|
Right
Reason
What is right reason? It's simple:
Decency, justice and coherent thinking. If you read the full
definition, you might wonder why such thinking shouldn't prevail at
all times, regardless of the venue or topic of discussion. Let the introduction
to critical thinking below steer you in that very direction. Try, however,
to temper your zeal when rooting out the nonsense in the utterances of
your acqaintances. Few of us wish to be deprived the company of our cherished
delusions.
A logical fallacy is a thinking error independent of the truth
of either the premises or the conclusion of an argument. It is a flaw in the
structure of an argument. A Brief
Introduction to Logic, section 2 in particular, should help you understand
the distinction. Here, argument is defined not as a shouting match
but rather a construction of statements meant to show that some
other statement is true. Hence, you may commit a logical
fallacy even though your conclusion is a true statement, in which case
you have begged the question, "how do you know?" The key to identifying
a fallacy, then, is to disentangle the factual content of an argument from its structure.
One such popular fallacy is...
The Fallacy of the Ultimate First Cause
of Existence (fUFCE; Foofsie)
when you assert that existence must be the result of a first-mover or
an initial condition; usually formulated as the claim that the First
Cause is a Supernatural Being that is itself uncaused and eternal.
Of course, the skeptic is entitled to ask what caused the First Cause
once the door has been opened to such a discussion. The First Cause
advocate usually escapes this trap with doubletalk
or special pleading in which case there
would be at least two classes of extant things: those which need a cause
and those which do not. The big bang
has been a popular secular explanation since only the late 1960s, but
almost no one understands this teaching, either. To quote Hawking: "The
universe need have no beginning or end in imaginary time." (Imaginary
is in the sense of i2=-1, where i is called an imaginary
number.)
An all-encompassing fallacy such as this requires a formal proof of its
own, for how else could you be certain that it's really a fallacy? A skeptic
might therefore treat the notion of an Ultimate First Cause as an unwarranted
assumption rather than concede it's impossible. It's also clear that
a monotheist who dismisses fUFCE out of hand would commit the error of
arguing from ignorance. We'll return a little
later to a proof of fUFCE, but first we need to review...
A List
of Common Fallacies
Here are brief descriptions of common thinking errors. (Try to avoid
the term logical fallacy in conversation. Friends will call you
a nerd—and rightly so.) Afterwards it would be a good idea to study
them in greater detail, so see below for suggested
further reading. More esoteric and very important works require an
understanding of mathematics and formal
logic, sometimes called symbolic logic, but you need not take up this
challenge just yet.
Even a fool, if he keeps silent, is considered wise;
if he closes his lips, intelligent.
Proverbs 17:28
cogito ergo sum (Latin for "I think, therefore I am";
Descartes' joke)
a special case of arguing in a circle in which the arguer assumes the
intrinsic truth of an I (ego) in the form "I think" (cogito)
and then uses this assumption to conclude the very same thing, namely,
"I am" (sum.)
It's usually defended with sophistries about the self-evident truth of
the self, that cogito... "is just a common sense
statement," and with other descriptions of what the herd
believes. No amount of analysis or hand-wringing, however, can undo the
fatal structural flaw. The expression cogitamus ergo sumus, "we
think, therefore we are," is likewise fallacious, even if uttered
by a god, a Christ or whatever.
arguing in a circle (chasing your tail)
a type of question begging in which one assumes
the truth of one's conclusion and smuggles it, normally in disguised form,
into the premises needed to prove it. Such an argument begs the question
"how do you know this?" Cogito ergo sum is a special
case of circular reasoning. Another example is the loaded
question "how can corporations get fair treatment if they don't
have rights?" Here the arguer assumes an entitlement to rights
in the guise of "get fair" and uses it to suggest that corporations
should have rights. And one for the theist: "Allah is real because
the Qur'an says so. I trust the Qur'an because it is the revealed word
of Allah."
begging the question
a type of error in which, usually, you smuggle your position into the
premises needed to prove it. You might be arguing in
a circle, asking a leading or loaded
question, or trying to make a claim true by definition. T. Edward
Damer of Emory & Henry College once argued in class that "all
philosophical questions are solvable" and went on to explain that
he wouldn't have taken on the lifetime task of solving such questions
if he thought them inherently unsolvable. He relates in his book (see
bottom) how an alert student pointed out that he had simply defined "philosophical
question" as one which can be answered.
