Logic&Fallacies
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of North Florida *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
PHI-3939
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by Laillaaax3
In modern arguments, the term "modus ponens" is often used. It means "method of affirming" in Latin. It implies that if the assumptions made in an argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true. Logic plays a crucial role in modern arguments, and it is governed by certain
principles that ensure its validity. Therefore, logic should play a deductive role in modern arguments.
In the course of my research, I am delving into the issues surrounding minimum wage, inflation, and high expenditures. After careful consideration, I have determined that the most effective method of reasoning for this project is Inductive reasoning. This approach allows me to draw conclusions based on a specific set of data. Inductive reasoning will also be useful in uncovering the underlying causes behind these financial challenges and exploring potential solutions.
In the lesson, fallacies are defined as errors of reasoning rather than factual errors. These errors
in logic are pervasive in our daily lives. The ones I encounter most frequently in news, politics,
and advertising are Fallacies of Insufficiency. The Fallacies of Insufficiency consist of "Limited Sampling," "Appeal to Ignorance," and "Naturalistic Fallacies." "Limited Sampling" refers to drawing conclusions with a lack of necessary data. "Appeal to Ignorance" refers to drawing a conclusion in favor of an idea where there is no evidence to refute that conclusion or
claim. "Naturalistic Fallacies" refer to drawing conclusions purely from empirical facts that are
insufficient for normative conclusions.
Plenty of news stories drew conclusions despite the lack of data and knowledge we have regarding that conclusion. This is an example of limited sampling. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was still a lack of substantial data regarding the virus. However, vaccines were still released and started becoming mandatory in many jobs and facilities. On the other hand, some governmental bodies opposed the idea of anyone getting the COVID-19 vaccination. Such as a news story shared by ABC News describing how Florida Governor Ron DeSantis opposed the vaccine [1]
. The appeal of ignorance is another fallacy I recognize most in advertisements and/or social media. For example, The Shade Room is a popular source of contemporary news and marketing. They have over 28.8 million followers on Instagram and multiple media platforms where they post daily trending topics for social media users to view. The Shade Room recently shared an Instagram post that was an example of an appeal of ignorance. The post discussed a musician releasing an old song in a sped-up version for their fans. A social media user then responded that this artist needs payment for their bills and many commenters began to agree with this conclusion [2]
. However, as you can see from the post, there Is no evidence or data suggesting this conclusion is in fact true. We are unsure if the musician needs money when all the data we have is this musician releasing another version of one of their popular songs. Naturalistic fallacies seem common in health-related news articles or advertisements. An example of this is when a generalized healthy practice is presented as a guarantee. Such as avoiding cigarettes will prevent someone from getting lung cancer. Recently, I came across an
article that embodied the naturalistic fallacy by discussing five foods that an arthritis patient should never eat [3]
. Though foods have been linked to health, such a study is not enough to determine if eating or avoiding such foods will decrease the pain experienced by those with arthritis. As participants in American culture, we can cultivate a more conducive environment for productive debates by dispelling our cultural perception of what an argument truly is. In the essay “Finding the Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic” by Rebecca Jones, arguments from an American cultural perspective, are war. While this may be the default perception of Americans, there are various other forms of argumentation that are not so negative. Such arguments such be advertised and expressed more to change the cultural dynamic of arguments Americans have developed. I believe that finding common ground in important public discussions is becoming increasingly difficult. Social media and other similar platforms seem to promote the idea that “argument is war” [4]
for monetary gain and to attract a larger audience. Unfortunately, I do not see this trend ending anytime soon, as it has become a cultural norm in America for people to engage in arguments that pit one side against the other. However, I remain optimistic that things can change
for the better. I hope that media outlets will begin to promote more constructive and respectful arguments, which will have a positive impact on citizens and future generations.
