Philosophy…… due Friday……. 42 items no essay to write

The Big List of Fallacious Argument-Like Devices (FALDs) – © 2015-2018 rence Udell Fike, Jr. – p. 4 of 4

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

© 2015-2018 rence 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.

a. Fallacies of no evidence = FNE (Textbook term: “Irrelevant Premises”)
b. Fallacies of little evidence = FLE (Textbook term: “Unacceptable Premises”)
c. Fallacies of language = FL (Textbook term: “Rhetorical Moves”)
d. 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
a. Circumstantial ad hominem

b. Inconsistency ad hominem (“tu quoque”) (pronounced, “two kwo-KAY”)
c. 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