I was once accused of being a pantheist because I "think the entire
universe is God." A pantheist, by definition, believes that God is
not a personality, but that the laws, forces, etc. of the universe are
God. This arguer begged the question, "how, exactly, am I a pantheist
when I know that there cannot be an almighty god, in which case, why call
the universe 'God'?"
false dillemma (black-and-white fallacy)
assuming there is no middle ground between two choices, usually unpleasant,
when there could be many more. It has the form of a disjunctive
syllogism. For instance, "you're either pro-corporate or pro-union."
But why rule out the possibility that both types of institutions become
parasites on society? Also, "either matter is the basis for all existence
or there's no basis at all," and (with unintended humor) "will
that be cash or credit?" Pigeonhole mindedness is another way to
describe black-and-white thinking.
the Three Laws of Thought
excluded middle, contradiction and identity. These aren't fallacies except
in their misuse.
arguing from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam; burden
shifting)
an error in which it's claimed that a belief is false because it has not
been proven true, or that it's true because not yet proven false. The
arguer simply attempts to set himself up for a win by default. For example,
"You haven't disproved God, therefore He can exist." Conversely,
"You haven't proven God, therefore He can't exist." Academics
use the formula "there is no serious reason to doubt...."
when they need to manufacture an apparently true premise for an
unwarranted assumption like atomism.
Burden shifting is like pretending that "the
evidence of no evidence to the contrary" is evidence for one's
own claim.
affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent
Old canards used by theists against the atheist include the charges of
having no moral absolutes and of being a law unto himself because he rejects
God's supposed law. Such irreason takes of the form of denying
the antecedent, i.e. "if God-belief, then morals. But no God-belief,
therefore no morals." An example of affirming
the consequent is arguing "if God-belief, then morals. Since
Allan is a very moral person, Allan must be a believer."
appeal to questionable authority
accepting a belief because someone with some sort of authority has endorsed
it. Examples include buying a product simply because some celebrity has
endorsed it or supporting a law simply because it's endorsed by your church,
political party, employer, the federal courts, etc. "But Richard
Feynman gave us the law. It must be true!" The Divine Right of
kings is a variant.
genetic fallacy (poisoning the well)
rejecting a view simply because of its origins. Examples are disbelieving
astronomy because of its origins in astrology, or rejecting a policy because
it is endorsed by the opposing party or religious faction. Shady origins
are not necessarily relevant to the merit of a belief, and simply appealing
to origins without establishing the relevance is not sufficient reason
to reject or accept a view. The genetic fallacy, like the next five listed,
is often employed as a diversionary tactic.
psychogenetic fallacy
a type of well-poisoning in which you try to discredit another's argument
or beliefs because you imagine you have discovered a psychological motivation,
esp. a weakness, for holding it. For instance, secular atheists, esp.
adherents of naturalism, attack all religion as untrue or just plain bad
because the masses often believe it in order to soothe their fears, as
if their fearfulness had any bearing on the truth of even a single line
of scripture. Those opposed to corporate rights and investor limited liability
are dismissed with canards like their supposed jealousy about not getting
a slice of the pie or their sour grapes following a career setback.
abuse (ad hominem, at the man)
throwing sticks-and-stones, name-calling and other churlishness rather
than addressing the merits of another's argument. This diversionary tactic
is employed frequently when money, pride or highly cherished beliefs are
at stake. "How can you say there's no almighty god?! You damned,
materialistic atheists are in league with the Devil!" In politics,
snob baiting and character attacks via innuendo serve this purpose.
appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum; threats)
any promise, subtle or overt, of retribution if one's verbal opponent
refuses to be silent or change his mind. "Shut the **** up or I'll
beat your head in" is one way to divert attention from irrational
beliefs. God inserts His threats of eternal damnation into the mouths
of monotheists who are unaware they are being used by a Higher Power.
