A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide

Logical fallacy: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Logical fallacy (view source)

Revision as of 02:13, 4 August 2023

2,737 bytes added ,  4 August 2023
m
→‎Logical and Rhetorical strategies & the logical fallacy it represents
VisualWikitext
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Logical fallacies''', or '''logical errors,''' are erroneous, illogical, or misleading arguments or claims; also called " informal logic fallacies"
'''Logical fallacies''', or '''logical errors,''' are erroneous, illogical, or misleading arguments or claims; also called " informal logic fallacies"
This article includes "rhetorical tricks" (redirects to here)
* erroneous = contains an error of fact or  
* erroneous = contains an error of fact or  
* illogical = draws a conclusion not supported by premises
* illogical = draws a conclusion not supported by premises
Line 5: Line 7:
See [[Social_Studies_skills#Logical_and_observational_fallacies_&_paradoxes|Social Studies skills: Logical and observational fallacies & paradoxes]] for list of logical and observational fallacies regarding the Social Sciences.
See [[Social_Studies_skills#Logical_and_observational_fallacies_&_paradoxes|Social Studies skills: Logical and observational fallacies & paradoxes]] for list of logical and observational fallacies regarding the Social Sciences.


==Logical fallacies and tricks==
'''<big>Introduction</big>'''
 
* as an independent study, logic is not taught in secondary schools
** nevertheless, it is used in all disciplines
** math equations are logic-based
** social students arguments are logic-based
** literary comprehension and analysis employs logic
* it is less important for students to learn the names of the fallacies (which is useful) than to recognize when a logical fallacy is used.
* therefore,
** the first chapter below categorizes logical and rhetorical fallacies, then identifies the name
** the subsequent chapters is alphabetical list of logical and rhetorical fallacies and their definitions
 
== Logical and Rhetorical strategies & the logical fallacy it represents ==
 
* "Rhetorical strategy" = a technique for presenting an argument, not the argument itself
** i.e., the word choice and structure, presentation technique, etc.
* "Logical strategy" = the actual argument and how it is structured
* "Logical fallacy it represents" = the term and definition of the rhetorical or logical strategy employed
 
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Rhetorical strategy
!Logical strategy
!Logical Fallacy it represents
!Definition
|-
|Accuse opponent of bad character or moral shortcoming
Insults such as ''inhumane, Communist, Nazi, bigoted, sociopathic'', etc., or even milder flaws such as ''insensitivity, selfishness'', etc.
|
|''ad hominem''
|
|-
|Only allows for two sides to an argument, or giving only two options, such as yes or no and no in between
|
|
|
|-
|Ask a question that assumes an answer
|
|rhetorical question
|
|-
|Offer only two alternatives (either this or that)
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}
 
==Logical fallacies==


* also called "rhetorical fallacies"
* also called "rhetorical fallacies"
Line 15: Line 70:
** similar to a "false equivalency" that may include making an argument that "impugns" (insults, denigrates) the opponent's integrity through an association with someone or something else that is otherwise unrelated to the opponent's argument
** similar to a "false equivalency" that may include making an argument that "impugns" (insults, denigrates) the opponent's integrity through an association with someone or something else that is otherwise unrelated to the opponent's argument
*** ex.: "My opponent believes in private schools, just like all racists do"
*** ex.: "My opponent believes in private schools, just like all racists do"
* can be a valid argument:
* can be a valid argument: see: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/ Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem - Scientific American]
** see: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/character-attack/ Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem - Scientific American]
* <u>fallacy</u>: makes an illogical comparison


=== ad populum / bandwagon appeal ===
=== ad populum / bandwagon appeal ===
Line 24: Line 79:
**ex.: "We're in a drought"
**ex.: "We're in a drought"
***exception: "But it rained the other day"
***exception: "But it rained the other day"
***fallacy: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over
*<u>fallacy</u>: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over


=== association fallacy ===
=== association fallacy ===
Line 30: Line 85:
*equates having similar ideas or circumstances to a group as being the same as that group
*equates having similar ideas or circumstances to a group as being the same as that group
**ex. "You think smoking is bad. Hitler thought smoking was bad."
**ex. "You think smoking is bad. Hitler thought smoking was bad."
*= a type of ''ad hominem'' argument
*<u>fallacy</u>: a type of ''ad hominem'' argument
 
=== begging the question ===


=== broken leg fallacy ===
=== broken leg fallacy ===
Line 46: Line 99:
===either-or fallacy===
===either-or fallacy===
*incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities
*incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities
*<u>fallacy</u>: illogically confines or limits the argument 
===fallacy of relevance===
===fallacy of relevance===
=== false dilemma ===
* similar to "either/or" fallacy
* limits the argument to certain premises
** thereby denying other possible premises or explanations for an argument
* = a type of "[[wikipedia:Disjunction|disjunctive claim]]"
===false equivalence===
===false equivalence===
*illogical comparison of dissimilar subjects
*illogical comparison of dissimilar subjects
Line 53: Line 115:
*fallacy that of the origins of something determine its value
*fallacy that of the origins of something determine its value
**ex., the VW was designed by Hitler, and Hitler is evil, therefore the VW is evil
**ex., the VW was designed by Hitler, and Hitler is evil, therefore the VW is evil
=== Gish gallop ===
* rapid use of multiple arguments in order to overwhelm a debate or argument
** avoids scrutiny of individual arguments
** named for Duane Gish who spoke rapidly and without allowing the opponent to intervene or analyze each individual arguments
*** "gallap" indicates rapidly running horse
* defense against a Gish gallop is achieved by focusing on only one or a few of the core arguments that would thereby undermined the logical basis of all the others presented in the Gish gallop
===hasty generalization===
===hasty generalization===
===''ignoratio elenchi''===
* an argument that misses the point
===moral equivalence fallacy===
===moral equivalence fallacy===
*illogically compares things of distinct moral or ethical dimensions
*illogically compares things of distinct moral or ethical dimensions
Line 78: Line 130:
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
**Fallacies – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (unc.edu)
**Fallacies – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (unc.edu)
See also


== Rhetorical tricks ==
* In addition to use of logical fallacies
** students should be able to recognize use of "rhetorical tricks"
* many logical fallacies are also "rhetorical tricks," but here we will focus on those that are not-logic based fallacies
* they are more about a method of presentation (rhetorical device) than logic/illogic
=== begging the question ===
=== dodging the issue ===
* speaker or debater briefly mentions the topic, then discusses something else
* goal is to change the topic
=== Gish gallop ===
* rapid use of multiple arguments in order to overwhelm a debate or argument
** avoids scrutiny of individual arguments
** named for Duane Gish who spoke rapidly and without allowing the opponent to intervene or analyze each individual arguments
*** "gallop" indicates rapidly running horse
* defense against a Gish gallop is achieved by focusing on only one or a few of the core arguments that would thereby undermined the logical basis of all the others presented in the Gish gallop
=== ''ignoratio elenchi'' ===
* an argument that misses the point
* may be used as a deliberate "dodge"
=== weasel words ===
* words and phrases that create the impression that something meaningful has been said, but actually only makes a vague or ambiguous claim
== See also ==
* [[Rhetorical analysis]]
* [[Rhetorical analysis]]
[[Category:Language Arts]]
[[Category:Language Arts]]
[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Rhetoric]]
[[Category:Social Sciences]]
[[Category:Social Sciences]]
Retrieved from "https://school4schools.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/4216...4254"