Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Common Reasoning Fallacies: A Guide for PHL 204 Honors Great Books Students - Prof. Linda , Study notes of Introduction to Philosophy

An overview of common reasoning fallacies, including smokescreen/red herring, subjectivist fallacy, appeal to popularity, and more. Students in the phl 204 honors great books course can use this guide to better understand and identify these fallacies in philosophical arguments.

Typology: Study notes

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 08/18/2009

koofers-user-7w5-1
koofers-user-7w5-1 🇺🇸

10 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
PHL 204: Honors Great Books
Common Reasoning Fallacies
Farmer • Winter 2004
Smokescreen/red herring: Bringing up an irrelevant topic to draw attention
away from the issue at hand.
Subjectivist fallacy: Asserting that a claim may be true for one person
but not for another.
Appeal to popularity: Urging acceptance of a claim simply because some
selection of other people believe it (when those
believers have no more knowledge or expertise in
the subject than you do). Variants of appeal to
popularity include:
Common practice: Justifying an action or
practice on the grounds that
lots of people engage in it.
Peer pressure: Urging acceptance of a claim
on the grounds it will gain the
listener approval from friends
or associates, where the
approval is irrelevant to the
truth of the claim.
Bandwagon: Supporting a position,
candidate, or policy on the
grounds it is going to win or
become the dominant
alternative.
Wishful thinking: Urging acceptance of a claim on the basis of the
listener’s desire that it be true.
Scare tactics: Accepting or urging acceptance of a claim on
grounds of fear, when the threat is not relevant to
the issue addressed by the claim.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Common Reasoning Fallacies: A Guide for PHL 204 Honors Great Books Students - Prof. Linda and more Study notes Introduction to Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!

PHL 204: Honors Great Books

Common Reasoning Fallacies

Farmer • Winter 2004 Smokescreen/red herring: Bringing up an irrelevant topic to draw attention away from the issue at hand. Subjectivist fallacy: Asserting that a claim may be true for one person but not for another. Appeal to popularity: Urging acceptance of a claim simply because some selection of other people believe it (when those believers have no more knowledge or expertise in the subject than you do). Variants of appeal to popularity include: Common practice: Justifying an action or practice on the grounds that lots of people engage in it. Peer pressure: Urging acceptance of a claim on the grounds it will gain the listener approval from friends or associates, where the approval is irrelevant to the truth of the claim. Bandwagon: Supporting a position, candidate, or policy on the grounds it is going to win or become the dominant alternative. Wishful thinking: Urging acceptance of a claim on the basis of the listener’s desire that it be true. Scare tactics: Accepting or urging acceptance of a claim on grounds of fear, when the threat is not relevant to the issue addressed by the claim.

Appeal to pity: Accepting or urging acceptance of a claim on grounds of pity, when the appeal is not relevant to the issue addressed by the claim. Apple polishing: Accepting or urging acceptance of a claim on grounds of vanity; allowing praise of oneself to substitute for judgment about the truth of a claim. Appeal to anger or indignation: Substituting anger or indignation for reason and judgment when taking side on an issue. Two wrongs make a right: Justifying doing X to somebody because they would do X to you given the chance, or justifying an action against someone as “making up” for something bad that happened to you. Warning: instances of this occur that are not considered fallacious. Ad hominem: Attacking the person offering a claim or argument rather than attacking the claim or argument. Personal attack: Saying bad things about the individual’s character, history, and so forth. Circumstantial ad hominem: Basing the attack on the individual’s situation, job, or other special circumstance. Pseudorefutation: Basing the attack on the claim that the individual has spoken or otherwise acts as if he or she doesn’t believe the claim; a charge of inconsistency. Poisoning the well: Committing an ad hominem before the individual even has a chance to make the claim in question; an “ad hominem” in advance.