See also scare tactics.
red herring
any statement made to divert attention from the issue at hand to a subject
with no relevance to the matter in question. This can be done to cover
up some weakness in an argument, but it might just be that the arguer
is scatterbrained or emotionally unhinged. The name is said to come from
the practice of trying to draw hunting dogs off the scent of their prey
with stinky fish. For example, let's say you're arguing for tort reform
in Cook Co., IL because "an explosion of cases is ruining business"
but then begin your rebuttal to objections with a rant about judicial
activism ruining busines when confronted with the fact that private individuals
accounted for just 16.25% of all cases filed in 2001.
attacking a straw man
any distortion or caricature of an opponent's argument to make it easier
to attack and knock down. "You crazy Libertarian! You want to slash
military spending by 50%? You don't want us to defend ourselves!"
But 1/2 of $500B annually hardly constitutes "no defense." And
what about cutting back on $500 hammers, troops garrisoned all around
the world, and missle defense shields that only encourage an nuclear arms
race? Theists lament that atheism is "helpless to provide the essential
moral and intellectual guidance for coping with the complexities of modern
life." Of course, no such claim attaches to proper atheism
which, as defined at this site, can be but a single feature within a much
larger system, just as it is in the Theravadin Buddha-Dhamma or would
be in a Christian atheism merged with mathematics and scientific cosmology.
stare
decisis (Latin for "to stand by things that have been
settled")
a hybrid of the fallacious argument from history
and the is-ought fallacy. As a judicial doctrine,
stare decisis (star-ay de-SEE-sis)
is adhered to in the English common law
system. When a judge is deciding a case, but before before inventing any
new precedent, he or she is expected to find and apply the decisions of
earlier court cases imagined to have features similar to the case
at hand. This is the argument from history at work. In many situations,
there is a well-known precedent which is already employed throughout the
legal system and which the judge is expected to apply mechanically, i.e.
the is-ought error is committed.
In the day-to-day administration of a lawyer's private practice there
are a myriad of legal questions that never go to a judge for a decision.
Lawyers are not, however, at liberty to deviate from practices established
by the courts, so here, too, they hew to established precedent. (Another
way the is-ought error is demployed.)
Hence, small cliques of judges who are poorly trained in logic, mathematics,
science, and other techniques of critical thinking can dictate the behaviour
of several hundred thousand lawyers and millions of people. Scare
tactics like "uncertainty in the law" are employed throughout
the legal establishment to preserve fidelity to stare decisis.
See also a brief
history of legal precedent.
As the dog returns to his vomit,
so the fool repeats his folly.
Proverbs 26:11
is-ought fallacy (status quo)
assuming that whatever is the current practice ought to be continued merely
because it is the practice now. It's employed to establish the rightness
of a practice and is akin to the bandwagon fallacy. It becomes stare
decisis when combined with the argument from
history in the common law systems of Australia, most of Canada, the
U.K. and the U.S.A.
appeal to tradition (good ol' days; aged wine fallacy)
arguing that some point of view should be accepted out of reverence or
warm feelings for long-cherished beliefs, customs, and so forth. For example,
American conservatives often invoke memories of the Founding Fathers to
rally support for the preservation of the Constitution of the United States,
the continued existence of the federal government of the USA, aggressive
militarism, and so on.
argument from history (precedent)
the mistake of arguing that current belief or practice should be the same
as that believed or practiced in the past simply because "it's precedent,"
i.e. it was done before. If American Presidents have repeatedly launched
savage wars without Congressional declaration, is it therefore o.k., even
legal, to repeat such mistakes? The irrelevant argument from history becomes
the appeal to tradition when an emotional attachment
is involved.
