Homework Review of 4A
1. Go through the diagrams and also talk about internal relevance.
Internal Relevance: (Aka Premise Relevance)
Explanation: Does the premise increase the likelihood of the conclusion (or subconclusion) being true? If yes, then the premise is relevant. If no, then it is not. Internal relevance is about the relationship between an argument's premises and it's conclusion (and subconclusions)
How to Evaluate Premise Relevance: Assume that the premises are true, then evaluate the relationship between the premise(s) and the conclusion (and subconclusions).
Contextual Relevance:
In the context of a debate between 2 sides, contextual relevance is the degree to which a response or line of argument is relevant to the main issue being debated. Contextual relevance is about whether an entire argument has a logical relationship to the topic that is being debated.
Examples
Example:
Person 1: It's your turn to do the dishes.
Person 2: Whatever, I took out the trash yesterday.
Straw Man Fallacy
Definition: A restatement of an opposing view/position which is exaggerated and distorted such that it is easy to defeat.
Example:
Person A: Given the tragic nature of mass shootings, we should consider implementing some sort of background check to make sure people buying guys don't have any known major psychological problems or any records of violent criminal behavior.
Person B: My opponent doesn't think people have the right to own guns. In person A's world, citizen's won't be able to lawfully defend themselves or even go hunting.
OR
Person A: If you deny people the right to self-defense then you are risking increasing the rate home break-ins because a major deterrent will have been removed.
Person B: My opponent thinks we should give children AK-47s for self-protection when their parents aren't home. This is obviously a bad idea.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republican-governor-signs-new-bill-allowing-loaded-guns-to-carried-bars?cid=db_articles
"If we came from monkeys, why aren't monkey's having baby humans?"
Structure:
Person A gives their position or argument; call it argument X.
Person B reformulates (i.e., exaggerates and distorts) Person A's position to make it look ridiculous/implausible. Call it argument Y.
Person B then shows why argument Y is a bad argument.
The problem is that Person B hasn't shown that person A's actual argument (X).
Red Herring Fallacy and Moving the Goal Posts
Red Herring Definition: When an arguer brings up an issue or line of argument that isn't directly relevant to the original issue being debated in order to divert attention away from it. Red herrings are often used by arguers (especially politicians) to avoid having to answer a question.
Moving the Goal Posts (aka the "Oh Yeah?" Defense) Definition: A topic is under discussion. Person 1 shows why person 2's argument fails. Instead of admitting defeat, person 2 changes the standard of evidence or changes the topic to one that is closely related but not the same as the original one. Basically, when person 1 shows why person 2's argument fails, person 2 responds by saying "oh yeah? what about this?"
Example: Moving the Goal Posts
Person 2: Vaccines are bad because the mercury in vaccines causes autism.
Person 1: There is no mercury in vaccines. All vaccines except the flu vaccine have been mercury-free since 2001. If mercury in vaccines caused autism, we'd expect the autism incident rate to have fallen since 2001 but it hasn't. It has increased. So even if mercury in vaccines of the past did contain mercury, the amount that they contained wasn't enough to cause autism.
Person 2: Oh yeah! Vaccines have formaldehyde! And formaldehyde is bad for you.
Person 1: Everything is bad for you if the dosage is high enough but the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines in insignificant. There is actually more formaldehyde in a single pear than there is in a child's vaccine schedule. Also, our own bodies produce much more formaldehyde in a single day than we ever get in vaccines.
Person 2: Oh yeah! etc...
Red Herring Examples
http://youtu.be/GLdDQ32ltiA
Example (From the Washington Post)
BLM contends that Bundy owes $1 million in fees, and will also have to pay the round-up expenses. Bundy — who retorts that he only owes $300,000 in fees — says the city folk are only hurting themselves by taking his cows. He told a reporter from the Las Vegas Review Journal that there would be 500,000 fewer hamburgers per year after his cows were towed away; “But nobody is thinking about that. Why would they? They’re all thinking about the desert tortoise. Hey, the tortoise is a fine creature. I like him. I have no problem with him. But taking another man’s cattle? It just doesn’t seem right.”
Straw man Structure:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced as though it is relevant to topic A.
Topic B ends up being discussed, leaving topic A unresolved.
Naturalistic Fallacy
Definitions
Health: When something is presumed to be healthy/good for you because it is natural.
Morality: When something is presumed to be morally right because is it natural or "the natural order of things"--usually as described by a holy text.
Examples: Heath
Every product ever.
Anti-GMO movement
Implied Naturalistic fallacy: "chemicals" in our food.
Examples: Moral
A. "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of theConfederate States of America.
- Jefferson Davis, from a speech in the US Senate on 1850-FEB-14
Social Darwinism
B. Where else do we hear this familiar argument (still today).
Homework 4B
Ex 3D p. 71 ALL: Instructions: Just identify the fallacy. You don't need to deconstruct the argument.
Ex 3M Question 2, p. 76 ALL: Instructions: You don't need to rewrite the arguments. The issue being debated is whether factory farming (as it is currently practiced) should be practiced. You need to read each argument and (1) decide if the arguments are contextually relevant to the issue (it could be a matter of degree) and (2) decide whether and the premises are acceptable (give a quick justification for your evaluation) .
No comments:
Post a Comment