Straw PersonA straw person fallacy happens when the arguer fails to attribute the principle of charity and they simplify, or misconstrue another persons argument by claiming a view the proponent does not hold. By attacking this misrepresented position the attempt to discredit the conclusion of the opponent. The fallacy has great rhetorical effect because the arguer makes their opponents view seem completely ridiculous, often oversimplifying the issue at hand. A logical error occurs because the arguer is not correctly summarizing their opponents position.
|
Specter (Slippery Slope Fallacy)
A fallacy that claims an exaggerated or absurd conclusion will result from claims of the opponent, despite the lack of evidence to support such a conclusion. Specter fallacies have great rhetorical effect because they use fear to encourage others to abandon the opponent's view. This fear makes it difficult to note the lack of evidence for the conclusion because it focuses only on the negative consequences of the opponent's view. |
Begging the QuestionBegging the question can also be identified as a circular argument because it uses a premise that is identical to the conclusion. For instance, for instance I can claim it is daytime because the sun is in the sky. Why is it daytime? Because the sun is out. Why is the sun out? Because it is daytime. The rhetorical effect is created because it appears there is evidence for the conclusion (it is daytime), when really, the premise restates the conclusion. This fallacy claims evidence when there is none.
|
Loaded LanguageThe use of language with strong negative or positive connotative meanings. A connotative meaning includes all of the emotions, images, and other associated words or phrases conjured up by a word. For instance, the word "terrorists" has many negative associations with violence and extreamism. However, the word "freedom fighters" implies heroism and justification. Loaded language distracts from the objectivity of an argument because it envokes strong emotional reactions.
|
Affirming the ConsequenceIn formal logic, we know that validity only guarentees a true conclusion if the premises are true. The fallacy of affirming the consequence confuses the neccessary and sufficient conditions of the argument so that the premises fail to entail the conclusion. A neccesssary condintion mean that it is impossible to have the conclusion (Y) without the condition (X). A sufficient condition means that if claim is present (X) the other claim (Y) is also present. In this fallacy a neccessary condition is confused with a sufficient condition.
A standardized fallacy of affirming the consequence looks like this If P, then Q
Q P For example:
If it is Christmas, then I get a present.
I got a present. It is Christmas. |
Naturalistic FallacyThis fallacy happens when an individual tries to come to a reasoned judgement based on the facts alone. These facts fail to recognize the human emotive response to the situation. In other words, a naturalistic fallacy does not consider the ethics of the situation. Combating this fallacy requires that the arguer make an evaluative judgement about what is valuable and worthwhile.
|