bandwagon fallacy (consensus genitum)
suggesting that something should be believed or done simply because large
numbers of people happen to do so, i.e. popularity
of a belief is cited as evidence for it. Was the earth flat or
at the center of the universe in the Middle Ages because most Europeans
thought so? Related to appeals to common sense and the is-ought
fallacy. There's a hint of cognitive relativism here, too.
common sense (popular wisdom; cliche thinking)
arguing for some claim on the grounds that "everyone knows it,"
"it's obvious," and so on. But common sense, however arbitrarily
defined, is really nothing but what large numbers of people supposedly
believe at any given moment. Does Allah both exist and not exist at the
very same time because opposing camps hold these beliefs simultaneously?
The fallacy is manifest in contradictory cliches like "where there's
smoke there's fire" and "you can't judge a book by its cover;"
or "birds of a feather..." and "opposites attract."
As pointed out by A. Einstein, common sense is nothing but the deposit
of prejudices laid down in the mind before the age of eighteen.
throwing out the baby and the bathwater
an example is arguing that the Almighty is impossible, therefore Pentateuch,
Bible or Qur'an should be thrown away. But what about the advice given
in Proverbs 26:17 where it reads, "Like the man who seizes a passing
dog by the ears is he who meddles in a quarrel not his own." Throwing
out the baby with the bathwater often involves the fallacies of composition
and poisoning the well.
composition
the error of assuming that the characteristics of the parts of a whole
are also true of the whole. Does crude oil burn like gasoline because
it is composed (in part) of gasoline? How about the argument that "corporations
are made up of people and people have rights, therefore corporations have
rights, too." Well, no. In this example, the arguer falsely assumes
that rights are alienable, i.e. that rights can be delegated, loaned,
licensed, sold, etc. by the living persons in which they inhere to the
artificial entity we know as the corporation. See division.
division
the error of assuming that the characteristics of some whole are also
true of its parts. Do the lugnuts of your car have the characteristics
of an entire car? Are the owners, management and employees of a corporation
artificial legal entities because the entire corporation is? Of course
not. See the fallacy of composition.
special pleading (double standard; the ad hoc rescue)
pretending that the principles, definitions, laws of physics, standards
of decency, and so forth which apply in other cases, do not apply to the
topic at hand. "I know that killing millions with a 1 megaton nuclear
bomb would be wrong, b-b-but we have the right to 'defend' ourselves however
we choose." Well, no. It may be trivially true that normal rules
can be temporarily suspended, e.g. for ambulances running red lights
en route to a hospital, but the arguer must prove the exception is warranted.
Conspiring to murder millions, or giving aid and comfort to those who
would, in a squabble among politicians and generals hardly counts. In
a related double standard, jurists excuse such premeditation but think
it wrong to beat up a few corrupt judges.
Theists might concede that "there can never be a final, best system
of mathematics" but beg questions by insisting
that "God knows all possible mathematics because He's omniscient."
It would be better to just admit that the laws of existence apply in equal
measure to all sentient beings without regard to pedigree, job title,
social status, divinity, personal circumstance
and so on. Legitimate exceptions to this rule can be discovered via reductio
ad absurdum.
misuse of a principle
applying a law of physics, a standard of conduct, etc. as if it had no
exception whatsoever. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, F=G(mm')/r2,
is meaningful in weak gravitational fields such as the Earth's, while
a study of black holes requires Einstein's General Theory of Relativity,
from which Newton's law can be deduced for weak gravitational fields and
speeds low relative to that of light. In politics, one could argue that
"and justice for all" means government itself is entitled to
justice. But wouldn't this imply that government, an artificial legal
entity, has real rights? A reasonable stance is that justice and "rights,"
whatever the latter's origin and substance, apply only to living individuals
and cannot be transferred to institutions via rhetorical sleight of hand.
unwarranted assumption
a premise that lacks sufficient evidence of its own to merit acceptance
as true and which therefore cannot be used to draw some further conclusion.
