|
Life is?? # 261 Part 2 Informal Arguments and Fallacies
** Ethos is an argument that appeals to ethics, authority, and/or credibility
Logos is an argument that appeals to logic
Pathos is an argument that appeals to emotion **
Date: 3/30/2018 11:17:10 AM ( 6 y ) ... viewed 1119 times Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse.
Very often they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument or they are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect.
Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up or when premises are unsound; informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of evidence.
Examples:
---------------
Joel V Benjamin, Extensive interpersonal interaction experience domestically and abroad.
Answered Dec 30 2013 · Author has 5.5k answers and 5.3m answer views
A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid.
A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An invalid argument, or formal fallacy, is one in which the conclusion does not always follow from the premises.
A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form, but be false due to the characteristics of its premises, or its justification structure.
Here's an example of an informal fallacy:
You're an idiot so what you said can't be true.
--------------
Ted Wrigley, Philosophy, spirituality, science, mathematics, politics...
Updated Oct 15 2017 · Author has 4.5k answers and 2.2m answer views
Formal fallacies are errors in the structure of deductive arguments. Deductive logic involves the transference of the collective properties of classes to and across individuals or subsets of those classes.
There are certain structural defect that the human mind frequently makes in those kinds of transference, which we call logical fallacies. For example, the collective class ‘human being’ has the property ‘hands’, so we can safely transfer the property ‘hands’ to any individual or group of humans: e.g. logically Swedes (a subgroup of humans) have hands.
However, if we happen to observe that monkeys have hands, we cannot assert that (say) monkeys are humans, or monkeys are Swedes, or Swedes are monkeys. All of those are invalid deductions (fallacies) that make illicit transference's of properties between unrelated groups.
Informal fallacies — or
what I prefer to call misapprehensions — are failures of reasoning rather than failures of logic.
They are rhetorical mistakes that people make while trying to argue: improper inferences, emotional reasoning, dogmatic adherence, equivocations of various sorts, lies and manipulations… They are not structurally invalid in the same way that logical fallacies are structurally invalid, but they disrupt the flow of reasoning in argumentation, usually with the implicit or explicit intent of preserving a perspective that would otherwise be refuted.
For example, the argumentum ad hominem — as argument to the person —
is a misapprehension in which the reasoner conflates the strengths or weaknesses of an argument with the strengths or weaknesses of the person making the argument.
This can lead one to reject well-reasoned arguments made by bad people, or accept poorly-reasoned arguments made by good people, which can create confusion and conflict.
Sometimes misapprehensions are expressions of ignorance, sometimes expressions of fear or anxiety, sometimes cold manipulations; it is often impossible to tell which.
The best one can do is recognize misapprehensions when they arise in conversations and lead people away from them.
2.5k Views · View Up voters
----------------
Gregory A. Farrell
Answered Jan 30 2016 · Author has 622 answers and 265.1k answer views
If I understand your question correctly, you're asking about the difference between fallacies of formal and informal logic.
Formal logic is entirely structural and tautological (deductive). All fallacies in formal logic relate to invalidity -- intro-argument structural errors and inconsistencies.
"Informal" logic would be better named "non-formal" logic. These arguments involve content-specific terms. Informal arguments can suffer from structural invalidity. But the fallacies which are unique to informal logic relate to the unsoundness of the premises.
-------------
Robert J. Kolker
Answered Dec 30 2013 · Author has 19.1k answers and 10.9m answer views
A formal fallacies is a violation of a logical principle Example: inferring the premise of an implication from the conclusion.
An informal fallacies is a from of verbal trickery . I can consist of using a term in two or more distinct sense. It could consist of arguing against the conclusion by insulting the arguer
(ad hominem).
It can consist of arguing for a conclusion that is different than the conclusion originally established. This are all verbal diversions rather than outright violation of logical laws.
