36,340
edits
Circular Debate: Difference between revisions
→Begging the question
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Begging the question== | ==Begging the question== | ||
Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning, an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be considered to be true, whether it is true or not. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is being hidden, or at least not easily apparent. Begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", which is an evasion technique used in an attempt to avoid answering the question. <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Begging the question]</ref> | Begging the question is a type of circular reasoning, an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be considered to be true, whether it is true or not. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is being hidden, or at least not easily apparent. Begging the question is often used to mean "raising the question" or "suggesting the question". Sometimes it is confused with "dodging the question", which is an evasion technique used in an attempt to avoid answering the question. <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Begging the question]</ref> | ||
==Ad Hominem== | |||
An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it. | |||
Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging." They are considered unethical because politicians can use them to manipulate voters' opinions against an opponent without addressing core issues. | |||
==Bandwagon Fallacy== | |||
The [[Bandwagon Fallacy]] assumes something is true (or right or good) because others agree with it. In other words, the fallacy argues that if everyone thinks a certain way, then you should, too. | |||
One problem with this kind of reasoning is that the broad acceptance of a claim or action doesn't mean that it's factually justified. People can be mistaken, confused, deceived, or even willfully irrational in their opinions, so using them to make an argument is flawed.<ref>[https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/#circular-argument Fallacies]</ref> | |||
==Causal Fallacy== | |||
Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes. | |||
One example is the false cause fallacy, which is when you draw a conclusion about what the cause was without enough evidence to do so. Another is the post hoc fallacy, which is when you mistake something for the cause because it came first — not because it actually caused the effect. | |||
==Appeal to Hypocrisy== | |||
An appeal to hypocrisy — also known as the tu quoque fallacy — focuses on the hypocrisy of an opponent. The tu quoque fallacy deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. | |||
The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame. The fallacy usually occurs when the arguer uses apparent hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue. | |||
==Sunk Cost== | |||
A sunk cost fallacy is when someone continues doing something because of the effort they already put in it, regardless of whether the additional costs outweigh the potential benefits. "Sunk cost" is an economic term for any past expenses that can no longer be recovered. | |||
For example: Imagine that after watching the first six episodes of a TV show, you decide the show isn't for you. Those six episodes are your "sunk cost." A sunk cost fallacy would be deciding to finish watching anyway because you've already invested roughly six hours of your life in it. | |||
==Equivocation== | |||
Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead. In other words, saying one thing but meaning another. | |||
When it's poetic or comical, we call this a "play on words." But when it's done in a political speech, an ethics debate, or an economics report — and it's designed to make the audience think you're saying something you're not — that's when it becomes a fallacy. | |||
==False Dilemma/False Dichotomy== | |||
A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when in fact more possibilities exist. The phrase "America: Love it or leave it" is an example of a false dilemma. | |||
The false dilemma fallacy is a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience, promoting one side and demonizing another. It's common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into supporting controversial legislation or policies. | |||
==Hasty Generalization== | |||
A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true. | |||
Hasty generalizations are common in arguments because there's a wide range of what's acceptable for "sufficient" evidence. The rules for evidence can change based on the claim you're making and the environment where you are making it — whether it's rooted in philosophy, the sciences, a political debate, or discussing house rules for using the kitchen. | |||
==Appeal to Authority== | |||
Appeal to authority is the misuse of an authority's opinion to support an argument. While an authority's opinion can represent evidence and data, it becomes a fallacy if their expertise or authority is overstated, illegitimate, or irrelevant to the topic. | |||
For example, citing a foot doctor when trying to prove something related to psychiatry would be an appeal to authority fallacy. | |||
==Appeal to Pity== | |||
An appeal to pity relies on provoking your emotions to win an argument rather than factual evidence. Appealing to pity attempts to pull on an audience's heartstrings, distract them, and support their point of view. | |||
Someone accused of a crime using a cane or walker to appear more feeble in front of a jury is one example of appeal to pity. The appearance of disability isn't an argument on the merits of the case, but it's intended to sway the jury's opinion anyway. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||