An example would be if you claimed that the United
States of Islam is a popular goal among most Muslims, therefore America
"should kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
(Quote attributed to Ann Coulter.) In this example you would beg questions
about how you sampled public opinion, your statistical methodology, and
the decency of carrying out such a scheme. The next four entries are examples
of unwarranted assumptions.
atomism (elementary, indivisible particle; naive materialism)
the ancient belief, dating to pre-Christian times, that the world is reducible
to tiny, simple and indivisible units of matter which exist independently
of any perception of them.
(The Greek word atmos means uncut or indivisible. Or atomon?,
atomon, alpha-tau-omicron-mu-omicron-nu,
"that which cannot be divided.") Atomism is often bound
up with the claim that your conscious experience is merely an epiphenomenon
of matter. Atomism found its clearest
expression in the philosophy of Democritus and Leucippus, 5th century
BCE Greeks. Albert Einstein
proved in 1905 that "atoms" do exist, but within thirty years
the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons was proven, as well.
The so-called fundamental particles found thus far have not been
proven to be the "atom" (either jointly or severally), nor has it been
proven that such a particle must, or even can, exist. The particle zoo
known as the
Standard Model now has more than two dozen such fundamental residents.
See also The
Illusion of Materialism by mathematician Thomas McFarlane.
simultaneity (universal present moment)
the unwarranted belief that the "now" you perceive locally or
globally (as when talking on the phone to friends in Pakistan) can be
extended across the universe, the galaxy or even on the scale of the solar
system. For two events A and B, there are at least three possible orderings,
depending on their direction and velocity: A before B; B before A; and
A-B simultaneously. (The concept of interval, I2 = t2
- x2, adds complications, but we won't address them here.)
The old notion of simultaneity was overturned via the special and general
theories of relativity, although people still speculate about life "now"
on other planets and the size of the universe, a meaningless concept unless
there is a universally present "now" when the measurement could
be made.
objective history (historical "fact"; "wie es
eigentlich gewesen")
the popular but unwarranted assumption that what you perceive as the temporal
past is a singular, immutable and unchangeable truth. Notions about objective
history would merit acceptance if reality conformed to the West's 19th
century conception of time as a single line or a railroad track independent
of the objects perceived in 3-D space.
When dealing with the past, it is proper to think in terms of probabilities
just as you would talk of the chances that next year you'll be a millionaire,
a day laborer, or a pauper. In other words, it's objectively true that
our universe has multiple futures and multiple histories. If there
are also parallel universes as reported in Scientific American, then we
could talk of multiple "nows," too. The Anglo-American system
of common law assumes the truth of objective history.
original meaning
a special case of the objective history fallacy
and a term of art in American jurisprudence. It is used in reference to
the Constitution of the United States when judges and legal scholars attempt
to elucidate the supposed singular intention of those responsible for
the Constitution as we have it today.
He who guards his mouth and his tongue
keeps himself from trouble.
Proverbs 21:23
leading question
planting the answer to one's question within the question itself. A lawyer
says to his client, the defendant: "You were going to return that
$100,000 you borrowed from the corporate treasury, weren't you
Mr. Chief Financial Officer?"
loaded question
when you presume a definite resolution to another unasked question. For
example, "what do you suppose is happening around Alpha Centauri
[a star near Earth] right now?" The questioner has falsely
assumed that the "now" perceived locally is a meaningful concept
when applied on an interstellar scale. See simultaneity.
"Will that be cash or credit?" is another case, for the sale
rep assumes that the decision to buy has already been made. "Why
does God let evil happen?" The assumption is that God has a choice.
fact mongering
"I need all the data! I can't make a decision without all the information!"
