Message from @Gob

2020-04-04 22:02:25 UTC

Fallacies in arguments (irrelevancy fallacies)

Appeal to force
Physical or mental intimidation

Appeal to pity
Ex: saying you deserve a good grade because you have problems at home (opposite: appeal to legitimate compassion)

Appeal to the people
Direct - to a group, to induce mob mentality
Indirect - to individual, join the bandwagon (lots of people) Appeal to vanity or snobbery

Argument against the person ad hominem (against the person making an argument)
- abusive “ you are stupid”
- circumstantial “that conclusion doesn’t follow from these premises because (s) he is ___________”
- Tu Quoque “you are a hypocrite” “no room to talk”
Ok to cite something about a person when rejecting their testimony
- Accident give Jeffery Domer a knife you stole his property
- Straw man distort the others argument “ you should not hit your kids” “ dont hit them? Let them run wild with no discipline” did not say to not discipline kids just that you should not hit them
- Missing the point -
- Red Herring – Changing the issue
- Appeal to inexpert authority
- Appeal to ignorance
- Hasty generalization ( to small of a sample ) ( bias- not random)
-False Cause Tuesday come after monday, monday doesn’t cause tuesday
Post hoc- temporal
Not the cause for the cause coincidence reverse cause and effect does the wind make the waves or do the waves influence wind
Over simplified cause
-Slippery slope
-weak analogy

Begging the question

Premise is left out leaving “impression” nothing more is needed
murder is wrong so abortion is wrong

Conclusion/ premise restated stealing is wrong because it is taking something without permission

Chain of influences
ted vouches for fred vice versa

complex question
have you stopped beating your wife /loaded question

Authentic Human Programming

2020-04-04 22:03:04 UTC

false dichotomy /dilemma
peace corp part of the problem or part of the solution
not only 2 outcomes

suppressed evidence
most energy drinks are mostly water

equivocation (always involves ambiguity in terms of definition)
ambiguous term used in the argument that does not always mean the same thing throughout the argument
only man is rational
no man is a woman
no woman are rational
man has changed the first meaning human the second meaning a human male

amphiboly (always involves ambiguity in sentence structure and meaning)
lack of pronouns or reference
you have a screw a bar and a hole tighten it

different from hasty generalization
particulars to a general statement
attribute is distributed (about each and every moment)

Composition
parts to whole (class statement)
fleas are numerous (class statement)
fleas are small (generalization) ( each and ever member of the term fleas are claimed as small)

Division
whole to parts
the whole car is heavy so all of the parts are heavy

Authentic Human Programming

2020-04-04 22:05:51 UTC

Formal logic
Categorical Logic

Distribution of terms
quantifier ( how much)
Subject term
copula (to be, is, are)
Predicate terms
Quantity Subject Copula Predicate
A All S^d are P^u Universal Particular
E No S^d are P^d
I Some S^u are P^u
O Some S^u are not P^d

^D distributed
^U undistributed

Quality Affirmative or Negative

Existential Import
A All S are P
|
V
O Some S are P

Hypothetical
A E
X
I O
Contradictory Square

Aristotle: all propositions have existential import
Boolean: Existential import

a: all s are p
e: no s are p
I: some s are p
o: some s are not p

conversion : switching the subject and predicate
a: all s are p → all p are s not equivalent
e: no s are p → no p are s equivalent
I: some s are p → some p are s equivalent
o: some s are not p → some p are not s not equivalent
obversion: change quality, replace predicate, with term complement
a: all s are p → all s are non p equivalent
e: no s are p → no s are non p equivalent
I: some s are p → some s are not non p equivalent
o: some s are not p → some s are non p equivalent

Contraposition : switch subject and predicate, replace both with compliments
a: all s are p → all non p are non s equivalent
e: no s are p → no non p are non s non equivalent
I: some s are p → some non p are non s non equivalent
o: some s are not p → some non p are not non s equivalent