Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Deductive Fallacies
Water-tight Conclusions
Deduction: Water-tight
Conclusions
The definition for validity in
deductive reasoning is simply that it
is impossible to have an argument
whose premises are all true and yet
have a false conclusion.
IE. Truth of the premises entails
truth of the conclusion
Any argument that do not meet this
definition
is
immediately
committing a logical error and is
thus a fallacy.
However
Though deductive reasoning is a reliable
standard by which to establish the validity of
an argument, its stringent requirements are
usually not applicable to arguments regarding
human decision-making.
For example, it is not possible to use
deductive reasoning to prove that a product
of a certain brand is unquestionably the best
brand to purchase, since the premises for
consuming goods and services varies from
one consumer to the other in terms of
usefulness, quality, price, etc.
Inductive Fallacies
Educated Assumptions
Induction: Educated
Assumptions
Whereas deductive reasoning bases its
conclusion on concrete premises and formulaic
reasoning, inductive reasoning involves more
arbitrary reasoning (though this must not be
confused with ambiguity.)
In debates involving inductive reasoning, it is
crucial to establish definitions of the terms that
will be used to avoid subjectivity of language as
we will see later.
Inductive reasoning is less clean-cut, but this
only serves to match the human condition of
life, which is uncertain and fluid, but which
nonetheless requires critical observation and
action.
Induction: Educated
Assumptions
Some choose to group fallacies of
inductive reasoning, at times referred
to as informal fallacies, under three
categories: relevance, ambiguity, and
presumption. However, they maintain
that this categorization is artificial,
since some fallacies are difficult to
classify under any single group.
Its IRRELEPHANT!!!
Fallacies
of
relevance
are
predicated on premises that are not
relevant to the truth of the
conclusion.
Such fallacies
may attempt to
elicit emotional
responses,
increase shock
value, or attack
the credibility of
the source of the
argument.
Its IRRELEPHANT!!!
Irrelevant Appeals
Accent Fallacies
Equivocation Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy
Masama mag-assume!
Fallacies of presumption use false
premises or premises with uncertain
truth values to defend their
argument. It involves jumping to an
unsupported conclusion and taking
that hasty conclusion as established
fact.
FA Masama mag-assume!
LS
E
DI
LE
M
M
A!
!!
False Causality
False Causality
False Causality
Exercises
Chance to win more food?
Disclaimer: The examples given may or may not align
with the personal opinion of the presenters. The purpose
of the given statements is merely to practice
identification of fallacies.
Exercises
1) Contraception is not a natural
process and therefore is wrong.
a) Appeal to hypocrisy
b) Appeal to nature
c) Strawman
d) No true Scotsman
B.
Exercises
2) Eat your food because thousands
of poor children are starving
a) Ambiguity
b) Appeal to nature
c) Black or white
d) Appeal to emotion
D.
Exercise
3) If we allow same-sex marriage, soon
everyone will be marrying their dogs.
a) Slippery slope
b) Special pleading
c) Appeal to authority
d) Ad hominem
A.
I kid you not, people actually make this argument. :/
D.
A.
Conclusion
O ano, conclusion nanaman?
Conclusion, e di i-opinion!
Logic requires very critical evaluation
of the premises and the conclusion in
order to establish its coherency.
Fallacies can be found around us
everyday and can be used as sales
tools, false reassurance, and even
weapons to compel people to act. It is
our duty and privilege to use our
abilities to objectively weigh the
validity of a logical argument.
References
Richardson, J.; Smith, A.; Meadan, S. thou
shalt not commit logical fallacies, 2015.
Web. 25 February 2015.
Wilson, M. "Hilarious Graphs Prove That
Correlation Isnt Causation". Fast
Company, 2015. Web. 1 March 2015.
Logical Fallacies, 2009. Web. 20 Feb 2015.