The amount of information to be gathered regarding any issue is practically
infinite (if you probed deeply enough at the level of mental states and
the arrangement of atoms and so forth.) The trick is to obtain only what
is necessary and sufficient in order to decide what, if anything,
should be believed or done. The inverse of this error occurs when a pedant
buries you in a mountain of disorganized information as a stonewalling
tactic or to stampede you into a hasty decision.
equivocation (rhetorical bait and switch)
using a single word or phrase with two or more distinct definitions while
insinuating that the meaning is the same in each case. "Ah ha, you
see? Right reason proves that the Right [and not the east coast
liberal elites] was right all along!" A common mistake among non-scientists
is to argue that quantum mechanics or the general theory of relativity
is "just a theory." Street use of the word theory is, at best,
analgous to the scientific term hypothesis whereas relativity theory
is subject to rigorous mathematical formulation and has been confirmed
experimentally.
distinction without a difference
defending some claim as different from another one with which it's supposedly
been confused. In reality, the two claims are no different in substance.
"No officer, I haven't been drinking. I only had a few sips of beer."
reifying
to continue talking about an unproven or false idea as though it were
true. For example, theists regularly invoke "God" despite the
unverified, shape-shifting, and inconsistent nature of their claims. Reification
is related to confirmation bias.
drawing the wrong conclusion
a type of non sequitur in which the premises of your argument point
to one conclusion but you give another. Let's say you lived in a federal
republic, you read that "he
who shuts his ears to the cry of the poor will himself also call and not
be heard," and you could correctly infer from this a personal responsibility
to help the downtrodden. It would be drawing the wrong conclusion to assert
that your government should be doing most of the helping via welfare programs,
for this implies that you can shift the burden of your responsibility
from your own shoulders rather than be personally involved. It also implies
that other taxpayers should be coerced into funding such schemes in which
case they aren't really "giving."
appeal to emotion
appeals to fear, pity, pride, revenge, spite and so on. District and plaintiffs'
attorneys employ this when putting weeping relatives on the stand in hope
of swaying a jury, but the merit of their case is not a function of the
bereaved's mental anguish. It's a step-sister of the appeal
to personal circumstances.
argument from adverse consequences (scare tactics)
claiming that your opponent's belief or plan of action is wrong or bad
because bad things supposedly will result. For example, lawyers argue
that stare decisis must remain at
the foundation of the common law because "there would be too much
uncertainty in the law if state supreme court judges could reverse U.S.
Supreme Court precedent according to their whim." (This is also a
straw man attack since judges don't have such
power, even if they frequently behave otherwise.) Scare tactics are a
special case of the appeal to emotion. Another example: "You'd better
go along with the Department of Homeland Security or the terrorists are
gonna git you."
personal circumstances (appeal to self-interest)
belief in some proposition is made a function of selfishness such as with
promises of personal glory, business success, sexual favors, tax breaks,
and so on. "You want everlasting life in Heaven, don't you? Then
you'd better believe in God." But God and Heaven don't exist because
you happen to want immortality. A double standard
is also involved when politicians cry out for personal responsibility
and accountibility but excuse corporate limited liability because "what's
good for GM is good for you, too." And the new favorite, "what
if you were gay? You'd want to get married, too!" Again,
desire and self-interest alone are of no relevance to truth or the rightness
of a practice. As with the bandwagon fallacy,
there's an element of relativism at work.
after the fact, therefore because of the fact (post hoc ergo
propter hoc)
when you claim that A preceded B in time, therefore A must have caused
B. It's one type of faulty causal analysis. "Corporations
and their employees work very, very hard, therefore they have rightly
earned whatever profits they accrue." Obviously the arguer
is only assuming that profits are exclusively the result of hard work
and ignoring other factors like accounting legerdemain, government subsidization,
and corporate personhood. If
a disputant asserts or even suggests that "there's no proof that
A didn't cause B, therefore A caused B", she is also arguing
from ignorance. See simultaneity.
confusing causality with correlation
For example, if a researcher claimed that "all alcoholics carry a
certain collection of genes that non-alcoholics do not have, therefore
alcoholism is caused by genes." All he has proved is that two factors
or events occur together, i.e. positive correlation. It's quite possible
that he's neglected a common cause or even multiple common causes.
