LectureFallacies of Irrelevance

4-step procedure for identifying the main fallacy in a passage 1) Identify the main issue (whether .) 2) Identify the position being defended (conclusion) 3) Identity the support (premises) given for that position 4) Identify the main fallacy - Abusive Ad Hominem (aka Attacking the Person) - basic form: X is a bad/defective person, therefore Xs argument is bad/defective - Circumstantial Ad Hominem (aka Attacking the Motive) - attacks the circumstances (interests) of the person making the argument - it suggests they have an ulterior motive, typically self-interested - Poisoning the Well (not explained well in Engel) - the common denominator among definitions in different books: trying to preclude in advance consideration of the persons argument (keep in mind the metaphor of poisoning the well and only apply when the metaphor applies) - Tu Quoque (you too) - rejecting a persons argument against you because it applies to them as well - Genetic Fallacy - rejecting an argument (position, institution, idea, etc.) because of how it was arrived at, or because of its origin - unlike testimony, the origin of an argument is irrelevant - Appeal to Authority - four different kinds, but all take the same form: Because X says it, it must be true - Appeal to the Authority of the One - (i) where X is not an authority in that field - (ii) when the topic is one where the authorities dont agree - Appeal to the Authority of the Many (aka the Consensus Gentium fallacy) - the fallacy here is supposing that truth is democratic (it is not) - Appeal to the Authority of the Select Few - appeals to our feeling that were special or our desire to be (aka Snob Appeal) - Appeal to the Authority of Tradition - appealing to tradition in defense of a position when the situation today is different than when the tradition began, or the reasons for the tradition were not good ones in the first place

- Appeal to Fear (aka Argumentum ad Baculum (the big stick)) - attempt to persuade by means of a threat (the threat being the essential reason given) - only a fallacy when force is offered to convince you that something is true (i.e., a fallacy can only occur in an argument) - not a fallacy when theyre trying to get you to do something - not a fallacy when fear is mixed with reasons - Appeal to Pity - seeking to persuade not by an appeal to logic or evidence but essentially by arousing pity - again, not a fallacy when pity is mixed with reasons - Mob Appeal - using emotions to steer or stampede masses of people in the direction of a particular position or conclusion rather than appealing to evidence - Appeal to Ignorance - presenting the fact that we cannot show something is false as evidence that it is true, or vice versa

LectureFallacies of Ambiguity
- different ways of ambiguity: - ambiguous vs. vague - or is ambiguous but not vague - rich is vague (also ambiguous), also large - denotation - reference, objective - connotation - the associations (feelings, attitudes, emotions, images, thoughts) suggested by a word either to the user of the word or to the listener - Fallacy of Equivocation - when the meaning of a term shifts throughout an argument - Fallacy of Amphiboly - here the ambiguity results from poor sentence structure rather than the meaning of the terms - Fallacy of Accent (Misquotation) - here the ambiguity is not the result of the meaning of the terms, or poor sentence structure, but from confusion caused by misquoting - three ways: - (i) the different tone of a remark (e.g. being straightforward or ironical) - (ii) accenting or stressing the wrong word - (iii) quoting misleadingly out of context - Fallacy of Hypostatization - attributing actual existence to something that is only a name or an abstraction Note: Do not apply this fallacy when someone uses a term metaphorically or figuratively - Fallacy of Composition - when you assume that what is true of some or all of the parts is also true of the whole - since this is not always true, the assumption is fallacious - need to have a part-whole relationship - Note: Engel contradicts himself (p. 100 vs. p. 129) - Fallacy of Division - when you assume that what is true of the whole is also true of some or all of the parts - since this is not always true, the assumption is fallacious

LectureFallacies of Presumption (Insufficient Evidence)

