MNG2102 Ch5 Faulty Reasoning PDF

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING - MNG2102 LECTURER: MS. TRACY ALVES EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: 696-2075 Faulty Reasoning  Faulty reasoning in critical thinking refers to flawed logic or errors in reasoning that can lead to incorrect conclusions. These errors...

INTRODUCTION TO CRITICAL THINKING - MNG2102 LECTURER: MS. TRACY ALVES EMAIL: [email protected] TEL: 696-2075 Faulty Reasoning  Faulty reasoning in critical thinking refers to flawed logic or errors in reasoning that can lead to incorrect conclusions. These errors often stem from personal biases, assumptions, or misconceptions.  Faulty reasons are referred to as fallacies. Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can seem plausible, and psychologically persuasive, though logically impotent.  For example, suppose you break a mirror and then got into an accident on your way to work. You conclude that “Breaking mirrors causes bad luck.” This is an illogical conclusion based on two unrelated incidents.  Basing conclusions on opinion rather than information or fact. Faulty Reasoning  Reasoning may be faulty due to:  Irrelevant Premises- These have no bearing on the truth of the conclusion. The argument may seem to offer reasons for accepting the conclusion, but the reason has nothing to do with the conclusion.  Unacceptable Premises – are relevant to the conclusion but yet dubious in some way. These may pertain to the conclusion but they do not adequately support it. Irrelevant Premise 1. Genetic fallacy 2. Composition 3. Division 4. Appeal to person 5. Equivocation 6. Appeal to popularity 7. Appeal to tradition 8. Appeal to ignorance 9. Appeal to emotion 10. Red herring 11. Straw man Unacceptable Premises 1. Begging the question 2. False dilemma 3. Slippery slope 4. Hasty generalization 5. Faulty analogy  Irrelevant: Genetic Fallacy  The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. Under the genetic fallacy, we judge a claim by paying too much attention to its source or history, even though this criticism is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.  As a result, we fail to present a case for why the argument itself lacks merit and to examine the reasons offered for it.  Genetic Fallacy Examples  Arguing that a claim is true or false based solely on the origin of the claim. Examples: 1. I have known the mayor since I was five years old. So, if she says that the commissioners are corrupt, then it must be true. 2. She is a teacher in a public school, so any claims that she makes about the public school system are biased and untrue. 3. The newspaper editor homeschools his children. So, any claims he makes about the public school system are biased and untrue. 4. My big brother told me that boys cannot be trusted, and I believe him. 5. My doctor is overweight, so I don't believe anything he tells me about improving my health. (SoftSchools.com) Composition  A fallacy of composition involves assuming that parts or members of a whole will have the same properties as the whole. This leads to wrong conclusions because what is true of the different parts is not necessarily true of the whole.  The fallacy of composition is a logical fallacy that occurs when the argument assumes that if something is true of one thing, it must be true of all things. It can be found in many arguments, including those about what to do with a given situation.  Composition- Examples  Argues what is true about the parts must be true about the whole. Examples: 1. This house is made of bricks. A brick is light in weight. Therefore, this house is also light in weight. 2. Example 2: “If we have all the best players on our team, we will always win.” Notice it is saying “always” win, and that it is expecting more from the parts (players) than the whole team can deliver. Winning involves much more than having good players. Indeed, a team with poor players can sometimes beat a team with better players. Having the best players does not equal having the best team or even the team that always wins. 3. Example 3: “Paul is the smartest student in our school. Since he is in my class, I must be in the smartest class.” Notice here that only one part (Paul) is used to assume that the whole (class) is what the single part is (smart). Division The fallacy of division refers to an attribution placed onto an entire class, assuming that each part has the same property as the whole. These can be physical objects, concepts, or groups of people. By grouping elements of a whole together and assuming that every piece automatically has a certain attribute, we are often stating a false argument. The fallacy of division is similar to the fallacy of composition but in reverse. The fallacy of division takes the form of: X has property P. Therefore, all parts (or members) of X have this property.  Division Example Argues what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. Examples: 1. The 2nd grade at my elementary school buys the most popsicles at lunch. Your brother is in 2nd grade at my school, so he must like to eat a lot of popsicles. 2. Women in the United States are paid less than men. Therefore, my mom must make less money than my dad. 3. Americans, on average, weigh more than Europeans. So, my European cousin who is visiting in a few weeks is going to be thinner than I am. 4. The boys in my neighborhood like to play basketball after school. So my new neighbor, Kevin, will like to play basketball with them. 5. I just read a report about teachers not being happy with how much they are paid. So, my Aunt Sarah who is a teacher must be unhappy with her salary. (SoftSchools.com) Appeal to Person/ ad hominem This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution. Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.  