• due in 48 hrs

  Based on USA Philosophy

  The attachment (FALD master list)  has the instructions and you must follow them completely

  There is a list of 45

  each answer 1-45 will look like  #4 in the attachment which is like this:

  Appeal to common practice

  What it is: This is an attempt to justify an action or a practice (rather than a claim) by claiming that the action or practice is common. Caution: This may be a roundabout way of requesting “fair play,” in which case the person has bypassed the issue of what constitutes “fairness” (since that’s difficult to answer!) and has certainly in some instances circumvented the law or an established policy. The point is that even if it is true that lots of people do something, this fact by itself is not a sufficient reason to engage in their practice. Nazism and racism are obvious examples of things lots of people do, or have, engaged in, but that doesn’t justify the behavior. Example: “Everybody comes in late once in a while, so I’m not going to worry when I walk into class fifteen minutes late today.”

  _________________________________________________________________________

  The attachment has these instructions that you must follow and must edit the attachment

  Assignment Details (Repeated on MS Word Document)

  Our treatment of all of these – and the many more that you can find on the Internet! – will be selective, but this constitutes our required list.  So, this is the Big List, and your ASSIGNMENT is to:

  1. State what each FALD is (e.g., answer the question, “What is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy?”);
  2. Give a clear example of each;
  3. Add a clear explanation of how the FALD gets used, making sure that your explanation is clear enough so that it separates the particular FALD you are writing about from all other FALDS that may otherwise resemble it;
  4. Refrain from using any of my words or examples that you may come across in subsequent “exam preparation” and “classroom presentation” copies of this list, and remove any of my own included examples once you have used them to help you understand what we are doing;
  5. You are free to use other people’s examples (although I prefer fresh examples), but when you do so, you must include a citation, preferably embedded within the text as opposed to printing the entire URL.

  Answers for each 1-45 must look like example #4 which is the correct way

  ________________________________________________________________________________

  second attachment has information you can use or that may be helpful

 

 

THE BIG LIST OF FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT-LIKE DEVICES (FALDs)

 

© 2015-2018 Lawrence Udell Fike, Jr.

 

These “devices” sometimes but not always, appear as arguments.  By saying “sometimes,” we have more liberty in locating these “devices” in persuasive pieces of verbiage even when no apparent argument is present.  After all, they all rightly fall into the category of pseudoreasoning, since none of these devices are actually good examples of how to use your critical mind to engage another critical mind on a regular basis.  They may work fine to prey on another person’s lack of critical thinking skills, but they do not appeal to their own critical thinking abilities.  In fact, they do something very different:  they commonly distract people from the very possibility of approaching a claim, or the appeal that a claim may be pointing to (the pseudo-conclusion), in a critical fashion.  

 

The foregoing claims are usually but not always true; the exceptions occur when both parties to the conversation are familiar with the FALDs that are used.  Then the use of FALDs can be both informational and humorous.  Recognizing that a FALD is a FALD, is our principal goal; our goal is not to completely eliminate use of them or to “hammer” those we “catch” using them.  To recognize a FALD is to be master over its use or non-use, acceptance or non-acceptance.  In every case in which a FALD is used, there is always a way of expressing the same conclusion, or advocating the same course of action, that does not involve the use of the FALD.

 

In some cases, I have included an Internet hyperlink that you can click on to learn more.  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy can be of help in many instances.  This link may or may not be helpful in getting you started.  Also, of course, if you’ve purchased a critical thinking textbook, that will help.

 

Fallacy Type Classification:  You will only need to remember the difference between formal fallacies and informal fallacies:  a., b., and c. are all varieties of informal fallacies.

 

1. Fallacies of no evidence = FNE (Textbook term: “Irrelevant Premises”)
2. Fallacies of little evidence = FLE (Textbook term: “Unacceptable Premises”)
3. Fallacies of language = FL (Textbook term: “Rhetorical Moves”)
4. Formal fallacies = FF (These fallacies are due to the pattern of reasoning used. They are marked with “FF” in the list below. Most of the items on our list are informal fallacies.)