In contemporary arguments, logic is essential because it enables us to reach reasonable decisions and conclusions that are supported by facts and reason. Deductive reasoning will be most helpful in creating a research argument. Since logic aids in the presentation of coherent, rational arguments that others can comprehend and assess, logic ought to be important. Deductive reasoning is the method of reasoning that will be most helpful for the research argument since it enables you to derive particular conclusions from broad premises, strengthening and clarifying your argument. This method works particularly well when handling abstract and complicated ideas. We study two styles of thinking, known as inductive and deductive reasoning, that we use on a regular basis without even recognizing them. To reach a conclusion, inductive reasoning relies on the observation of particular supporting cases. Even though they frequently rest on generalizations from a set of facts, it's crucial to understand how long the data has been monitored as this can lead to errors. The reliability of the arguer in inductive reasoning is contingent only upon the caliber and volume of observations. A major example of something that could lead to a logical error is the sample size, which depends on the size of the group and how long the data has been monitored. The logical mistake known as "hasty generalization" occurs when decisions are made hastily based on an insufficient body of evidence. Deductive reasoning is the other kind of logic. Deductive reasoning looks for a far higher level of assurance than inductive reasoning does. To begin with, you should make a generalization that works in a variety of contexts. It takes the shape of a straightforward syllogism that centers the concept on two premises. It is crucial to
remember that the strength of these arguments depends entirely on the premise. Validity, however, continues to be crucial, much like inductive reasoning. It is extreme to disregard the quality of the observations as your argument's validity will be determined by them. Deductive reasoning, in my opinion, will be the most helpful to me in creating my research argument for this course. At first, I thought that inductive reasoning would be the most effective method, but I'm beginning to think differently. Both of the logic-
based arguments we taught demand a high caliber and volume of observations. They are essential to building and validating your arguments. However, deductive reasoning
also gives you a syllogistic foundation for your argument. Creating a premise aids in assessing the argument's strength. Fallacies are still likely to occur in both types of reasoning, but they are less likely to occur in deductive reasoning because of the volume of evidence required to establish and sustain your position. In light of this, I am
convinced that using deductive reasoning to create my research argument is the best course of action.
Fallacies abound in the media, which can undermine the veracity of the news that is
reported. Out of all the frequent fallacies we have studied in this lesson, three stand out in particular. At first, there is "Ad hominem" This error arises when someone disparages the character of another person. Donald Trump's remarks against Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential debate serve as a prime illustration of this. Elio Martino claims in a piece of writing that “Anyone who followed the bitter presidential race between Trump and Hillary Clinton in 2016 could be excused for thinking the evidence is already in. Trump and Fox spent months ceaselessly browbeating CNN and Clinton with attacks on their integrity, their associations, and their alleged motivations. Attacks ranged from accusations of corruption and criminality to anti-
American intent” (quillette.com). The ad populum fallacy is another prevalent fallacy that is commonly encountered in news reports. This fallacy plays on a belief's popularity. Because it plays on public appeal, it is sometimes referred to as the bandwagon fallacy. Ad populum is well-
known among Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly. David Sutton further exposes Bill's use of
this fallacy in an essay from 2016, claiming that he uses the ratings of his show to support his claims. “On more than one occasion, O’Reilly has cited his show’s ratings in an effete attempt to validate this viewpoint. While not in the purest sense, this is an example of the ad populum fallacy. In this case, it’s not a specific belief being confirmed, but rather O’Reilly is invoking his show’s viewership as proof he is right and
the person he is debating is wrong, even when O’Reilly finds himself unable to win said debate on the merit of facts and logic” (follywhack.com).
Lastly, we have the false dilemma, which is the third most prevalent error in politics and news. This fallacy presents you with a narrow range of options when, depending on the situation, there may be more that makes sense. The argument against collective bargaining, which originated in Wisconsin, serves as an illustration of this fallacy. The governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, along with other conservative officials, claims they "are at a critical crossroads", and are deciding between “tackle huge deficits, or allow public labor unions to collectively bargain for
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
benefits” (emagill.com). In this instance, though, they are able to choose to do none, both, or even a third. It is a false dilemma as a result.
Hello Alexandra,
Thank you for sharing your lovely input on fallacies and how Rebecca Jones addresses arguments and fallacies in her essay. As you mentioned, the essay discusses the importance of conducting fruitful debates and the role of research in providing valid arguments. This is crucial for the betterment of American debates since American culture labels arguments as war.
However, as Jones pointed out, many Americans cannot help how they view war. Media platforms reaching Americans promote debates to be a pessimistic occurrence. Many political debates seem to be one governing body versus the other and media outlets promote opposing views typically resulting in chaos. As you pointed out, the essay also highlights the prevalence of fallacies in modern-day debates and how they exacerbate the situation. This was a great correlation between the lesson and the essay. Jones believes that everyone should be allowed to express their opinions without
demeaning others. She also believes it is crucial to comprehend opposing viewpoints to conduct a constructive debate. The author also suggests that reforming the system and teaching
kids how to conduct debates can help achieve healthy, constructive arguments.
I agree with Jones that incorporating healthy debates within school curriculums can help generations achieve constructive arguments. Over time, it will make optimistic arguments a part of American culture. However, after reading the essay and going over the lesson, I am not so hopeful for improved debates to be a part of Americans’ future. I mentioned in my discussion post, that media platforms seem to abuse the attention and monetary incentives that follow pessimistic debates. I think this is becoming a cultural norm in America and will continue for such incentives.
Thanks again for sharing!
Kindly,
Laila Kassim
In modern arguments, the term "modus ponens" is often used. It means "method of affirming" in Latin. It implies that if the assumptions made in an argument are true, then its conclusion must also be true. Logic plays a crucial role in modern arguments, and it is governed by certain principles that ensure its validity. Therefore, logic should play a deductive role in modern arguments.
In the course of my research, I am delving into the issues surrounding minimum wage, inflation, and high expenditures. After careful consideration, I have determined that the most effective method of reasoning for this project is Inductive reasoning. This approach allows me to draw conclusions based on a specific set of data. Inductive reasoning will also be useful in uncovering the underlying causes behind these financial challenges and exploring potential solutions.
In the lesson, fallacies are defined as errors of reasoning rather than factual errors. These errors in logic are pervasive in our daily lives. The ones I encounter most frequently in news, politics, and advertising are Fallacies of Insufficiency. The Fallacies of Insufficiency consist of "Limited Sampling," "Appeal to Ignorance," and "Naturalistic Fallacies." "Limited Sampling" refers to drawing conclusions with a lack of necessary data. "Appeal to Ignorance" refers to drawing a conclusion in favor of an idea where there is no evidence to refute that conclusion or claim. "Naturalistic Fallacies" refer to drawing conclusions purely from empirical facts that are insufficient for normative conclusions
Plenty of news stories drew conclusions despite the lack of data and knowledge we have regarding that conclusion. This is an example of limited sampling. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was still a lack of substantial data regarding the virus. However, vaccines were still released and started becoming mandatory in many jobs and facilities. On the other hand, some governmental bodies opposed the idea of anyone getting the COVID-19 vaccination. Such as a news story shared by ABC News describing how Florida Governor Ron DeSantis opposed the vaccine [1]
.
The appeal of ignorance is another fallacy I recognize most in advertisements and/or social media. For example, The Shade Room is a popular source of contemporary news and marketing. They have over 28.8 million followers on Instagram and multiple media platforms where they post daily trending topics for social media users to view. The Shade Room recently shared an Instagram post that was an example of an appeal of ignorance. The post discussed a musician releasing an old song in a sped-up version for their fans. A social media user then responded that this artist needs payment for their bills and many commenters began to agree with
this conclusion [2]
. However, as you can see from the post, there Is no evidence or data suggesting this conclusion is in fact true. We are unsure if the musician needs money when all the data we have is this musician releasing another version of one of their popular songs.
Naturalistic fallacies seem common in health-related news articles or advertisements. An example of this is when a generalized healthy practice is presented as a guarantee. Such as avoiding cigarettes will prevent someone from getting lung cancer. Recently, I came across an article that embodied the naturalistic fallacy by discussing five foods that an arthritis patient should never eat [3]
. Though foods have been linked to health, such a study is not enough to determine if eating or avoiding such foods will decrease the pain experienced by those with arthritis.
As participants in American culture, we can cultivate a more conducive environment for productive debates by dispelling our cultural perception of what an argument truly is. In the essay “Finding the Good Argument or Why Bother With Logic” by Rebecca Jones, arguments from an American cultural perspective, are war. While this may be the default perception of Americans, there are various other forms of argumentation that are not so negative. Such arguments such be advertised and expressed more to change the cultural dynamic of arguments Americans have developed.
I believe that finding common ground in important public discussions is becoming increasingly difficult. Social media and other similar platforms seem to promote the idea that
“argument is war” [4]
for monetary gain and to attract a larger audience. Unfortunately, I do not see this trend ending anytime soon, as it has become a cultural norm in America for people to engage in arguments that pit one side against the other. However, I remain optimistic that things can change for the better. I hope that media outlets will begin to promote more constructive and respectful arguments, which will have a positive impact on citizens and future generations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help