern 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Slide 20: 4.1.9 Red Herring Red Herring When an arguer tries to sidetrack his audience by raising an irrelevant issue, and then claims that the original issue has been effectively settled by the irrelevant diversion. Example: "I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant Pattern to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned.

Slide 21: 4.1.10 Equivocation Equivocation When an arguer uses a key word in an argument in two (or more) different senses. Example: In the summer of 1940, Londoners were bombed almost very night. To be bombed is to be intoxicated. Therefore, in the summer of 1940, Londoners were intoxicated almost every night. Fallacies of Equivocation can be difficult to spot because Remember they often appear valid, but they aren’t.

Slide 22: 4.1.11 Begging the Question Begging the Question When an arguer states or assumes as a premise (reason) the very thing he is seeking to probe as a conclusion. Example: I am entitled to say whatever I choose because I have a right to say whatever I please. Reason Arguing in a circle – A because B, B because A.

Slide 23: 4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 1 I'm trying hard to understand this guy who identifies himself as a security supervisor and criticizes the police officers in this area. I can only come up with two solutions. One, he is either a member of the criminal element, or two, he is a frustrated security guard who can never make it as a police officer and figures he can take cheap shots at cops through the newspaper (adapted from a newspaper call-in column). Which fallacy? C) Loaded Question D) Personal Attack E) Bandwagon Argument F) Scare Tactics

Slide 24: 4.1 Mini Quiz – Question 2 The Red Cross is worried about the treatment of the suspected terrorists held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. What do they want the U.S. to do with them, put them on the beaches of Florida for a vacation or take them skiing in the Rockies? Come on, let's worry about the Americans. (adapted from a newspaper call-in column) Which fallacy? C) Bandwagon Argument D) Personal Attack E) Straw Man F) Scare Tactics

Slide 25: “The foolish and the dead alone never change their opinion.” - James Russell Lowell

Slide 26: 4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Arguments in which the premises, though logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion.

Slide 27: 4.2 Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Inappropriate Appeal Questionable Cause to Authority Appeal to Ignorance Slippery Slope False Alternatives Weak Analogy Loaded Question Inconsistency Hasty Generalizations

Slide 28: 4.2.1 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority Inappropriate Appeal to Authority Citing a witness or authority that is untrustworthy. Example: My dentist told me that aliens built the lost city of Atlantis. So, it’s reasonable to believe that aliens did build the lost city of Atlantis. Authority Assessment 2. Is the source an authority on the subject at issue? 3. Is the source biased? 4. Is the accuracy of the source observations questionable? 5. Is the source known to be generally unreliable? 6. Has the source been cited correctly? 7. Does the source’s claim conflict with expert opinion? 8. Can the source’s claim be settled by an appeal to expert opinion? Tips 9. Is the claim highly improbable on its face?

Slide 29: 4.2.2 Appeal to Ignorance Appeal to Ignorance Claiming that something is true because no one has proven it false or vice versa. Example: Yoda must exist. No one has proved that he doesn’t exist. Agree I do! “Not proven, therefore false” Remember If such reasoning were allowed, we could prove almost any conclusion.

Slide 30: 4.2.3 False Alternatives False Alternatives Posing a false either/or choice. Example: The choice in this MPM election is clear: Either we elect Zubaidah as our next president, or we watch our MPM unity slide into anarchy and frustration. Clearly, we don’t want that to happen. Therefore, we should elect Zubaidah as our next president. Fallacy of false alternatives can involve more than two (2) alternatives. It can also be expressed as a alternatives Remember conditional (if-then) statement.

Slide 31: 4.2.4 Loaded Question Loaded Question Posing a question that contains an unfair or unwarranted presupposition. Example: Lee: Are you still friends with that loser Richard? Ali: Yes. Lee: Well, at least you admit he’s a total loser. To respond to a loaded question effectively, one must Tip distinguish the different questions being asked and respond to each individually.

Slide 32: 4.2.5 Questionable Cause Questionable Cause Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that one thing is the cause of something else. Example: Sarah gets a chain letter that threatens her with dire consequences if she breaks the chain. She laughs at it and throws it in the garbage. On her way to work she slips and breaks his arm. When she gets back from the hospital she sends out 200 copies of the chain letter, hoping to avoid further accidents. 1. A and B are associated on a regular basis. Pattern 2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

Slide 33: 4.2.6 Hasty Generalization Hasty Generalization Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is biased or too small. Example: Norwegians are lazy. I have two friends who are from there, and both of them never prepare for class, or do their homework. 1. A biased sample is one that is not representative of the target population. 2. The target population is the group of people or things that the Pattern generalization is about. 3. Hasty generalizations can often lead to false stereotypes. stereotypes

Slide 34: 4.2.7 Slippery Slope Slippery Slope Claiming, without sufficient evidence, that a seemingly harmless action, if taken, will lead to a disastrous outcome. Examples: “The Malaysian militarily shouldn't get involved in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die." 1. The arguer claims that if a certain seemingly harmless action, A, is permitted, A will lead to B, B will lead to C, and so on to D. 2. The arguer holds that D is a terrible thing and therefore should not be permitted. Pattern 3. In fact, there is no good reason to believe that A will actually lead to D.

