FORMAL LOGIC: IDENTIFYING AND REFUTING 'LOGICAL FALLACIES'
Logical fallacies are statements that seem to be true until you apply the rules of logic to them. Logical fallacies are often used to mislead you, to trick you into believing something you otherwise would not. If you've been taken in by logical fallacies, the false conclusions they lead to can result in decisions you may regret later. Logical fallacies are examples of informal logic and are common. In this important module, you will learn to identify and refute the fifty most common and dangerous logical fallacies,.
- The 'Ad Hominem fallacy,' which literally means ‘to the man.,’ is where you are attacked personally instead of your arguments.
- The 'Tu Quoque fallacy' - an invalid attempt to discredit your argument by answering criticism with criticism -- without presenting a counterargument
- The 'Straw Man fallacy is when your opponent over-simplifies or misrepresents your argument (i.e., setting up a "straw man") to make it easier to attack
- The 'False Dilemma Fallacy' misleads by presenting complex issues in terms of simply two inherently opposed sides.
- The 'Poisoning the Well fallacy occurs when irrelevant negative information is presented ahead of time to discredit your argument. Poisoning the well represents a preemptive ad hominem attack against you.
- 'Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc,' this fallacy is committed when an argument claims that because one event followed another, it was caused by or analogous to it.
- The 'Equivocation fallacy' occurs when the context is an argument, and the conclusion depends on shifting the meaning of an expression while treating it as if it remains the same.
- 'Appeal to Authority,' this fallacy Insists that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence.
- The 'No True Scotsman' is Where a universal (“all,” “every,” etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim.
- 'Unfalsifiabilty' is an important fallacy that we need to identify and refute. It is the assertion that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though that theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted.
|
- Recognizing and producing arguments in standard form
- 'Appeal to Authority,' this fallacy Insists that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence.
- The 'Appeal to False Authority fallacy' uses an alleged or an unidentified as evidence in your opponent's argument.
- 'Argumentum ad ignorantiam,' this fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim
- 'Red Herring,' In this fallacy, your opponent redirects the argument to another issue to which they can better respond to
- 'Confirmation bias' is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values and ignores contrary information.
- The 'Begging the Question fallacy' is any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises
- The Galileo fallacy,' claims that because an idea is forgotten, detested, prosecuted or otherwise mocked, it must be true, or at least it should be given credibility.
- 'If by Whisky' speaks to a situation where an individual's response to a question is
contingent on the questioner’s opinions and makes use of words that appear to support both sides of an issue
Register Now
|