Appeal to person/ ad hominem  The rejection of a claim by criticizing the person who makes it rather than the claim itself. Examples: 1. A politician arguing that his opponent cannot possibly be a good choice for women because he has a religious conviction that causes him to be pro-life. 2. A lawyer who argues that his client should not be held responsible for theft because he is poor. 3. A parent who says that the teacher doesn't know how to teach because she graduated from a community college. 4. A mother who tells the pediatrician that she doesn't trust his judgment because he's never been a mother.  Equivocation  The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.  This change of meaning happens without warning, it renders the argument invalid or even misleading.  Equivocation  The use of a word in two different senses in an argument.  Equivocation fallacy example Premise 1: Annoying co-workers are a headache. Premise 2: Painkillers can help you get rid of a headache. Conclusion: Painkillers can help you get rid of annoying co-workers.  1- the end of everything is its perfection. The end of life is death. Therefore, death is the perfection of life.  2. Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.  3. Laws can only be created by law-givers. There are many laws of nature. Therefore, there must be a Law-Giver, namely, God. Appeal to Popularity/Masses  The appeal to popularity fallacy is made when an argument relies on public opinion to determine what is true, right, or good. This approach is problematic because popularity does not necessarily indicate something is true. Using this flaw in logic, a person may come to a conclusion that has little or no basis in fact.  Also called -Ad populum fallacy refers to a claim that something is true simply because that’s what a large number of people believe. In other words, if many people believe something to be true, then it must be true. Appeal to popularity/masses 1. Everyone says that it's okay to lie as long as you don't get caught. 2. It might be against the law to drink when you are 18 years old, but everyone does it, so it's okay. 3. 75% of the population believes that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, and I just can't vote for a liar. 4. There must be some truth to the fact that global warming is a hoax because approximately 25% of the population believes that it is a hoax! 5. Everyone already believes that the defendant killed her husband, and that many people can't be wrong. 6. (SoftSchools.com)  Appeal to Tradition  To appeal to tradition (ATT) means to ignore the evidence that we should change because we have been doing something for a long time.  The argument supports a position by appealing to long-standing or traditional opinion, as if the past itself were a kind of authority.  The appeal to tradition fallacy involves arguing that something is right solely because it has been accepted or practiced for a long time.  Tradition is treated as sufficient proof of an idea or behavior’s merit without evidence or analytical reasoning.  Appeal to Tradition  Arguing that a claim must be true because it is a part of tradition. Examples: 1. Church should begin at 11am because that's the time that we have always begun the church service. 2. The cheerleaders should be allowed to wear their uniforms to school on Fridays because that's the way we have always done it. It is a tradition at this school. 3. No one in this family has ever been divorced; therefore, you need to work out your marital problems. We don't get divorced! 4. Everyone in our family has gone to the University of Tennessee, so you need to apply to UT. (SoftSchools.com) Appeal to Ignorance  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.  The argument fails to provide the necessary foundation for proving a claim's accuracy.  Appeal to Ignorance  Arguing that lack of evidence proves something. A claim must be true because it has not been proven to be false and vice versa. Examples: 1. Since you haven't been able to prove your innocence, I must assume you're guilty. 2. You know that scientists can't prove that UFO's do not visit the Earth, so it makes sense to believe in them. 3. She hasn't said she doesn't like you, right? So she's probably interested. Call her up. 4. I thought I had every reason to think I was doing fine leading the group; no one complained. (http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy- definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html) Appeal to Emotion  Appeal to emotion fallacy occurs when someone tries to convince another person by evoking their feelings rather than providing evidence.  With the appeal to emotion fallacy, people accept a claim as true because they react emotionally to it. As a result, they focus on factors irrelevant to the question at hand, ignoring facts and logical reasoning.  Appeal to Emotion  Use of emotions as premises in an argument. Trying to persuade based on arousing feelings rather than presenting valid reasons. Examples: 1. Grocery store commercial that shows a happy family sitting around the table at Thanksgiving. 2. A real estate ad that shows a happy young family with children moving into the home of their dreams. 3. A politician who argues that the other party is going to cut spending and that will have a negative impact on grandmothers living on social security. 4. A political ad that shows the candidate shaking hands with the community as he leaves church on Sunday morning. (SoftSchools.com)  Red herring A red herring fallacy is a form of logical fallacy or reasoning error that occurs when a misleading argument or question is presented to distract from the main issue or argument at hand. Red herring refers to the piece of information that is used as a diversion.  Red herring  Deliberately raising an irrelevant issue during an argument. Examples: 1. When your mom gets your phone bill and you have gone over the limit, you begin talking to her about how hard your math class is and how well you did on a test today. 