Slide 35: 4.2.8 Weak Analogy Weak Analogy Comparing things that aren’t really comparable. Example: Nobody would buy a car without first taking it for a test drive. Why then shouldn’t two mature UNITAR students live together before they decide whether to get married? 1. List all important similarities between the two cases. 2. List all important dissimilarities between the two cases. Tip 3. Decide whether the similarities or dissimilarities are more important.

Slide 36: 4.2.9 Inconsistency Inconsistency Asserting inconsistent or contradictory claims. Example: Note found in a Forest Service Suggestion box: Park visitors need to know how important it is to keep this wilderness area completely pristine and undisturbed. So why not put up a few signs to remind people of this fact? It is also a mistake to cling stubbornly to an old idea when new information suggests that the idea is false. Remember Open-minded to new ideas = Learning

Slide 37: 4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 1 What's to say against [cigars]? They killed George Burns at 100. If he hadn't smoked them, he'd have died at 75. (Bert Sugar, quoted in New York Times, September 20, 2002) Which fallacy? C) Questionable Cause D) Hasty Generalization E) Slippery Slope F) Weak Analogy

Slide 38: 4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 2 According to North Korea's official state-run news agency, "a war between North Korea and the United States will end with the delightful victory of North Korea, a newly emerging military power, in 100 hours. . . . The U. S. [will] be enveloped in flames. . . and the arrogant empire of the devil will breathe its last". Given that this prediction comes from the official North Korean news agency, it is probably true. (Passage quoted in Nicholas D. Kristof, "Empire of the Devil," New York Times, April 4, 2003) Which fallacy? C) Inappropriate Appeal to Authority D) Appeal to Ignorance E) False Alternatives F) Loaded Question

Slide 39: 4.2 Mini Quiz – Question 3 Jurors in tobacco lawsuits should award judgments so large that they put tobacco companies out of business. Respecting the right of tobacco companies to stay in business is akin to saying there are "two sides" to slavery... (Anti-tobacco lawyer, quoted in George F. Will, "Court Ruling Expresses Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy," Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, May 25, 2003) Which fallacy? C) Loaded Question D) Hasty Generalization E) Slippery Slope F) Weak Analogy

Slide 40: Group Activity Break into groups of 4 - 6, and construct five (5) fallacious arguments. Each group can choose any of the 20 fallacies discussed, but must construct at least two fallacious arguments of each category: Fallacies of Relevance & Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence). The constructed fallacious arguments must discuss the topics specified in the template provided (Business, Education, Information Technology, Environment, and Tourism). 20 min Construct 5 fallacious arguments. 5 min Document constructed arguments into the template provided. 15 min Group presentation & discussion. The Group leader must submit their findings in hard-copy or soft-copy format to the lecturer before or during the next class.

Slide 41: Summary – 20 Common Fallacies Fallacy An argument that contains a mistake in reasoning. reasoning Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence Arguments in which the premises are Arguments in which the premises, though logically irrelevant to the conclusion. logically relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.  Personal Attack  Inappropriate Appeal to Authority  Attacking the Motive  Appeal to Ignorance  Look Who’s Talking  False Alternatives  Two Wrongs Make a Right  Scare Tactics  Loaded Question  Appeal to Pity  Questionable Cause  Bandwagon Argument  Hasty Generalization  Straw Man  Slippery Slope  Red Herring  Weak Analogy  Equivocation  Begging the Question  Inconsistency

Slide 42: Any Questions?

Slide 43: The End

Slide 44: References Book Chapter 5 (Logical Fallacies -1) & 6 (Logical Fallacies -2): G Bassham, W Irwin, H Nardone, J M Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction, McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2007 Online Resources Fallacies (The Nizkor Project): http://www.nizkor.org /features/fallacies/ Cool Optical Illusions: http://www.coolopticalillusions.com/

Slide 45: Contact Details Zaid Ali Alsagoff UNIVERSITI TUN ABDUL RAZAK 16-5, Jalan SS 6/12 47301 Kelana Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan Malaysia E-mail: zaid.alsagoff@gmail.com Tel: 603-7627 7238 Fax: 603-7627 7246