After spending some time here in the D&ST forum I have decided that a guide to basic logic is in need. Use it to make the D&ST section a little bit more manageable, and for your own personal benefit (IE not looking like an ass).
The basic syllogism (argument)- three parts.
1.) Premises (assertions, or major premise)
One or more propositions are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
2.) Inference (minor premise)
The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference. The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference.
3.) Conclusion
The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them.
example:
Premise: All humans are mortal.
inference: Some bf2s'ers are human.
Conclusion: Some bf2s'ers are mortal.
Now on the to argumentative or logical fallacies. Avoid committing the following.
Distraction tactics:
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options
Ignorance (assumption): because something is not known to be true or correct, it is assumed to be false or incorrect
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn from an original event in an attempt to prove the value of the first occurrence
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition. Often done to mask the weaker of the two points.
Appeals to emotion:
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force, possibly a senior member or moderator.
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy for somebody who may have a personal stake in the matter at hand
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author based on their perceived moral goodness.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true and for no other reason.
Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem): the character is attacked. Name calling and the like, questioning motives, the practice what you preach...
Appeals to Authority:
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument is presented is felt to affect value of the conclusion drawn.
Inductive Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a much larger population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is not an accurate depiction of the larger body in question
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are dissimilar
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite proper evidence to support the argument
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Causal Fallacies
Post Hoc: This because of that. As one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premises used to achieve the conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best or most pertinent argument
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings in the same argument without differentiation
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations leading to improper interpretation
Category Errors
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property
Non Sequitur
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
Taken from: http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm and http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ and http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-4423(196810)2%3A77%3A308%3C480%3AACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
I do not hold this guide to exhaustive or perfect; it is far from it. If you feel the need to add to it or correct it please make a suggestion and I'll edit it in. I expect changes to need to be made as I only spent 10 minutes putting this together.
The basic syllogism (argument)- three parts.
1.) Premises (assertions, or major premise)
One or more propositions are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.
2.) Inference (minor premise)
The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference. The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference.
3.) Conclusion
The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them.
example:
Premise: All humans are mortal.
inference: Some bf2s'ers are human.
Conclusion: Some bf2s'ers are mortal.
Now on the to argumentative or logical fallacies. Avoid committing the following.
Distraction tactics:
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are more than two options
Ignorance (assumption): because something is not known to be true or correct, it is assumed to be false or incorrect
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn from an original event in an attempt to prove the value of the first occurrence
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition. Often done to mask the weaker of the two points.
Appeals to emotion:
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force, possibly a senior member or moderator.
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy for somebody who may have a personal stake in the matter at hand
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author based on their perceived moral goodness.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true and for no other reason.
Attacking the Person (Ad Hominem): the character is attacked. Name calling and the like, questioning motives, the practice what you preach...
Appeals to Authority:
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument is presented is felt to affect value of the conclusion drawn.
Inductive Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a much larger population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is not an accurate depiction of the larger body in question
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are dissimilar
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite proper evidence to support the argument
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration
Causal Fallacies
Post Hoc: This because of that. As one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed in the premises used to achieve the conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best or most pertinent argument
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings in the same argument without differentiation
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations leading to improper interpretation
Category Errors
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property
Non Sequitur
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
Taken from: http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm and http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ and http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-4423(196810)2%3A77%3A308%3C480%3AACOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
I do not hold this guide to exhaustive or perfect; it is far from it. If you feel the need to add to it or correct it please make a suggestion and I'll edit it in. I expect changes to need to be made as I only spent 10 minutes putting this together.
Last edited by Pochsy (2009-03-16 17:39:56)
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
