Argumentative Fallacies
Arguments can be bad for one of several reasons: They can fail when the conclusion does not properly follow from the premises.
Baptists are often politically conservative. (premise)
Republicans are often politically conservative. (premise)
Therefore Baptists are often Republicans. (conclusion)
This sort of argument can be extremely seductive, but logically it does not work. Consider another argument that has exactly the same form:
John Elway is a great quarterback. (premise)
Michael Vick is a great quarterback. (premise)
Therefore, Michael Vick is really John Elway. (conclusion)
Both arguments are invalid, for even if their premises are true, their conclusions can still be false. Many logical fallacies are of just this sort: They offer reasons that fail to support their conclusions.
Finally, some arguments are bad, not because they make false claims or because they commit some logical error, but rather because they are booby traps for unsuspecting readers.
Dr. Roy Spencer, who is a prominent climate scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and winner of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, doesn’t think that humans are causing global warming (premise). So humans are probably not causing global warming (conclusion).
Formally speaking, there is nothing fallacious about this argument. It appeals to authority, but Dr. Spencer is fairly clearly an appropriate authority on the matter of global warming. So as far as it goes, this is a good argument. The problem, however is that the argument leaves out an important bit of information, namely that the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is being caused by humans. But by suppressing important evidence, the argument is potentially a booby-trap for unwary readers.
In preparation for your Fallacy Test on Tuesday watch the following clips. Although the speaker is a fast talker, I think the explanations of the fallacies will be helpful.
No comments:
Post a Comment