The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
—Richard P. Feynman
Argument from Consequences Arguing from consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing 'to 'the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. Just because a proposition leads to some unfavourable result does not mean that it is false. Similarly, just because a proposition has good consequences does not all of a sudden make it true. As David Hackett Fischer puts it, "it does not follow, that a quality which attaches to an effect is transferable to the cause. " In the ease of good consequences, an argument may appeal to an audienee•s hopes, which at times take the form of wishful thinking. In the case of bad consequences, such an argument may instead appeal to an audienee•s fears. For example, take Dostoevsky's line, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." (Discussions of objective morality aside, the appeal to the apparent grim consequences of a purely materialistic world says nothing about whether or not the antecedent is true. One should keep in mind that such arguments are fallacious only when they deal with propositions with objective truth values, and not when they deal with decisions or policies [Curtis], such as a politician opposing the raising of taxes for fear that it will adversely impact 'the lives of constituents, for example.
Appeal to Irrelevant Authority An appeal to authority is an appeal to one's sense of modesty [Engel], which is to say, an appeal to the feeling that others are more knowledgeable. While this is a comfortable and natural tendency for humans, such appeals cannot tell us which things are true and which are false. All appeals to authority are a type of genetic fallacy. Experts do not have the characteristic of producing absolute truth. To determine truth from untruth we must rely on evidence and reason. However, appeals to relevant authority can tell us which things are likely to be true. This is the means by which we form beliefs. The overwhelming majority of the things that we believe in, such as atoms and the solar system, are on reliable authority, as are all historical statements, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. It is fallacious to form a belief when the appeal is to an authority who is not an expert on the issue at hand. A similar appeal worth noting is the appeal to vague authority, where an idea is attributed to a vague collective. For example, Professors in Germany showed such and such to be true. Another type of appeal to irrelevant authority is the appeal to ancient wisdom, where something is assumed to be true just because it was believed to be true some time ago. For example, Astrology was practiced by technologically advanced civilizations such as the Ancient Chinese. Therefore, it must be true. One might also appeal to ancient wisdom to support things that are idiosyncratic, or that may change with time. Such appeals need to weigh the evidence that is available to us in the present.
Equivocation
Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during 'the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion. A word whose meaning is maintained throughout an argument is described as being used univocally. Consider the following argument: -how can you be against faith when toe take leaps q/ faith all the time, toilhJi•icnds and potential spouses and investments? Here, the meaning of the word "faith" is shifted from a spiritual belief in a creator to a risky undertaking. A common invocation of this fallacy happens in discussions of science and religion, where the word "why" may be used in equivocal ways. In one context, it may be used as a word that seeks the cause, which as it happens is the main driver of science, and in another, it may be used as a word that seeks purpose and deals with morals and gaps, which science may well not have answers to. For example, one may argue: Science cannot tell us why things happen. Why do exist? Why be moral? Thus, toe need some other source to tell us why things happen.
—Richard P. Feynman
Argument from Consequences Arguing from consequences is speaking for or against the truth of a statement by appealing 'to 'the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. Just because a proposition leads to some unfavourable result does not mean that it is false. Similarly, just because a proposition has good consequences does not all of a sudden make it true. As David Hackett Fischer puts it, "it does not follow, that a quality which attaches to an effect is transferable to the cause. " In the ease of good consequences, an argument may appeal to an audienee•s hopes, which at times take the form of wishful thinking. In the case of bad consequences, such an argument may instead appeal to an audienee•s fears. For example, take Dostoevsky's line, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted." (Discussions of objective morality aside, the appeal to the apparent grim consequences of a purely materialistic world says nothing about whether or not the antecedent is true. One should keep in mind that such arguments are fallacious only when they deal with propositions with objective truth values, and not when they deal with decisions or policies [Curtis], such as a politician opposing the raising of taxes for fear that it will adversely impact 'the lives of constituents, for example.
Appeal to Irrelevant Authority An appeal to authority is an appeal to one's sense of modesty [Engel], which is to say, an appeal to the feeling that others are more knowledgeable. While this is a comfortable and natural tendency for humans, such appeals cannot tell us which things are true and which are false. All appeals to authority are a type of genetic fallacy. Experts do not have the characteristic of producing absolute truth. To determine truth from untruth we must rely on evidence and reason. However, appeals to relevant authority can tell us which things are likely to be true. This is the means by which we form beliefs. The overwhelming majority of the things that we believe in, such as atoms and the solar system, are on reliable authority, as are all historical statements, to paraphrase C. S. Lewis. It is fallacious to form a belief when the appeal is to an authority who is not an expert on the issue at hand. A similar appeal worth noting is the appeal to vague authority, where an idea is attributed to a vague collective. For example, Professors in Germany showed such and such to be true. Another type of appeal to irrelevant authority is the appeal to ancient wisdom, where something is assumed to be true just because it was believed to be true some time ago. For example, Astrology was practiced by technologically advanced civilizations such as the Ancient Chinese. Therefore, it must be true. One might also appeal to ancient wisdom to support things that are idiosyncratic, or that may change with time. Such appeals need to weigh the evidence that is available to us in the present.
Equivocation
Equivocation exploits the ambiguity of language by changing the meaning of a word during 'the course of an argument and using the different meanings to support some conclusion. A word whose meaning is maintained throughout an argument is described as being used univocally. Consider the following argument: -how can you be against faith when toe take leaps q/ faith all the time, toilhJi•icnds and potential spouses and investments? Here, the meaning of the word "faith" is shifted from a spiritual belief in a creator to a risky undertaking. A common invocation of this fallacy happens in discussions of science and religion, where the word "why" may be used in equivocal ways. In one context, it may be used as a word that seeks the cause, which as it happens is the main driver of science, and in another, it may be used as a word that seeks purpose and deals with morals and gaps, which science may well not have answers to. For example, one may argue: Science cannot tell us why things happen. Why do exist? Why be moral? Thus, toe need some other source to tell us why things happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment