![]() ![]() Another related reason is that too often we allow ourselves to be ruled by emotion rather than reason. You may wonder why such arguments are effective, and one reason is sloppy associative reasoning, wherein we problematically assume that characteristics held by an arguer will be transferred to their argument. For example, the arguer may verbally attack the person by making fun of their appearance, intelligence, or character they can highlight something about the person’s circumstances like their job or past or they can insinuate that the person is a hypocrite. ![]() “Ad hominem” in Latin means “toward the man.” It is so named because when someone commits this fallacy, the reasons they give for their conclusion concern the characteristics of the person they are arguing against rather than that person’s position. The ad hominem attack is most often committed by a person who is arguing against some other person’s position. How we feel about somebody is not a logical determinant to use in judging guilt or innocence. Indeed, the arguer says absolutely nothing that’s relevant to the conclusion. But are our feelings relevant in making the decision about whether to drop criminal charges? Notice that the arguer says nothing about the content of the charges or about whether the governor is innocent or guilty. We might admire the governor for his military service and feel sympathy for his advanced age. In this example, the arguer appeals to our feelings of pity and compassion and to our positive feelings about the governor. We don’t want to put an elderly veteran through the ordeal of a trial. However, he’s in his 80s now, and he fought for our country in the Korean War, earning a Purple Heart. I know the allegations against the governor seem serious. ![]() For the most part, appeals to emotion of any kind are not relevant for establishing the conclusion. Indeed, the very first fallacy of relevance is called “appeal to emotion.” Appeal to EmotionĮmotional appeals can target any number of emotions-from fear to pity and from love and compassion to hate and aversion. Fallacies of relevance prey on our likes and dislikes. The reason why fallacies of relevance stick around is because the evidence seems relevant-meaning it feels relevant. In fallacies of relevance, the arguer presents evidence that is not relevant for logically establishing their conclusion. See the chapter on critical thinking, research, reading, and writing to learn more about overcoming biases. They are (1) fallacies of relevance, (2) fallacies of weak induction, (3) fallacies of unwarranted assumption, and (4) fallacies of diversion. These categories show how reasoning can go wrong and serve as warnings for what to watch out for in arguments. There are many specific types of informal fallacies, but most can be sorted into four general categories according to how the reasoning fails. The second reason points to a characteristic (religion) that is irrelevant in judging competency, and the third reason creates a spurious connection between the candidate and a previous female mayor, putting them both in the same failed category based solely on the fact that they share the same gender. The first reason is based on an appeal to emotion, which is not relevant. In fact, each reason commits a different fallacy. In the above argument, none of the reasons offered support for the conclusion. Does belonging to a specific religion have any bearing on one’s qualification for mayor? Is there any credible connection between a mayor’s gender and the likelihood that person will cause a bankruptcy? If the reasons are not adequate support for the conclusion, then the reasoner commits an informal fallacy. This assessment requires background knowledge about the world. ![]() Notice that to assess the above argument, you have must think about whether the reasons offered function as evidence for the conclusion that Ms. Furthermore, the last time we had a female mayor, the city nearly went bankrupt. Rather, there is usually a problem in the relationship between the evidence given in the premises and the conclusion. Mistakes in reasoning are not usually caused by the structure of the argument. When the form of an argument is problematic, it is called a formal fallacy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |