Much like Hippocrates' belief of medicine, that one must understand the cause of a disease to combat its symptoms, I find that reading more into the reasoning behind logical thinking makes understanding it easier. I also think knowing the logical fallacies helps significantly. The reason I linked to wikipedia articles for a simple superficial overview, sacrificing that for reliability .
For instance the example provided today for opinions:
"-Claim: It looks like it's going to rain.
-Grounds: The Accu-Weather report said it would rain.
The report is from a credible and authoritative information source - although the reporter has only provided the listener with their claim not the grounds."
Accepting something as truth because the person who said it is an authority on the subject is called an appeal to authority. Which knowing is a fallacious argument, I feel, is important. Something important I don't recall being stressed is that, for practical reasons, the fallacy is one we essentially must live with. I'll use being sick as an example. Say someone falls sick, would it be better to go to a doctor , or take 8 years of medical school for relief? The latter is more reliable, however it is not at all feasible. Going to a doctor wouldn't be as reliable, but greatly more practical.
We later discussed how a fact must not be 100% true to argue it. Mr. Lazarow stated that will discuss this later , so I won't discuss this much, but I suppose I should link to Karl Popper and falsifiability. (Superficially) because our ability to gather information is limited by (again) practical reasons, we cannot demand 100% certainty. This introduces falsifiability into the mix.
When a false analogy is used to prove a point it is a non sequitiur. For instance: (taken from here)
Nuclear disarmament is like driving a car, both involve a risk.
to
Because of this, if you are willing to drive a car you should be willing to have nuclear disarmament.
This is an extraordinarily bad analogy. The two share a very distant, superficial, relationship (both carry a risk). The non sequitiur then comes to the conclusion that because both share something superficially in common, they equate each other. The non sequitiur does not take into account, however, the fact that one can have a standard for risk, that the person may feel that something is too risky. The risk gap between nuclear disarmament and car crash is great.
If you wish to look more into logical fallacies I recommend this video, which provides some real examples (somewhat making easier). This is also a very superficial list of the "top 20 fallacies."
-Alexander Altaras
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think the point brought up is interesting, but I’m a bit confused about what was said concerning logical fallacies and the benefits that come with understanding them. Is that just, in a way, examining the situation from another perspective? If not, can anyone explain it a little more?
And just some thoughts on what Alex said about practical and reliable reasons, I think that although some people might have the tendency to favor the more practical solution over the seemingly more reliable one, many consider and combine the two (almost in a subconscious manner) when making a decision.
For instance, elaborating on the being sick example. Even if one chooses not to attend the medical school to cure a sickness, it doesn't necessarily mean that his or her decision is solely based on the practicality of visiting a doctor. Because think about it this way, after the person decides to go to a doctor, he or she will soon have to decide which doctor to visit - probably one who is more renowned, experienced, and therefore more reliable. And thus, this person is thinking both logically (when speaking about the feasibility) and emotionally (when speaking about the reliability).
I think in most cases, neither reason outweighs the other significantly. And to tie this back to what we are talking about in class (effectively presenting a persuasive argument), I guess it's good to understand both and fuse them together to provide a reason, since that would probably be able to appeal to and satisfy a larger audience.
The point you raised interests me, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say. How does logical fallacies relate back to the Toulim Model?? Can you tell me more about it?
that was Ashley Hill. oops!!
To answer your question Ashley, the Toulmin model advocates a "rational rhetorical model." In essence, a logical one. Knowing the logical fallacies lets you differentiate a valid logical point and an illogical one. Certain fallacies, although mostly not specifically named, were mentioned during the powerpoint (false analogy, argument from authority for instance). Knowing the others, particularly the relevant ones, such as the non-sequitur, would definitely not hurt. I also find knowing them relatively entertaining and simple.
Oh, and I thought identifying the logical fallacies would aid with any further research one would like to take. Anybody can just simply type it in Google.
@julie w
Correct, yet this still is argument from authority, for we choose the person who is more of an authority.
I found the Creationist fallacy video you linked interesting in that the examples of logical fallacies discussed were to the point and accurate. But the video made over-generalizations of creationist arguments by using those who are most outspoken about the issue (and often the least rational). It would also be considered offensive to any creationists (I know a few) as it uses the word "idiocy" a couple of times when discussing the creationist views.
I mean no offense by posting the video. The video called the certain arguments made idiotic, however. Also there were no generalizations as it only presented specific examples, it didn't for example state that all creationists make the specific argument, or state that these 20 arguments made by creationists make creationism foolish, merely that the claims themselves are foolish. But this is all beside the point. If you prefer another source, these two are more than adequate.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4073
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4074
Post a Comment