Is it a Fallacy? (1)
- I want to take an ESL (English Sign Language) class
- Three people have told me that ESL is a challenging language to learn.
- Therefore, ESL must be a hard language to learn.
This IS a fallacy
(Appeal to the People)
- I touched the stove with my right hand to see if it was cool.
- My right hand got burned.
- Therefore, the stove was hot.
This is NOT a fallacy.
Strawman Fallacy =
Where a person distorts an argument and treats such a primary argument
Informal Fallacy
A - "Smoking is not good for you health, please don't start now."
B - "I literally just saw you pull out a box of cigarettes are start smoking yesterday. You are a smoker, so can't be talking about smoking being bad."
What is Tu Quoque?
(Just because B is a smoker, doesn't make what they say wrong.)
A - "I'm so tired of all of these cars and motorcycles honking in the middle of the night! I swear, they should make a law to make them stop honking so much."
B - "Okay, I know you are upset about those stupid cars, but come on! Do you really so many people to stop driving down here when it's so good for the town's business? That's going to hurt everyone!"
A - "Ugh... they make it so hard to sleep..."
What is Strawman Fallacy?
- A wants regulation for noise pollution
- B misrepresents A's claim about noise pollution by making it about getting rid of cars.
A - "I have a dog named Moony."
B - "I think that dog is a husky."
A - "I guess, you could say that 'I have a husky named Moony.'"
This is NOT a fallacy!
The dog is named Moony.
The dog is a husky.
Therefore, the husky is named Moony.
- Throughout the day, I have heard 16 people make a "6-7" joke.
- Therefore, millions of people must be making "6-7" jokes.
This IS a fallacy!
- There are likely not millions of people making "6-7" jokes.
Affirming the Consequent =
Where one concludes the 1st part of an if-then statement incorrectly.
Formal Fallacy
A - "We should ban plastic bags because they are harmful for the environment!"
B - "As you can see, my opponent, a rapid filthy zealous hippie, wants to dictate how we live our lives."
What is Ad Hominem?
(Look at "rapid filthy zealous hippie")
A - "Last year, I went to China and met about 58 people who saw that one giant Buddha statue in Sichuan. I forgot its name..."
B - "You have to remember where you go to, it'll make the memory last longer."
"I'll think about it. Anyways, there were a few tourists in my group. I would say around... half of them were from the United States."
*phone rings in background*
B - "So, I assume that half of your tour group were being too loud?"
A - "Oh one second, my phone is ringing. I'll get back to you on the trip in a bit."
What is a hasty generalization?
- Just because half of the group are Americans, does not mean that fit they necessarily fit the stereotype of American tourists.
A - "People who are allergic to peanuts don't eat peanut butter."
B - "I don't like peanut butter---"
A - "You must be allergic."
This IS a fallacy.
(Affirming the Consequent)
A - "Honey, I was watching the news and I heard that apparently Vietnam is going to become Communist now..."
B - "OH SHOOT, YOU'RE KIDDING?!"
A - "No, Honey, I'm not kidding! We could end up with a Communist Laos, then Cambodia, then Thailand and Burma, and then who knows India will be next!"
B - "HONEY, WE'RE COOKED."
This IS a Fallacy!
(Slippery Slope Fallacy)
Appeal to fear = Where a person increases fear about something to argue for a specific alternative
Informal Fallacy
A - "Since that new natural park opened, I finally got hired to be a tour guide! I can't wait--"
B - "Nah! There's no way you are going to make yourself suffer through all of that! Considering my experience, it's probably going to end with you hating all the tourists or them all hating you. You shouldn't be an idiot."
What is Either/Or Fallacy?
(B is proposing that a situation where A will either HATE all the tourists they guide or them ALL hating them when neither and both are also possible.)
*A philosopher debates the nature of man with a fellow philosopher
A - "Man is a rather strange species, isn't it? Overemphasizing its role in the everyday life of so many other beings."
B - "Yes, I do agree. Man does interfere in the lives of other animals profoundly, especially those of which that are to go extinct."
A - "Indeed, hence, I should say that man must emphasize his role as the dominant species and eliminate such, for it is not his nature to destroy?"
B - "Is it really his nature?"
A - "It clearly is by his willingness to desire to destroy and so he must destroy."
What is Appeal to Nature?
- Focus on arguing what is natural and what isn't nature