 

Assignment Details

 

Our treatment of all of these – and the many more that you can find on the Internet! – will be selective, but this constitutes our required list.  So, this is the Big List, and your ASSIGNMENT is to:

 

1. State what each FALD is (e.g., answer the question, “What is a circumstantial ad hominem fallacy?”);
2. Give a clear example of each;
3. Add a clear explanation of how the FALD gets used, making sure that your explanation is clear enough so that it separates the particular FALD you are writing about from all other FALDS that may otherwise resemble it;
4. Refrain from using any of my words or examples that you may come across in subsequent “exam preparation” and “classroom presentation” copies of this list;
5. You are free to use other people’s examples (although I prefer fresh examples), but when you do so, you must include a citation, preferably embedded within the text as opposed to printing the entire URL.
6. Change the header information so that it accurately reflects that it is your work.
7. Re-name your file appropriately and delete these instructions and introductory comments before you submit your assignment on Canvas.
8. Sign or type on the document on the lines at the end of this assignment;
9. Submit to me online through Canvas any time up until the due date.

 

I am putting this list online as an editable MS Word document to save you some work.  You can simply add to this outline on your own word processor if you wish.  Be sure to delete all of these introductory comments before you submit your own file to me (see 7 above).

 

I have completed item #4 below as an example of how you are to respond to each item – follow my format, please.

 

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 

 

EXHIBIT LIST:  45 VERY COMMON FALDS

 

As you can see, I have inserted a lot of links.  Please utilize these as you see fit.  Some lead to articles; others, to videos (mostly from YouTube); and others lead to specific pages that I think may be helpful.  I will have a few things to say about a number of these, but my comments will be added elsewhere.  -Mr. Fike

 

1. Ad hominem
   1. Circumstantial ad hominem
   2. Inconsistency ad hominem (“tu quoque”) (pronounced, “two kwo-KAY”)
   3. Personal attack ad hominem
2. Affirming the Consequent – FF
3. Appeal to authority
4. Appeal to common practice

What it is:  This is an attempt to justify an action or a practice (rather than a claim) by claiming that the action or practice is common.  Caution:  This may be a roundabout way of requesting “fair play,” in which case the person has bypassed the issue of what constitutes “fairness” (since that’s difficult to answer!) and has certainly in some instances circumvented the law or an established policy.  The point is that even if it is true that lots of people do something, this fact by itself is not a sufficient reason to engage in their practice.  Nazism and racism are obvious examples of things lots of people do, or have, engaged in, but that doesn’t justify the behavior.  Example: “Everybody comes in late once in a while, so I’m not going to worry when I walk into class fifteen minutes late today.”

5. Appeal to force
6. Appeal to ignorance
7. Appeal to popularity (bandwagon)
8. Appeal to tradition
9. Argument from pity (Appeal to Pity, ad misericordiam)
10. Begging the question (petition principii)
11. Denying the Antecedent – FF
12. Composition
13. Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
14. Division
15. Downplayer (“supposed” “merely,” “so-called”)
16. Dysphemism
17. Equivocation
18. Euphemism (Video contains one expletive near end.)
19. False dilemma (false alternatives)
20. Faulty analogy
21. Gambler’s fallacy
22. Guilt trip
23. Hasty generalization
24. Horse laugh (or, “Appeal to Ridicule,” “Appeal to Mockery”)
25. Hyperbole
26. Innuendo
27. Line-drawing (or, “Decision-point”)
28. Loaded question
29. Mathematical comparison
30. Non causa pro causa (“non-cause for cause”)
31. Peer pressure
32. Poisoning the well (variant: Sweetening the well)
33. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
34. Proof surrogate (“studies show,” “as is commonly understood,” “as has been proved”)
35. Red Herring
36. Reification
37. Slippery Slope
38. Smokescreen
39. Stereotype
40. Straw Person (Straw Man, Scarecrow Argument)
41. Two wrongs make a right
42. Undistributed Middle – FF
43. Visual image persuasion – a photograph or other image is never an argument.
44. Weaseler – (“basically,” “essentially,” “may have,” “may be,” “could imply”)
45. Wishful thinking

 

I certify by typing my name below that the writing I am submitting on this assignment is my own.

 

 

__________________________________________

STUDENT NAME TYPED OR HAND-WRITTEN ABOVE BY STUDENT SUBMITTING THIS PAPER

 

 

__________________________________________

CLASS MEETING TIME, COLLEGE AND COURSE NUMBER

 

 

__________________________________________

DATE

 

 

Introducing “FALDs (Fallacious, Argument-Like Devices)”

Below’s . . .

. . . a good 13.5 minute video introduction to our new topic (Unit 10 – FALDs), but remember to keep separate in your own mind our technical definition of “argument” (a series of claims, precisely one of which functions as the conclusion, and the others of which function as premises) and the every-day definition of “argument” (an interpersonal disagreement, often being discussed in an emotionally charged manner).  Four of the five fallacies  discussed here are on our list.   Oh:  Feel free to skip the last couple of minutes.  They’re not relevant to our course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb-h0sXkH4

 

You might want to take notes on the five fallacies covered here on the “Idea Channel.”  It could save you time later.  (What he calls the “black and white” fallacy, we call “false alternatives” or “false dilemma.”  Also, this fallacy [FALD] may occur even when you’re given a larger number of options.  This occurs, for example, when you have responses A, B, C, D, and E on an exam question, but none of them are correct, and yet there is some correct answer!)

A FINAL NOTE:  All fallacies are FALDs, but not all FALDs are fallacies.  Technically, a fallacy must be an argument in which you have not been given good reason to regard the conclusion as true.  FALDs are broader:  you could be persuaded that something is true when you have actually been given no argument at all!

 

 

Mathematical Comparison – FALD

Mathematical comparison – FALD

This is a nice example of a fallacy of little evidence.  In most cases, the accurate use of numbers from a mathematical perspective (like adding, dividing, and using geometry to graph) can be straight-forward and accurate, but the data can be used to slant the information to incline you to view things from a very particular perspective which may affect other beliefs you have.  It may, of course, also be selective, in case part of the data fail to support the conclusion the arguer wants you to arrive at.    It can also be expressed selectively.  Compare:

The American Philosophical Association alone has 11,400 members.  That’s way too many people walking around believing they are philosophers, and that’s just counting those in one professional organization.  After all, in Antiquity I can recall there having been only a handful of philosophers for each generation.  During the fifth and fourth centuries BC, for example, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle come to mind, but you didn’t have thousands of people claiming to be philosophers!

with this:

In the United States alone, a conservative estimate is that there are over fifty million professionals.  The American Philosophical Association accepts into its membership those who are not U.S. citizens, yet it still constitutes only .002% of all professionals.  That’s nearly zero percent of the professional population!  In fact, there is only one philosopher for every 4,386 professionals in other fields, and only one thinker for every 33,333 U.S. citizens.  One professional cannot possibly serve the needs of thirty-thousand-plus people.  We need to encourage more people to think and to train to become professional philosophers.

The point of the above contrasting paragraphs is that they both contain accurate mathematical calculations, but the mathematical information has been used to selectively argue for opposed conclusions.  This is the central problem of Mathematical Comparison:  while the numbers are accurate, opposed conclusions can be argued for on the basis of correct math.

Referencing mathematics, data, science, and logic, are also sources of potential intimidation.  Ask yourself if you are more likely to take seriously an argumentative essay that includes a lot of statistical data, versus one that is free of such data.  Somehow we can be psychologically tricked by the presence of numbers into believing that the writer has “really done their research” or “must be really smart,” and then on the basis of this alone, we may wrongly conclude that we are forced to accept their conclusion if we, too, want to be on the right side of an issue.  As the above contrasting paragraphs – based on the same data – make clear, this is not the case.  Both conclusions cannot be true at the same time under the same circumstances.  Math is of course helpful, but it is not in-and-of-itself the determiner of whether a position on an issue is reasonable or not reasonable.