- when an argument fails to meet the sufficiency requirement - Hasty Generalization - hasty generalization is a kind of hasty conclusion based on inadequate knowledge or experience - randomization increases representativeness - in general, the more representative the class of observed objects, the stronger the inference that all objects and not just those observed have the characteristic in question NOTE: Do not confuse this with the fallacy of composition, since it does not involve the part-whole relation, but attributes a property of each of an insufficient sample to all the others of a class - e.g., think of the difference between all NHL hockey players or all Maple Leaf hockey players (each is a class or category) and the Toronto Maple Leafs as a team (a whole with parts) - Global Insufficiency (a variant of hasty generalization): occurs when only that evidence which supports an argument is brought into the argument, while evidence to the contrary is ignored (Engel 151) - Sweeping Generalization - rules or generalizations often have exceptions - the fallacy occurs when we apply a general rule to exceptional cases, cases that have some sort of peculiarity that makes them exempt from the general rule - Bifurcation (aka False Dichotomy, False Alternatives) - an argument which tries to establish the conclusion by using a premise with two alternatives when in fact there are more (three or more, or a continuum) - not a fallacy if there really are only two alternatives - Begging the Question (four ways) (i) Circular Argument - assuming what youre trying to prove - a conclusion cant be a premise in its own argument - begging the question can also occur when the truth of a premise requires the conclusion for its truth (aka circular argument, vicious circle, circular logic) (ii) Question-Begging Definition (not in Engel) - here you try to settle an issue by defining a term in such a way that you make your point true by definition (iii) Question-Begging Epithets (epithet: a word or short phrase used to describe something, a descriptive label)

- its possible to beg the question with only one word, a word that assumes what you are or should be trying to prove - fallacy of question-begging epithets looks similar to abusive ad hominem but there is a subtle difference - the difference is that with ad hominem youre rejecting their argument because theyre defective, whereas with question-begging epithets youre supporting your own conclusion by begging the question with epithets - question-begging epithets can be flattering as well as insulting (iv) Loaded Question (Engels Complex Question) - here you beg the question by asking a question - Special Pleading - here you are making a special exception for yourself, applying a double standard: one for ourselves (because we are special), and one for others (because they are not) - False Analogy - argument by analogy in itself is legitimate, with a probabilistic conclusion - if A has features a, b, c, and theyre relevant to d, and B has features a, b, c, then B probably has d - the fallacy is when the points of analogy are irrelevant to the conclusion - False Cause - (i) post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) - Engel lists non causa pro causa as an equivalent Latin tag - (ii) cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) - jumping from correlation to causation - the fallacy is committed because the correlation has basically four different possible explanations (one caused the other, the other is the cause, there is a third, common cause of the correlation, coincidence) - Slippery Slope - arguing that something might not be bad, but it leads to something else, which leads to something else, which is bad, so we ought not to allow the first thing - a fallacy if there is a weak link in the argument

- Engel (p. 190) has Irrelevant Thesis: do NOT use, instead use the distinction below (which is also in Engel) - Red Herring - red herring is when you try to change the main issue to a related but irrelevant issue - Straw Person (very poor in Engel) - attacks a distortion of the opponents argument

Conceptual Analysis Lecture 1

- fact - how things are in the world - something that can be proven, established, shown to be true - value - the way things ought or ought not to be - morals - terms such as good, bad, right, wrong, justice, rights, etc. - concept - what is meant by a term/word - abstract, in our heads - its much easier to give examples than define e.g., triangle - in fact, one can use concepts without being able to define them - we will only be dealing with conceptual questions in this section (questions of meaning), not factual questions or value questions

- conceptual analysis is a skill (requires practice) - the 9 techniques we will learn are designed to bring out some of the meanings of the terms in the conceptual question - the underlying theory: - Ludwig Wittgenstein (Dont ask for the meaning, ask for the use) - concepts as the common currency of our language community, Toronto 2011 - idiosyncratic meanings are totally irrelevant - Sigmund Freud (iceberg concept of the mind) - e.g., or (how many meanings does this have in ordinary language?) - Rorschach Test: ink blot tests (spontaneous, unedited, like Freudian word association tests) - the eight steps were going to learn make us look at the primary and secondary concepts in the conceptual questions from different angles in order ultimately to bring out the different meanings - step 9 is where we bring together all the results and finally answer the question

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 1. Model Case a) - provide a concrete case that would make one say Yes to the question, i.e., a clear, uncontroversial case - a concrete case is a specific, particular case, no general statements, one that we can visualize - needs to be a short paragraph DO NOT WRITE A SHORT STORY b) why is this a good example of a model case? - if you cant say why, then you should come up with another example c) Rorschach lists (picture the concrete case in your mind) - for each concept, write down (list) words or phrases that come to youdo not censor them - the idea is very similar to the Rorschach (inkblot) test in psychology - in fact we will call these Rorschach lists e.g., animals

think

2. Contrary Case a) provide a clear concrete case in which one would answer No to the question b) why is this a good example of a contrary case? c) Rorschach lists animals

thinking

Conceptual Lecture 2
Step. 3 Borderline Case a) provide a concrete case in which you feel pulled toward both Yes and No to the conceptual question b) why is this a good example of a borderline case? - say why it pulls to Yes - say why it pulls to No c) Rorschach lists

Step 4: Related Concept - concepts are related to, and depend on, other concepts (not just as synonyms) - e.g. the concept of punishment is related to e.g. the concept of crime a) Name a concept related to one or both of the original concepts - it must not be an example or a synonym - related concepts must help us to answer the question - think of the related concept as a bridging term between the two concepts b) why is this a good related concept? - explain why this concept will help you to explain the concepts in question c) create a conceptual question using this concept and one (or both) of the concepts in question (without changing any of them in the slightest) and do a complete model case (a, b, c) and contrary case (a, b, c), using the original concepts in your Rorschach lists - it must not be a question of fact - nor a question of value - it has to be an open question, not a question that is obviously yes or no

Step 5: Invented Case a) beginning with the words Imagine a world where, describe a thought experiment (concrete case) where things are very different from the real world b) why is this a good example of an invented case (7 criteria)? (i) - its got to be invented (not from real life) (ii) - it cannot mirror or parallel the real world (e.g. space aliens who live on Saturn and move

to one of its moon for a better lifethis mirrors people who live in Toronto and move to Florida for a better life) (iii) - its got to be relevant to the concepts (Imagine a world where people dont have emotions cannot possibly help us with the question Are emotions irrational (iv) - we should be able to visualize the case (v) - it should not be true of some people (vi) - it shouldnt try to obviously answer the question c) Rorschach lists

Conceptual Lecture 3
6. Social Context (objective, third person) a) Who would ask this question, under what circumstances would they ask it, and why would they ask it? - for this section, need an explicit and plausible bridge to the conceptual question - for this section, dont use philosophers (they ask all sorts of conceptual questions) or someone in a debateuse everyday people b) Why is this a good context to place the question in? (justification) = what difference would it make if they concluded yes, if they concluded no? c) Rorschach lists

7. Emotional Context (subjective, first person, called Underlying Anxiety in course kit) - closely connected to social context, and sometimes they overlap, so try to use examples/cases that are different - here the context is emotional (subjective), not social (objective) a) State immediately: What sort of feeling or worry of yours would cause you to ask this question, specify the context, then state why would you ask it? - you need to role play here (to use acting language) - you need an explicit and plausible bridge from the feeling or worry to the conceptual question b) Why is this a good context to place the question in? (justification) = what difference would it make to you if you concluded yes, concluded no? c) Rorschach lists

8. Practical Results - all about consequences - whether or not we like the answer is irrelevant a) What would happen in the real world if the answer to the question were Yes? - range over lots of categories - some, if not obvious, will need a brief because b) What would happen in the real world if the answer to the question were No? - give lots of categories c) Which one of these worlds is closer to our own world (here in Toronto)? (brief why)

d) Rorschach lists based on c)

Conceptual Lecture 4
9. Results

a) Total Rorschach Lists: one list for the primary concept, one for the secondary concept - simply copy and paste from your Steps 1-8

b) Long list of Meanings: - looking repeatedly through your Total Rorschach lists, draw out the different meanings (explicit or implicit) for your two concepts giving each a brief label (a word or phrase) - meanings are from ordinary language and answer the question, What do you by x? - then briefly define (sentence) each meaning (using an example only if needed) - an itemized list Note: meanings are NOT related concepts or features - you have to figure out whether you have an actual meaning - ask yourself questions Note: the purpose of this exercise is NOT to bring out all the meanings of the two terms, only the meanings that come out of your own personal Rorschach lists - hence theres no point in consulting dictionaries or emailing classmates to see what they got

c) Short list of Meanings: For each label in your long list, give a brief rationale for why that meaning makes it into the short list or not - i.e., you have to plug it into the conceptual question and it must make sense when you plug it into the conceptual question - you have to specifically tell me why it makes sense or does not make sense

d) Conditionals + Ultimate Answer to the Conceptual Question (Yes, No, or Qualified) - begin with a quick tally of short list labels - then use only your short list meanings to make conditionals - suppose you have X a b c Y m n - this makes 6 conditionals

- each conditional should read If by [primary concept] you mean [use the label] and if by [secondary concept] you mean [use the label], then NO love is not selfish because . [ex-

plain using the definitions] - the because must follow solely from the meanings and you have to tell me so - what is true of individual people or statistically is totally irrelevant when answering a conditional - you have to ask yourself whether the second meaning necessarily follows from, or is necessarily connected with, the first meaning - What ifs? are totally irrelevant - some (extremely rare few) will be Y and N, then Yes because., No because.

- then you give your ultimate answer to the conceptual question - either a Yes (when all the conditionals are yes), No (when all the conditionals are no), or Qualified (when you have any mixture), followed by a because

Conceptual Lecture 5
- the essay involves no external sources whatsoever (including dictionaries); it should all be your own work - Staple + Cover Page (typed) + Steps 19 (typed) + Essay (starts on separate page, typed, dbl. space, 12-pt font, Times New Roman or Garamond) - no folders or binders Opening Paragraph - state your conceptual question - state how many long list meanings you have for each concept (nothing more) - state your ultimate answer to the conceptual question - do nothing more (avoid flourishes etc.) - you may use first person - indented paragraphs (no extra space between paragraphs) Body of the Essay - begin with a guide line, saying that you are now going to turn to the meanings of the concepts - never refer to your Steps 19 or any of your cases - never use bold or underlining in your essay; to refer to a concept, use italics - in the essay we are only dealing with the results of our steps (i) provide a separate paragraph for each meaning in your long list - in each paragraph, provide the label, provide the definition (using an example if necessary), and that provide a brief rationale for whether it makes it into the short list - at the end, provide a summary of how many short list meanings you have for each concept (ii) begin with a guide line, saying you are now turning to your conditionals - these will be the same as in your Step 9 - each conditional gets its own separate paragraph - the process of explanation - your goal is to make things clear and concise (and use an example if it helps) - but you must be clear in your own mind to begin with - then you have to check your writing to see if it really says what you meant to say Concluding Paragraph - Start with In sum, or In conclusion, - then state how many short list meanings you had for each concept - then state how many of your conditional were Yes and how many were No - then state what your ultimate conclusion to the conceptual question is (Yes, No, or Qualified) - do absolutely nothing more!

Note - do not email me (or anyone else) questions about your assignment - this is not an Internet course - the teaching is over - you are to fly alone (do not even use a dictionary) - do not email me your assignment, not even for verification - the course kit tells you where to take late assignments - computer excuses will not be accepted

Conceptual Analysis Assignment

Name: Student #: Course Name and #: Professors Name:

Step 1 Model Case a) b) c)

Step 2 Contrary Case a) b) c)

Step 3 Borderline Case a) b) c)

Step 4 Related Concept a) b) Model Case: a) b) c) Contrary Case: a) b)

c)

Step 5 Invented Case a) b) c)

Step 6 Social Context a) b) c)

Step 7 Emotional Context a) b) c)

Step 8 Practical Implications a) b) c) d)

Step 9 Meanings and Ultimate Answer a) b)

c) d)

