4,618
edits
Logical fallacy: Difference between revisions
m
→Logical fallacies and tricks
| 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 | ==Logical fallacies== | ||
* also called "rhetorical fallacies" | * also called "rhetorical fallacies" | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
** 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] | ||
* <u>fallacy</u>: makes an illogical comparison | |||
=== ad populum / bandwagon appeal === | === ad populum / bandwagon appeal === | ||
| Line 24: | Line 26: | ||
**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" | ||
* | *<u>fallacy</u>: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over | ||
=== association fallacy === | === association fallacy === | ||
| Line 30: | Line 32: | ||
*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." | ||
* | *<u>fallacy</u>: a type of ''ad hominem'' argument | ||
=== broken leg fallacy === | === broken leg fallacy === | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
===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 equivalence=== | ===false equivalence=== | ||
| Line 53: | Line 54: | ||
*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 | ||
===hasty generalization=== | ===hasty generalization=== | ||
===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 69: | ||
**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) | ||
== 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]] | ||