Many posts I browse seem to be either based or reliant on fallacious argument. It might be helpful for posters to remember the types of fallacy that exist and how they are manifested, To that end I offer the following.
Note on definitions
Premiss - statement taken to be true, from which conclusions are drawn
Major Premiss & Minor Premiss- in philosophy the debate is conducted in syllogisms (a conclusion drawn from 2 premisses). Each syllogism has a major and minor premiss.
Eg.Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Deductive argument - those in which the conclusion follows from the premisses because of the agreed meaning of the words used to express the argument. The premisses, in effect, stipulate that the conclusion is true. For this reason, deduction gives us no new information about the world; but this also makes deduction the most powerful type of reasoning. Given the truth of the premisses, the conclusion must also be true.
Inductive argument - those in which a conclusion is drawn about a class of objects, based upon the characteristics observed in a sample of that class. Induction indicates facts about the world beyond what we actually observe; but this also makes induction open to the possibility of error. Such argument is frowned upon in science.
Retroductive argument - those in which an explanation is suggested to account for an observed fact or set of facts. In terms of establishing the truth of the conclusion, retroduction is the weakest type of argumentation. However retroduction is the only type of argumentation that suggests new connections in the structure of the world, so without this type of argumentation the growth of knowledge would be impossible.
Fallacies that afflict the major premiss
Deductive : Irrelevancies
In Deduction the major premiss is a RULE which asserts that there is a relationship between one class of objects and another. If the rule is false, then there is no such relationship, i.e. the two classes are irrelevant to each other. Hence, if the major premiss is false, the minor premiss is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Categories
[ur=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/adhominem.asp]The Ad Hominem argument[/url]
The Emotional Appeal argument
The Ad Verecundiam argument
The Personal Appeals argument
The Middle Ground argument
The Fallacies of Diversion
Inductive : Errors in Observation
In Induction the major premiss is a RESULT, i.e. a statement of the data or observations collected from a sample. If the result is false, then this statement does not accurately reflect what is actually true of the sample. Such errors are caused by experimental conditions that have a deleterious effect on the data collected, e.g. faulty instruments or faulty recording.
Categories:
Tainted data
Experimenter bias
Retroductive : False Cause
In Retroduction the major premiss is a RULE, i.e. a statement of a known (or presumed) causal regularity. If the rule is false, then this regularity does not actually obtain. Hence, if the major premiss is false, the argument appeals to a causal mechanism that does not operate in reality (or, a least, is generally considered far-fetched and unbelievable.)
Categories
Arcane Explanation
Non Causa Pro Causa[url]
[url=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/posthoc.asp]Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
[url=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/gamblers.aspGambler's Fallacy[/url]
Fallacies that afflict the minor premiss.
Deductive : Misrepresentations
In Deduction the minor premiss is a CASE, i.e. an instance allegedly subsumed under a broader class. If the case is false, then the instance being considered does not really fall into the class it is alleged to fall into. That is, the facts of the matter have been misstated. Hence, a false minor premiss is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Categories
Misrepresenting the facts
Straw Man
Inductive : Errors in Sampling.
In Induction the minor premiss is a CASE, i.e. a sample chosen to represent a broader class. If the case is false, then the sample fails to represent the broader class that it was chosen to represent. Hence, if the minor premiss is false, however accurate or unbiased our observations may be, the data collected may not be reflected in the broader class.
Categories
Hasty Generalization
Uncharacteristic Sample
Inductive Hyperbole
False Analogy
Uncontrolled Factors
Retroductive : False Report
In Retroduction the minor premiss is a RESULT, i.e. a statement of an observation of presumed fact. If the result is false, then the "fact" allegedly observed is bogus. Perhaps the observation was inaccurate, or perhaps it was misinterpreted. In any case, if the minor premiss is false, we find ourselves in the position of trying to "explain" something that never happened.
Categories
Over-reporting the Facts
Under-reporting the Facts
Fallacies of Cirularity
Circular Justification
Deductive circularities offer as justification precisely what we are trying to justify.
Categories
Invincible Ignorance
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Vicious Circle
Circular Evidence
Inductive circularities involve the selection of certain evidence when we already know what the "evidence" will show.
Categories
Speculative Evidence
Anecdotal Evidence
Fishing for Data (Post-Designation)
Circular Explanation
Retroductive circularities appeal to a mechanism of explanation that is itself in need of explanation.
Categories
Appeal to Mystery
Vacuous Explanation
Cancelling Hypothesis
Regards
Chris
Note on definitions
Premiss - statement taken to be true, from which conclusions are drawn
Major Premiss & Minor Premiss- in philosophy the debate is conducted in syllogisms (a conclusion drawn from 2 premisses). Each syllogism has a major and minor premiss.
Eg.Major premise: All men are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.
Deductive argument - those in which the conclusion follows from the premisses because of the agreed meaning of the words used to express the argument. The premisses, in effect, stipulate that the conclusion is true. For this reason, deduction gives us no new information about the world; but this also makes deduction the most powerful type of reasoning. Given the truth of the premisses, the conclusion must also be true.
Inductive argument - those in which a conclusion is drawn about a class of objects, based upon the characteristics observed in a sample of that class. Induction indicates facts about the world beyond what we actually observe; but this also makes induction open to the possibility of error. Such argument is frowned upon in science.
Retroductive argument - those in which an explanation is suggested to account for an observed fact or set of facts. In terms of establishing the truth of the conclusion, retroduction is the weakest type of argumentation. However retroduction is the only type of argumentation that suggests new connections in the structure of the world, so without this type of argumentation the growth of knowledge would be impossible.
Fallacies that afflict the major premiss
Deductive : Irrelevancies
In Deduction the major premiss is a RULE which asserts that there is a relationship between one class of objects and another. If the rule is false, then there is no such relationship, i.e. the two classes are irrelevant to each other. Hence, if the major premiss is false, the minor premiss is irrelevant to the conclusion.
Categories
[ur=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/adhominem.asp]The Ad Hominem argument[/url]
The Emotional Appeal argument
The Ad Verecundiam argument
The Personal Appeals argument
The Middle Ground argument
The Fallacies of Diversion
Inductive : Errors in Observation
In Induction the major premiss is a RESULT, i.e. a statement of the data or observations collected from a sample. If the result is false, then this statement does not accurately reflect what is actually true of the sample. Such errors are caused by experimental conditions that have a deleterious effect on the data collected, e.g. faulty instruments or faulty recording.
Categories:
Tainted data
Experimenter bias
Retroductive : False Cause
In Retroduction the major premiss is a RULE, i.e. a statement of a known (or presumed) causal regularity. If the rule is false, then this regularity does not actually obtain. Hence, if the major premiss is false, the argument appeals to a causal mechanism that does not operate in reality (or, a least, is generally considered far-fetched and unbelievable.)
Categories
Arcane Explanation
Non Causa Pro Causa[url]
[url=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/posthoc.asp]Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact
[url=http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/gamblers.aspGambler's Fallacy[/url]
Fallacies that afflict the minor premiss.
Deductive : Misrepresentations
In Deduction the minor premiss is a CASE, i.e. an instance allegedly subsumed under a broader class. If the case is false, then the instance being considered does not really fall into the class it is alleged to fall into. That is, the facts of the matter have been misstated. Hence, a false minor premiss is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Categories
Misrepresenting the facts
Straw Man
Inductive : Errors in Sampling.
In Induction the minor premiss is a CASE, i.e. a sample chosen to represent a broader class. If the case is false, then the sample fails to represent the broader class that it was chosen to represent. Hence, if the minor premiss is false, however accurate or unbiased our observations may be, the data collected may not be reflected in the broader class.
Categories
Hasty Generalization
Uncharacteristic Sample
Inductive Hyperbole
False Analogy
Uncontrolled Factors
Retroductive : False Report
In Retroduction the minor premiss is a RESULT, i.e. a statement of an observation of presumed fact. If the result is false, then the "fact" allegedly observed is bogus. Perhaps the observation was inaccurate, or perhaps it was misinterpreted. In any case, if the minor premiss is false, we find ourselves in the position of trying to "explain" something that never happened.
Categories
Over-reporting the Facts
Under-reporting the Facts
Fallacies of Cirularity
Circular Justification
Deductive circularities offer as justification precisely what we are trying to justify.
Categories
Invincible Ignorance
Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
Vicious Circle
Circular Evidence
Inductive circularities involve the selection of certain evidence when we already know what the "evidence" will show.
Categories
Speculative Evidence
Anecdotal Evidence
Fishing for Data (Post-Designation)
Circular Explanation
Retroductive circularities appeal to a mechanism of explanation that is itself in need of explanation.
Categories
Appeal to Mystery
Vacuous Explanation
Cancelling Hypothesis
Regards
Chris
