Lesson in Intro to Philosophy

1. Two basic types of
reasoning
1. INDUCTIVE
• Based from observations in order to make generalizations
• Often applied in prediction, forecasting, or behavior
2. DEDUCTIVE
• draws conclusion from usually one broad judgment or
definition and one more specific assertion, often an
interference
• Example:
• All philosophers are wise. (Major premise)
• Confucius is a philosopher. (Minor premise)
• Therefore, Confucius is wise. (Conclusion)

2. Validity and Soundness of
an Argument
• If the two premises are constructed logically, then
the conclusion must follow logically, the
deductive argument is valid
• This does not necessarily mean that the
conclusion is true or false.
• Validity comes from a logical conclusion based
on logically constructed premises (Reed-2010).

3. Strength of an Argument
• Inductive arguments cannot prove if the premises
are true which will also determine the truth of the
conclusion.
• Inductive reasoning proves only probable support
to the conclusion.
• An inductive argument that succeeds in providing
such probable support is a strong argument.
• While an inductive argument that fails to provide
such support is weak, a strong argument with true
premises is said to be cogent.

4. • Example
• Jay: Do you think Congressman Gerry will be
re-elected?
• Yna: I doubt it. His district has become more
conservative in recent years. Also, 63% of the
registered voters in his district are in the
opposition
• This argument is both a statistical argument and a
predictive argument, which are two common
patterns of inductive reasoning. Also, the
conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises.

5. Fallacies
FALLACY
• Defect in an argument other than its having false
premise
• To detect fallacies, it is required to examine the
argument's content.

6. 1. APPEAL TO PITY (ARGUMENTUM AD
MISERICORDIAM)
• A specific kind of appeal to emotion in which
someone tries to win support for an argument or
idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of
pity or guilt.

7. 2. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE
(ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM)
• Whatever has not been proved false must be true,
and vice versa

8. 3. EQUIVOCATION
• A logical chain of reasoning of a term or a word
several times, but giving the particular word a
different meaning each time.
• Example:
• Human beings have hands; the clock has hands.
He is drinking from the pitcher of water; he is a
baseball pitcher.

9. 4. COMPOSITION
• arises when one infers that something is true of
the whole from the fact that it is true of some
part of the whole.
• The reverse of this fallacy is division.
• Ex: If a runner runs faster, she can win the race.
Therefore if all the runners run faster, they can all win
the race.

10. 5. DIVISION
• occurs when one infers that something true for
the whole must also be true of all or some of its
parts.
• Ex: A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean. A
Boeing 747 has jet engines. Therefore, one of its jet engines
can fly unaided across the ocean.

11. 6. AGAINST THE PERSON (ARGUMENTUM
AD HOMINEM)
• attempts to link the validity of a premise to a
characteristic or belief of the person advocating
the premise
• questions of personal conduct, character, motives,
etc., are legitimate if relevant to the issue
• Ex: “You're stupid, so I don't care what you have
to say.”

12. 7. APPEAL TO FORCE (ARGUMENTUM AD
BACULUM)
• An argument where force, coercion, or the threat of
force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.
• Ex: The senator was told that if she did not support
the tax reformation bill, her chances of being re-
elected next fall would be very low

13. 8. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE
(ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM)
• An argument that appeals or exploits people's
vanities, desire for esteem, and anchoring on
popularity
• Ex: McDonald's claims that they have sold billions
of hamburgers to people, yet billions of
hamburgers sold does not mean McDonald's
makes the best hamburgers.

14. 9. FALSE CAUSE (POST HOC)
• Since that event followed this one, that event must
have been caused by this one.
• This fallacy is also referred to as coincidental
correlation, or correlation not causation
• Ex: Every time I wash my car, it rains

15. 10. HASTY GENERALIZATION
• One commits errors if one reaches an inductive
generalization based on insufficient evidence.
• The fallacy is commonly based on a broad
conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a
small group that fails to sufficiently represent the
whole population.
• Ex: Everyone is against child pornography. I asked
Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones at the PTA meeting and
they are definitely against it.

16. 11. BEGGING THE QUESTION (PETITIO
PRINCIPII)
• This is a type of fallacy in which the proposition to be
proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the
premise.
• Example:
• Erica: "How do you know that the bible is divinely
inspired?" Pedro: "Because is says right in the third
chapter of II Timothy that 'all scripture is given by divine
inspiration of God.'“
• Celibacy is an unnatural and unhealthy practice, since it
is neither natural nor healthy to exclude sexual activity
from one's life.