Downloaded 34 times
![DOWNY “Rubadabango
[Amoy ulam na ba kayo?]”](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/topic2-191112134230/75/Topic-2-methods-of-philosophical-reasoning-17-2048.jpg)
Uploaded bydan_maribao
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoning
This document discusses philosophical methods of reasoning and fallacies. It defines fallacies as flawed arguments. The document then provides examples of different types of fallacies, including fallacies of relevance, weak induction, presumption, ambiguity, and grammatical analogy. Specific fallacies discussed include appeal to force, pity, popularity, ignorance, and false analogy. The document encourages analyzing arguments to identify fallacious reasoning.
More Related Content
Similar to Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoning
Topic 2. methods of philosophical reasoning
- 1. Methods of Philosophical Reasoning: Fallacies DANILO F.MARIBAO FACULTY Paliparan 3 Senior High School Paliparan III, Dasmarinas City, Cavite
- 2. Caveat (an explanationor warning that should be remembered when you are doing or thinking about. • Formal argument (e.g. syllogism) –Inductive / deductive • Fallacies • Other philosophical methods
- 4. Example: 1. Monkey eatbananas, Pedro eat bananas too, therefore Pedro is Monkey 2. Maria is intelligent, Lisa is a friend of Maria, therefore Lisa is Intelligent.
- 5. ACTIVITY: 1. Form agroup of five members. 2. Each group must formulate five arguments. 3. Present to the class.
- 7. Analysis: 1.Looking at thearguments you focused on, how would you assess the strength and soundness of their arguments? 2. Are the arguments reasonable to you? 3. Do you agree with these arguments? 4. Do you think some arguments are downright foolish or simply wrong? 5. What is your criterion for saying that this arguments is a good one, and that argument is bad?
- 8. GENERAL TYPES • Seelist (word file: 28 fallacies with suggested references) 1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE 2. FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION 3. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION 4. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY 5. FALLACIES OF GRAMMATICAL ANALOGY
- 9. The 11 Fallaciesof Relevance
- 10. Argumentum ad Baculum •Appeal to Force/Stick –committed when one appeals to –force or the threat of force –to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. Example: Chairman of the Board: “ All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying ‘I resign.’”
- 11. Argumentum ad Misericordiam •Appeal to Pity –pity or a related emotion –such as sympathy or compassion is –appealed to for the sake of –getting a conclusion accepted. “Sir, hindi ako nakapag-aral, mahirap lang po kami.”
- 12. Argumentum ad Populum •Appeal to the People –attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by –arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude
- 13. Appeal to theMajority SNOB APPEAL • Elite or • Select Few BANDWAGON • Most people • Almost all people Person L says statement p. Person L is in the elite. Statement p is true. Most, many, or ALL persons believe statement p is true. Statement p is true.
- 14. The Danger ofCrowds
- 15. Examples: -Emperor’s New Clothes (HansChristian Anderson Story) -Prosecution of Jesus Christ (Pontius Pilate)
- 16. JOY “Panghugas ngBuong Barangay”
- 17. DOWNY “Rubadabango [Amoy ulamna ba kayo?]”
- 18. Appeal to Vanity –Gainingsupport for an argument, not by the strength of the argument, but by –using flattery on those whom you want to accept your argument. Argumentum ad Populum
- 20. Ang bait-bait motalaga, pahingi naman ng Nova. You look so radiant today, can you help me in my assignment? You have a beach body, can you help me load the bags inside the car.
- 21. Argumentum ad Hominem •Argument against the Person –attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is – advancing a statement or an argument instead of –trying to disprove the soundness of the argument
- 22. Tu Quoque “You Too”Argument – rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, – one accuses the other of having the same character or circumstances. Argumentum ad Hominem
- 23. Genetic Fallacy • Thegenetic fallacy is committed when an idea is • either accepted or rejected • because of its source, • rather than its merit. DILAWAN!!!
- 24. Fallacy of Accident •an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to the rule. DOCTORS AND KNIVES
- 25. Ignoratio Elenchi • Apparentlyrefuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted
- 26. Red Herring • Anirrelevant topic is introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners from the original issue
- 27. Argumentum ad Crumenam Appealto Money • supposing that a conclusion must be valid because the person making the argument is wealthy
- 28. FALLACIES OF WEAK INDUCTION Argumentumad Verecundiam Argumentum ad Ignorantiam Fallacy of Hasty Generalization Fallacy of False Cause Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy of Weak Analogy
- 29. Argementum ad Verecundiam (Appealto Inappropriate People) • Using authority as evidence but the authority is not really an authority on facts relevant to the argument • Uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support Logical Form: According to person A, X is true. Therefore, X is true.
- 30. Example: Oprah said thatgirls will go crazy for boys if they are intelligent.
- 31. Example: The president saidthat the economic status of the Philippines is growing.
- 32. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appealto Ignorance) • Also known as “argument from ignorance” or “argument from lack of imagination”. • Saying something is true only because there is no evidence to prove it wrong (or saying something is false only because there is no evidence to prove it is true)
- 33. • Argument adIgnorantiam can be expressed in multiple ways, including the following: One cannot prove that this is true, therefore it is false. No one observed this occur, therefore it did not occur. There is no proof to support Argument X, therefore Argument Y is true.
- 34. Fallacy of HastyGeneralization • Also known as the Fallacy of Insufficient Statistics, Fallacy of Insufficient Sample, Hasty Induction. • This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough.
- 35. It has thefollowing form: 1. Sample S is taken from population P. 2. Sample S is a very small part of population P. 3. Conclusion C is drawn from sample S. • The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization:
- 36. • Example #1: Myfather smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until the age of sixty-nine. Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you. • Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health risks of smoking by the case study of one man.
- 37. Fallacy of FalseCause • The fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection. • Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, Non Causa, Pro Causa, Oversimplified Cause
- 38. Non Causa, ProCausa (Not the cause for a cause) • In general, it is the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of "false cause."
- 39. Post Hoc, ErgoPropter Hoc (After this, therefore because of this) • The fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event. • If A happened then B happened, then A must have caused B to happen.
- 40. • I woremy purple sweater and my team won against all the odds. Therefore, I am going to wear that sweater to every game. • Bill purchased a new PowerMac and it worked fine for months. He then bought and installed a new piece of software. The next time he starts up his Mac, it freezes. Bill concludes that the software must be the cause of the freeze.
- 41. Oversimplified Cause • Explainingan event by relying on casual factors that are insufficient to account for the event or by overemphasizing the role of one or more of these factors
- 42. Example: Coach says thatthe reason his team won their last game is because the team had a high carbohydrate meal before the game.
- 43. Slippery Slope Fallacy •Also known as “Camel’s Nose” • The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. • A person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. Form: 1.Event X has occurred (or will or might occur). 2.Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
- 44. Animal experimentation reducesour respect for life. If we don't respect life, we are likely to be more and more tolerant of violent acts like war and murder. Soon our society will become a battlefield in which everyone constantly fears for their lives. It will be the end of civilization. To prevent this terrible consequence, we should make animal experimentation illegal right now.
- 45. Fallacy of WeakAnalogy • This type of argument, the issue at hand is compared to another issue, which is entirely different but in some ways related, and uses the other issue for its conclusion’s acceptability or rejection.
- 46. Arguments by analogyrest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this: (1)A and B are similar. (2) A has a certain characteristic. Therefore: (3) B must have that characteristic too
- 47. • Thieves arecriminals. Since cheating is stealing, cheaters are criminals. • Guns are like hammers - they’re both tools with metal parts that could be used to kill someone.