4,842
edits
Social Studies skills: Difference between revisions
→Fallacies and logical tricks: building up list of logical fallacies and motte-bailey doctrine & benchmark fallacy
(→Contingency: adding regression analysis) |
(→Fallacies and logical tricks: building up list of logical fallacies and motte-bailey doctrine & benchmark fallacy) |
||
| Line 483: | Line 483: | ||
=== Fallacies and logical tricks === | === Fallacies and logical tricks === | ||
* | * begging the question | ||
** | * strawman fallacy | ||
** = the target of an argument (the "strawman") has nothing to do with the actual argument | |||
* either-or fallacy | |||
** incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities | |||
* Fallacy of Relevance | |||
* ''ignoratio elenchi'' an argument that misses the point | |||
* red herring | |||
* non sequitur | |||
** " Humpty Dumptying" or "Humpty Dumptyisms": | |||
** = an "arbitrary redefinition" like that used by Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland" | |||
** who tells Alice, "“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” | |||
* see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies | |||
* Motte-and-Bailey fallacy | ==== Benchmark fallacy ==== | ||
* | * a logical or statistical fallacy that measures incompatible data or other comparison point ("benchmark") | ||
* examples: | |||
** using a date of reference (benchmark) in order to hide a statistical trend from its true nature | |||
*** also called "cherry-picking" of dates or data | |||
** commonly used by stock market observers in order to exaggerate or minimize the extent of a stock's rise or fall | |||
** commonly used by politicians to make claims for or against themselves or opponents, such as: | |||
click EXPAND for an example of a benchmark fallacy | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
Ex. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ '''Housing Starts 2000-2021 selected years ''' | |||
|- | |||
| 2000 || 2006 || 2009 || 2015 || 2021 | |||
|- | |||
| 1.65 mm || 2.25mm|| 0.50 mm || 1.2mm || 1.7 mm | |||
|} | |||
* mm = millions | |||
* numbers are approximate | |||
** source: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/housing-starts | |||
* benchmark fallacies using this data might include: | |||
** a politician wanting to exaggerate a ''decline'' in housing starts might select 2005 as the benchmark date for 2021 rates (thus 2021 would have a lower rate of housing starts than 2005); conversely, | |||
** a politician wanting to exaggerate a ''rise'' in housing starts might select 2009 as the benchmark date for 2021 rates (thus 2021 would have a higher rate of housing starts than 2009) | |||
</div> | |||
==== Kafka Trap ==== | |||
* a logical trap whereby the argument uses its own refutation as evidence of a fallacy | |||
** i.e., "because you deny it, it must be true" | |||
* the term refers to the dystopian novel by Franz Kafka "The Trial," in which a man's denial of a charge was used as evidence of his guilt | |||
* the "Kafka trap" was coined by Eric Raymond as "Kafkatrapping" in 2010 article | |||
==== Motte and Bailey Doctrine ==== | |||
* or the "Motte and Bailey fallacy" | |||
* a fallacy of exaggeration in which an argument is presented with absurd exaggerations ("the Motte") and if objected to is replaced by an undoubtedly true but hardly controversial statement ("the Bailey", which is then used to advance the original exaggerated claim | |||
click EXPAND for more on Motte and Bailey Doctrine: | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
* the term refers to a protected medieval castle and nearby indefensible village | |||
** the Motte is the defensible, protected tower but is not appealing to live in (built on a mound or "motte") | |||
* the Bailey is an appealing place to live but cannot be defended | |||
* if attacked, the occupants of the retreat to the Motte for safety | |||
* thus the exaggerated and fallacious (untrue) argument appears more reasonable | |||
</div> | |||
* the Motte and Bailey Doctrine frequently employs | |||
** "strawman fallacy" | |||
** ''Humpty Dumptying'' | |||
** "either-or" fallacy | |||
** "red herring" fallacy | |||
click EXPAND for an example of a Motte and Bailey fallacy regarding a gun control debate: | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
<pre> | |||
Person A. "Guns don't kill people, people do" (the Bailey) | |||
Person B. "But that won't stop people from using guns to kill people." | |||
Person A. "Yeah, but guns are legal" (the Motte) | |||
Person A has conflated (confused or joined illogically) the legality of guns with their use. | |||
</pre> | |||
or on the opposite side: | |||
<pre> | |||
Person A. "Gun control keeps criminals from committing crimes with guns" (the Bailey) | |||
Person B. "But criminals commit crimes and won't obey gun control laws." | |||
Person A. "Either way, it's bad when guns are used to murder people." (the Motte) | |||
</pre> | |||
</div> | |||
* term coined by [https://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf Prof. Nicholas Shackel in the paper, The Vacuity of Postmodernist | |||
Methodology] | |||
click EXPAND for excerpt from Shackel explaining the Motte and Bailey Doctrine: | |||
<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> | |||
<pre> | |||
A Troll’s Truism is a mildly ambiguous statement by which an exciting falsehood | |||
may trade on a trivial truth .... | |||
Troll’s Truisms are used to insinuate an exciting falsehood, which is a desired doctrine, | |||
yet permit retreat to the trivial truth when pressed by an opponent. In so doing they | |||
exhibit a property which makes them the simplest possible case of what I shall call a | |||
Motte and Bailey Doctrine (since a doctrine can single belief or an entire body of beliefs.) | |||
A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a | |||
mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is | |||
encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is | |||
not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the | |||
Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain | |||
despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of | |||
attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not | |||
defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but | |||
defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is | |||
well placed to reoccupy desirable land. | |||
For my purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and | |||
Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents a philosophical doctrine or position | |||
with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is | |||
the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.</pre> | |||
</div> | |||
==Standards/ Standardization== | ==Standards/ Standardization== | ||