-------------
Lumen
English 112: Exposition and Persuasion
Session 2
Search for:
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Defining Fallacy
Fallacies are errors or tricks of reasoning. We call a fallacy an error of reasoning if it occurs accidentally; we call it a trick of reasoning if a speaker or writer uses it in order to deceive or manipulate his audience. Fallacies can be either formal or informal.
Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and soundness of any argument. At the same time, fallacious reasoning can damage the credibility of the speaker/writer and improperly manipulate the emotions of the audience/reader.
Formal Fallacies
Most formal fallacies are errors of logic: the conclusion doesn’t really “follow from” (is not supported by) the premises. Either the premises are untrue or the argument is invalid. Below is an example of an invalid deductive argument.
Premise: All black bears are omnivores.
Premise: All raccoons are omnivores.
Conclusion: All raccoons are black bears.
Bears are a subset of omnivores. Raccoons also are a subset of omnivores. But these two subsets do not overlap, and that fact makes the conclusion illogical. The argument is invalid—that is, the relationship between the premises doesn’t support the conclusion.
Recognizing Formal Fallacies
“Raccoons are black bears” is instantaneously recognizable as fallacious and may seem too silly to be worth bothering about. However, that and other forms of poor logic play out on a daily basis, and they have real world consequences. Below is an example of a fallacious argument:
Premise: All Arabs are Muslims.
Premise: All Iranians are Muslims.
Conclusion: All Iranians are Arabs.
This argument fails on two levels. First, the premises are untrue because although many Arabs and Iranians are Muslim, not all are. Second, the two ethnic groups are sets that do not overlap; nevertheless, the two groups are confounded because they (largely) share one quality in common. One only has to look at comments on the web to realize that the confusion is widespread and that it influences attitudes and opinions about U.S. foreign policy.
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies take many forms and are widespread in everyday discourse.
Very often they involve bringing irrelevant information into an argument or they are based on assumptions that, when examined, prove to be incorrect.
Formal fallacies are created when the relationship between premises and conclusion does not hold up or when premises are unsound; informal fallacies are more dependent on misuse of language and of evidence.
It is easy to find fairly well-accepted lists of informal fallacies, but that does not mean that it is always easy to spot them. Some moves are always fallacious; others may be allowable given the context.
Using Ethos, Logos, and Pathos to Test Arguments for Fallacies
One way to go about evaluating an argument for fallacies is to return to the concept of the three fundamental appeals: ethos, logos, and pathos.
As a quick reminder,
Ethos is an argument that appeals to ethics, authority, and/or credibility
Logos is an argument that appeals to logic
Pathos is an argument that appeals to emotion
Once you have refreshed your memory of the basics, you may begin to understand how ethos, logos, and pathos can be used appropriately to strengthen your argument or inappropriately to manipulate an audience through the use of fallacies.
Classifying fallacies as fallacies of ethos, logos, or pathos will help you both to understand their nature and to recognize them when you encounter them. Please keep in mind, however, that some fallacies may fit into multiple categories.
Fallacies of ethos relate to credibility. These fallacies may unfairly build up the credibility of the author (or his allies) or unfairly attack the credibility of the author’s opponent (or her allies).
Some fallacies give an unfair advantage to the claims of the speaker or writer or an unfair disadvantage to his opponent’s claims. These are fallacies of logos.
Fallacies of pathos rely excessively upon emotional appeals, attaching positive associations to the author’s argument and negative ones to his opponent’s position.
Conclusion
Both formal and informal fallacies are errors of reasoning, and if a speaker or writer relies on such fallacies, even unintentionally, she undercuts her argument.
For example, if someone defines a key term in her argument in an ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument will appear very weak to an critical audience.
In addition, when listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair attempts at audience manipulation, more than their evaluation of the author’s argument (logos) may be compromised.
Their evaluation of the credibility of the speaker (ethos), and perhaps their ability to connect with that speaker on the level of shared values (pathos), also may be compromised. At the very least, the presence of fallacies will suggest to an audience that the speaker or writer lacks argumentative skill.
{When used properly the Logic Argument (presentation) will give up a clear and precise conclusion!}
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
