Critical Thinking #8

 Critical Thinking #8   Fallacies

An argument can be sound (have the proper structure of premises and conclusion) and valid (premises are true and the conclusion logically follows), but if one does not use logical reasoning to offer a conclusion, the argument is wrong, incorrect.

"A logical fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, and a fallacious argument is an argument that contains a fallacy."

We prepare ourselves to argue as critical thinkers by:

> becoming familiar with common fallacies

>evaluating the assumptions in an argument

>finding the conclusion and determining if the premises are relevant to it

>looking for things that distract from the main point

Toward that end I want to identify and define twelve of the most common fallacies that prevent reasonable debate and keep us from coming to better solutions.

1. Red Herring:  this is when an arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the listener(s) from the main topic under consideration. You do not argue economics by getting side tracked discussing Nobel Prize winners.

2. Appeal to Popularity:  here is when the arguer tries to strengthen the argument by claiming "everybody" shares the belief, preference, or habit. Individual responsibility is ignored.

3. Slippery Slope:  the arguer claims one event will lead to a chain of events that result in an undesired outcome. There is no reason to assume the sequence will happen.

4.Appeal to Ignorance:  the arguer claims that since something cannot be disproved, it must be true. The arguer is avoiding the responsibility to provide evidence if their claim is to be accepted.

5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"):  this is the classic confusion of correlation and causation. This is a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. Just because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily mean one caused the other.

6. Straw Man:  this occurs when the arguer distorts the opposing position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted argument rather than the real one. The purpose is to misrepresent the motives of the opposition, distorting its position.

7. Ad Hominem:  this happens when the arguer attacks the opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances. It attacks a person rather than providing evidence for an argument.

8. Begging the Question: listening carefully, one can hear the similarity between premises and conclusion; one simply repeats the other. The truth of the premise is assumed to be true by the conclusion. This fallacy just repeats the claim twice.

9. Weak Analogy: this fallacy occurs when the comparison of two things is irrelevant or so weak as to be meaningless.

10. Unqualified Authority:  the arguer tries to prove a point by appealing to someone who is not an expert in the field or is unqualified to give advice that something is true. A baseball player probably would not be performing brain surgery.

11. Appeal to Emotion:  the arguer tries to persuade by appealing to fear, pity, patriotism, or flattery instead of using rational arguments. Emotion is useful but not strong enough to stand on its own as evidence.

12. False Dichotomy:  this fallacy falsely uses an either/or choice. The arguer offers a situation with only two possible outcomes, and one of them is overwhelmingly preferable, maybe even opposites.

If you accept premises without question or verification, you might end up agreeing to something you would not otherwise.

Critical Thinking #7

Critical Thinking #7  Arguments

It has been awhile since my last blog. Our world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket, what with white supremist, bigoted, domestic terrorists on the one hand and evil, authoritarian despots attacking global democracy on the other. I remain an optimist, affirming the good in people and the energy in youth. That's why I continue to teach and off this crash course on critical thinking, believing it can help us navigate out way through today's challenges.

So, lesson #7 Arguments. Our world is very polarized, full of arguments. That is why it is necessary and important to stop and define the word. I am not talking about the emotional screaming we do everyday, failing to listen to others and refusing to seek understanding within the chaos. Rather, here and in the classroom and, hopefully, in the circles we can influence, an argument is better understood as a "process." It is an attempt to work our way through our disagreements to arrive at a better solution. It is collaboration, not competition. Seen this way, we humanize those with whom we disagree instead of demonizing them.

An argument is a process, most effective when others can understand how we got to the conclusion we did. It technically has two parts: premises/reasons/evidence that lead to a conclusion or claim. Arguments preferably have more than one premise but definitely only one conclusion.

There are two types of arguments: (1) deductive arguments go from general premises to a specific conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. Deductive arguments offer certainty. (2) inductive arguments offer reasonable certainty. They go from specific premises to general conclusions. These premises offer some evidence. Inductive arguments rely on the quality of the evidence. Having said this, you might recognize that the scientific method relies heavily on inductive reasoning/arguments. 

Two more terms are relevant here. A SOUND argument is one that has the correct structure (premises that flow into a conclusion) and all the premises are true. A VALID argument is one in which the conclusion logically follows from the premises. If a premise is not true, the argument is not sound but can be valid. NOTICE THE NECESSITY OF VERIFYING THE TRUTH OF PREMISES!

One other word before leaving this step in critical thinking. An enthymeme is an unstated assumption. It can cause horrendous problems when unchallenged. They can be true, but not always.

In conclusion, how do we engage in civil arguments?

Listen, really listen to understand.

When engaged in the process, look for indicator words such as "therefore" and "in conclusion."

Ask yourself and the other, "what is the main point?"

Examine the claims, the language, and the quality of the evidence.

(1) are the claims reasonable? (2) do the premises support the conclusion? (3) how relevant are the types of evidence used? (4) how strong is the evidence? (5) what is the tone [combative, compelling, pleading] of the author of the evidence? (6) is the language emotive? (7) is the evidence credible and the source of the evidence credible?

Do I have the intellectual humility to admit when I am wrong? The point of an argument is not to win but to come to a better understanding.