Essay

Passage Lecture 1
Step 1 - state the main conclusion [one sentence], then state briefly why you think you have the right answer (your evidence, not stuff from Step 2) Step 2 (put all of it on one page, i.e. dont make your reader flip pages) - extract (map) the argumentneed map and indented legend (exclude what are explanations, illustrative examples, trivial definitions, personal feelings, fluff,etc.) - then look at what you have left and figure out why its there - when extracting the structure of an argument, Conclusion on top, major premises below them, then their supporting premises below them - what is lower should give support to what is higher (hence the arrows go up)

(New and Improved Version) G. Lowes Dickinson, A Modern Symposium [my new and improved map]

C P1 P2 P4 P5 P6 P3 P7 P9 P8 P10

C) Aristocracy is the best political system 1) An upper class presupposes a class of workers to support it as mere means 2) Exploitation of the lower by the higher is the law of the world in which we live 4) In all of nature, every kind exists only to be the means of supporting life in another 5) Everywhere the higher preys upon the lower 6) Everywhere the Good is parasitic on the Bad 3) The way of nature is also the way of human society 7) Ancient Greece was the greatest civilization of Europe 9) Those who have eyes to see and read history with an impartial mind and a white light agree that ancient Greece was the greatest civilization of Europe 8) Slavery was essential to ancient Greece 10) Without slavery ancient Greece would not have produced greats such as Pericles, Phidias, Sophocles, and Plato

Note #1: - P1 might not make a lot of sense as the main premise, but the author does use the word For right after he states his main conclusion, and for is a premise indicator Note #2: - suppose that below P10 you had an arrow going downward, with a statement saying who Plato was etc. - that is not a premise - extra information, consequences, etc., are not premises, they dont support the truth of what is above

Step 3 - (i) - apply overall sufficiency to the argument in Step 2 - is there anything glaringly missing in the argument that should be there? - (ii) - apply relevance to the passage as a whole - is there anything glaringly irrelevant in the passage, anything that should not be there, anything that wastes our time? - note: you can have an irrelevant premise in Step 2, if it was given by the author as a premise but is, e.g., an ad hominem statement or a fallacious appeal to authority - (iii) - apply acceptability to each premise in your Step 2 (restate each premise, dont simply use the premise number) - acceptable = public knowledge/truth (includes science, which trumps the public) (- notice that common knowledge statements do not need to be backed up) - unacceptable = known to be false, or truth or falsity is uncertain (still debated by the experts), or involves a very unclear concept, or commits a fallacy (most fallacies are not in a single premise) Step 4 - examine the argument of the passage (Step 2) for any fallacies (explain each) - [review your notes on fallacies]

Passage Lecture 2
Step 5 - formulate the main conceptual question with which the passage is concerned and briefly justify your answer - make the main conceptual question as close to the main conclusion as possible, the latter as the answer if possible Step 6 - do a brief conceptual analysis using the conceptual question in Step 5 - 1a) model case - 2a) contrary case - 3a) borderline case - 4) r.c. and r.c.q. only - 5a) invented case - 6a) social context - 7a) emotional context - 8a) practical results - 9b) meanings (labels and definitions) Step 7 - list the key (pivotal) concepts in Step 2 - the key (pivotal) concepts must be part of the argument structure in Step 2, but does not include all concepts in Step 2 Step 8 - (keeping your own analysis in mind from Step 6), critically evaluate the authors use of the key concepts (Step 7). For each concept do (i, ii, iii) then move onto the next - (i) is the meaning clear in the passage and what is it? (give the paragraph for each part of the meaning) - you need to reconstruct the authors meaning from his use and from his examples - to say its not clear is to say its impossible to reconstruct - use the principle of charity: if theres no indication they mean anything different than what we commonly mean, then say they probably mean what we commonly mean - (ii) is it used in a sense too narrow or too wide or just right (say why)? - somebody can be clear in their use of a concept but its in a strange way - (iii) is it used consistently throughout the passage (equivocation)? - note: if is used only once, then say it has to be consistent because its used only once

