|
Attacking Faulty Reasoning is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic, critical thinking, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed logical fallacies. Each of the fallacies is concisely defined and illustrated with several relevant examples. For each fallacy, the text gives suggestions about how to address or to "attack" the fallacy when it is encountered. The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of the five criteria of a good argument: the argument must be structurally well-formed, the premises must be relevant, the premises must be acceptable, the premises must be sufficient in number, weight, and kind, and there must be an effective rebuttal of challenges to the argument. Each fallacy falls into at least one of Damer's five fallacy categories. A logical fallacy is an error in logical argument which is independent of the truth of the premises. ...
Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. ...
are you kiddin ? i was lookin for it for hours ...
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the science of effective civil debate or dialogue and the effective propagation thereof, using rules of inference and logic, as applied in the real world setting. ...
Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
Look up argument in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. ...
The Five Fallacy Categories
- Fallacies that violate the structural criterion. The structural criterion requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument, using premises that are compatible with one another, that do not contradict the conclusion, that do not assume the truth of the conclusion, and that are not involved in any faulty deductive inference. Fallacies such as begging the question, denying the antecedent, or undistributed middle violate this criterion.
- Fallacies that violate the relevance criterion. The relevance criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue. Fallacies such as appeal to tradition, appeal to force, or genetic fallacy fail to meet the argumentative demands of relevance.
- Fallacies that violate the acceptability criterion. The acceptability criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are likely to be accepted by a rationally mature person and that meet the standard criteria of acceptability. Fallacies such as equivocation, fallacy of division, and wishful thinking are unacceptable because they are based on linguistic confusion or involve unacceptable assumptions.
- Fallacies that violate the sufficiency criterion. The sufficiency criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion. Fallacies such as argument from ignorance, special pleading, and the post hoc fallacy violate this criterion because they are arguments that are missing importance evidence or make causal assumptions based on insufficient evidence.
- Fallacies that violate the rebuttal criterion. The rebuttal criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions. Fallacies such as red herring, straw man, and poisoning the well fail to meet this criterion because they attack the arguer rather than the argument or use argumentative devices that divert attention away from the issue at stake.
The text also sets forth 13 principles that constitute a "Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion." This code incorporates Damer’s fallacy theory and provides a procedural and ethical standard for the development of an effective intellectual style to be used when engaging in a rational discussion of important issues. This article needs additional references or sources for verification. ...
Denying the antecedent (also known as vacuous implication) is a type of logical fallacy. ...
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isnt distributed. ...
Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or argumentum ad antiquitatem or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. ...
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is said by some to be a United States who opposed the Vietnam War were told that they should not hold such a view, because they would face discrimination from potential...
It also fails to assess ideas on their merits. ...
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. ...
A fallacy of division occurs when someone reasons logically that something that is true of a thing must also be true of its constituents. ...
Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality. ...
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because...
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. ...
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is Latin for after this, therefore because of this. ...
Look up red herring in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponents position. ...
Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. ...
Reference Damer, T. Edward. Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, 5th Edition, Wadsworth, 2005. ISBN 0-534-60516-8
See also Look up argument in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
Argumentation theory, or argumentation, is the science of effective civil debate or dialogue and the effective propagation thereof, using rules of inference and logic, as applied in the real world setting. ...
are you kiddin ? i was lookin for it for hours ...
In logic, an argument is a set of statements, consisting of a number of premises, a number of inferences, and a conclusion, which is said to have the following property: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true or highly likely to be true. ...
Look up fallacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Fallacy. ...
The three methods for logical reasoning, deduction, induction, and abduction can be explained in the following way (taken from [1]): Given α, β, and the rule R1 : α ∴ β Deduction is using the rule and its preconditions to make a conclusion (α ∧ R1 ⇒ β). Induction is learning...
External links - A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion, from Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer.
|
Feeds |
Contact