Texas sharpshooter (clustering illusion)
named for the gunslinger who blasts away at the side of a barn and then
draws a bull's-eye around the holes. The metaphor refers to imagining
a statistically significant clustering of events where none exists and
then attributing causes other than chance. Public health officials need
to be vigilant for this error lest they draw boundaries of a large disease
cluster in a small area and spark a wild goose chase for some local environmental
cause.
internal inconsistency (doubletalk)
when an arguer asserts some claim in a manner that precludes the truth
of that claim. For example, "you can't prove a negative." But isn't this
just a self-annihilating negative statement that shouldn't be believed
because, according to its own logic, it could never be proven? Philosophical
nihilism, the denial of any basis for knowledge, truth, or wisdom, is
a regular feature of Leftist thinking. But how, then, does the Leftie
prove his ideology much less call it knowledge? Doubletalk occurs in criminal
justice when one assumes the truth of both historical
objectivity and free will. (For these conditions to be true simultaneously,
the laws of physics governing the past would have to be different from
those governing the future...and if we're going to believe this, your
honor, you'd better be able to prove it mathematically and empirically.)
whining
"All you do is criticize!", "why can't you be positive?!", "you hate
America!", and other distracting nonsense
that does nothing to make the whiner's case any stronger.
pious fraud
a faked miracle or trick played on the credulous, usually to edify their
commitment to the faith. We could drip human blood on a crucifix, score
wrists for stigmata, rig a system of wires or magnets for a levitating
yogi, or use some electronic gizmo to simulate a voice from the heavens.
Christian Scientists assert the unreality of matter and so employ mysteriously
opening and closing doors behind the lectern for the ministers who come
and go during Sunday services. This would be merely grandstanding if they
could actually move matter, other than their bodies, with their thoughts
alone.
ontological argument
a supposed a priori proof of the existence of God in which the
conception of a perfect being entails the existence of such a being outside
one's own mind. And pink elephants fly for free in first class, too, if
you wish for it.
democracy
the false notion that society can establish rational collective choices
indirectly through elected representatives or by direct voting for individual
preferences. The Arrow Impossibility Theorem proving this result earned
American Kenneth Arrow a Nobel prize for economics in 1972.
false fallacy (the fallacy fallacy)
sometimes an apparent fallacy just isn't so. Let's say you hear that matter
and light will exhibit particle or wave characteristics depending on the
apparatus used to observe it. (No, not particles moving in wave-like fashion.
Which characteristic you get depends on how you look at the electron,
for example.) So naturally you accuse the scientists of relativism, inconsistency,
and so on. Nevertheless, experiment confirms that the electron, like photons,
can exist as either a particle or a wave in a mutually exclusive relationship
termed complementarity. See also special pleading
and misuse of a principle.
When the fool walks
through the street,
in his lack of understanding he calls everything foolish.
Ecclesiastes 10:3
Further Reading
Wikipedia Encylopedia articles about logic
and logical
fallacies with their own links to more critical thinking resources
on the Web.
A Brief Introduction to Logic
Arguments
and Their Evaluation
By T. K. Trelogan
Defines basic terms, outlines a strategy for assessing arguments, and
provides some examples. Similar to A Brief Introduction to Logic
and available as a PDF file.
Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 4th Ed. (2001)
By T. Edward Damer
"Your practical guide" to error-free arguments. In addition
to thorough explanations of 60 fallacies, this book includes 12 straightforward
principles to guide your participation in calm, organized discussion.
A word of warning: The tenor throughout tends to induce an attack dog
mentality that will alienate friend and foe, alike. A better title would
be Avoiding Self-Deception. Available at the Wadsworth
Philosophy Shoppe, Amazon.com, etc.
|
|