2. When you are late getting home-past curfew-you distract your parents by talking to them about the weather-how cold it is, or how rainy it is. 3. The mother of a young child tells him to go to bed, and he begins to ask questions, say that he is hungry, or say that he needs to go to the bathroom-all to avoid bed and distract mom. (SoftSchools.com)  Straw-Man Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual argument of the opponent, one may present a somewhat similar but not equal argument. By placing it in the opponent’s mouth and then attacking that version of the argument, one is essentially refuting an argument that is different from the one under discussion. Straw-Man  Distorting, weakening or oversimplifying someone’s position so it can be easily attacked or refuted. Examples: 1. Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless. 2. Caroline says that she thinks her friends should not be so rude to the new girl. Jenna says that she cannot believe that Caroline is choosing to be better friends with the new girl than the girls who have always known her. 3. Pamela is the class secretary. She says that she thinks that the class should do more service projects. Mark says he can't believe that Pamela doesn't support the annual school dance. (SoftSchools.com) Unacceptable: Begging the Question The fallacy of begging the question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. In other words, you assume without proof the position, or a significant part of the postion, that is in question. Begging the question is also called arguing in a circle. Unacceptable: Begging the Question  Circular argument- attempt to establish the conclusion of the argument by using the conclusion as a premise. P therefore, p.  Examples: 1. Everyone wants the new iPhone because it is the hottest new gadget on the market! 2. Killing people is wrong, so the death penalty is wrong. 3. Smoking cigarettes can kill you because cigarettes are deadly. 4. The rights of the criminal are just as important as the rights of the victim. Everyone's rights are equal. 5. Prosecutor to defendant: So how did you feel when you killed your wife? 6. This whole abortion debate about when human life begins is ridiculous. We should be thinking about the rights of the baby. 7. John: "Why didn't you include Lorena's poetry in the student publication?" Anne: "Because it was judged as not sufficiently worthy of publication." False Dilemma The false dilemma fallacy involves presenting a limited number of options as if they were the only options available. This forces people to choose between two extremes, even though there is a spectrum of possibilities in between. The fallacy is misleading and prevents honest debate. In other words, reasoning from an either-or position and you haven't considered all relevant possibilities you commit the fallacy of false dilemma. False dilemma  Asserts that there are only two alternatives when there are more. Examples: 1. You are for us, or you are against us. 2. Look, either you support the war or you are a traitor to your country. You don’t support the war. So you’re a traitor 3. Child to parent: Either you buy me this new book, or you decide that reading is not important at all. 4. Either those lights you saw in the night sky were alien spacecraft (UFOs), or you were hallucinating. You obviously weren’t hallucinating. So they had to be UFOs. 5. Drink water every day and be healthy, or continue to drink sodas and be unhealthy. Those are the only options. (SoftSchools.com) Slippery Slope In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen. A slippery slope fallacy occurs when someone claims that a position or decision will lead to a series of unintended negative consequences. Slippery Slope  Arguing without good reasons that taking a particular step will lead to further undesirable step/s. Examples: 1. If we allow the children to choose the movie this time, they are going to expect to be able to choose the school they go to or the doctors they visit. 2. We need to stop allowing colleges to increase tuition every year. The next thing we know, it's going to cost more to attend college for one semester than it is to buy a new home! 3. If you allow the students to redo this test, they are going to want to redo every assignment for the rest of the year. 4. If we let this child bring the permission slip late, there is no reason to ever set a deadline for anything again! 5. Today late for ten minutes, tomorrow late for an hour, and then someday you will simply cease to show up. Hasty Generalization A hasty generalization fallacy is a claim made on the basis of insufficient evidence. Instead of looking into examples and evidence that are much more in line with the typical or average situation, you draw a conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample. Hasty Generalization  Drawing a conclusion about a whole based on an inadequate sample. Examples: 1. Three out of four school teachers prefer Bright Marks Markers, but I only asked four teachers total. 2. You visit a new country and the first person you meet in the airport is rude. You send a message to a friend back home that everyone in this new country is rude. 3. Christine has a terrible experience with a boyfriend. She decides that all boys are mean. 4. Kevin's grandparents do not know how to use a computer. Kevin thinks that all older people must be computer illiterate. (SoftSchools.com)  Faulty Analogy  This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.  The false analogy fallacy is the assumption that two things share multiple similarities simply because they have one thing in common.  Faulty Analogy  Assumes because two things are alike in one respect, they are alike in most respect.  Examples: 1. Medical Student: "No one objects to a physician looking up a difficult case in medical books. Why, then, shouldn't students taking a difficult examination be permitted to use their textbooks?" 2. People who have to have a cup of coffee every morning before they can function have no less a problem than alcoholics who have to have their alcohol each day to sustain them. 3. That group of teenagers is up to no good - they are out after dark, and they are wearing dark clothes and baggy pants. (Reality: This is a stereotype - the group of teenagers could be a sports team or church group.)