Step 9 - is about outlining = a table of contents - an outline has major headings and minor headings (labels, no content)

so, e.g. (this is not a good example, not a logical order, do not use it):

introduction

fallacies premise acceptability argument structure main conclusion and justification overall sufficiency glaring irrelevancies key concepts

conclusion

Passage Lecture 3
Notes: 1) never use bold or underlining in an essay. To refer to a word, phrase, or premise, use italics (quotations marks are best reserved for quotations) 2) never use premise numbers in the essay, only the actual premises 3) introduce each section of the essay with a guideline, e.g., for key concepts, state youre now turning to key concepts and state how many you have Introductory paragraph - state author and title of passage (if any) - state what the passage is about and what the author argues for - in one sentence state the main problem with the passage Body (the critical part) - (a) main conclusion (same as Step 1) - (b) concepts (this basically represents the work you did in Step 8) - a paragraph for each key concept (i, ii, iii) - (c) if any fallacies, focus only on the main ones committed (they must refer to Step 2) - state the fallacy, where its committed, and how its committed - do NOT list each premise, and then say whether it has a fallacythats ridiculous - (d) premise acceptability: state the premises, then whether its acceptable, and why, a paragraph for each premise) - (e) a paragraph discussing overall sufficiency - (f) a paragraph discussing glaring irrelevancies - (g) the argument structure in paragraphs - after the leader line, you should state the number of main supporting premises - then, if, say, three main premises, each with a support, break into three paragraphs - there is no hard and fast rule, but try to break it into paragraphs logically - you may change the above order of a, b, c, d, e, f, g - in all of this keep in mind that your personal opinion or feelings are irrelevant Concluding paragraph - start with In conclusion - remind the reader what the passage argues for (the main conclusion) and what you found to be the main problem with the passage - do not inject your own personal views on the topic.

Passage Analysis Assignment

Name: Student #: Course Name and #: Professors Name:

Passage Name:

Step 1 Main Conclusion and Justification

Step 2 Argument Map and Indented Legend (all on one page if possible)

Step 3 Premise Analysis a) Glaring Insufficiencies b) Glaring Irrelevancies c) Premise Acceptability

Step 4 Fallacies

Step 5 Main Conceptual Question

Step 6 Brief Conceptual Analysis 1 a) 2 a) 3 a) 4 a) RC and RCQ 5 a) 6 a) 7 a) 8 a) 9 b)

Step 7 Key Concept List

Step 8 Key Concept Analysis

Step 9 Table of Contents

Essay

Article Lecture 1
- article analysis techniques are mostly the same as passage analysis techniques, except step 2 step 0, read the article straight through (1x, 2x, 3x)relieves anxiety step 1, same as before (meaning the Passage steps), state the main conclusion and defend why you think you have the correct answer step 2, par. summary first (do not put in essay) then map out the argumentneed map and indented legend step 3, same as before, critique for relevance, sufficiency, and acceptability (ten of the most worthy premises) step 4, same as before, critique for main fallacies: name main fallacy, then refer to premise numbers in map (quote the premises) and explain how the fallacy is committed step 5, I want you to formulate two conceptual questions step 6, pick one of the questions in step 5 and do a brief conceptual analysis step 7, same as before, list the key concepts around which the argument turns + add in the par. #s in which the concept occurs step 8, same as before, critically evaluate the authors use of the main concepts step 9, same as before

Article Analysis Assignment

Name: Student #: Course Name and #: Professors Name:

Article Name:

Step 1 Main Conclusion and Justification

Step 2 Argument Structure (map and legend all on one page if possible) Paragraph Summary

Argument Map

Argument Legend

Step 3 Premise Analysis a) Glaring Insufficiencies b) Glaring Irrelevancies c) Premise Acceptability

Step 4 Fallacies

Step 5 Main Conceptual Questions

Step 6 Brief Conceptual Analysis 1 a) 2 a) 3 a) 4 a) RC and RCQ 5 a) 6 a) 7 a)

8 a) 9 b)

Step 7 Key Concept List

Step 8 Key Concept Analysis

Step 9 Table of Contents

Essay