************
REMEMBER to work on Homework 10!
due 11:00 am FRIDAY
************

************
Chapter 5 - Logical Fallacies I - Fallacies of RELEVANCE
************

*   A FALLACY is a 
    [dictionary.com] “deceptive, misleading or false notion, belief, etc.”  

    *   The relevant synonym is “erroneousness”.

*   A LOGICAL FALLACY is a mistake in reasoning that leads one to come 
    to a fallacious conclusion.

    *   NOT the same as a factual error!

    *   in determining if one of these is present,
        you should NOT be taking into account the factual
	correctness of the premises or conclusion

============
two basic TYPES/categories of logical fallacies
============

*   A FALLACY OF RELEVANCE is one where the arguer offers 
    LOGICALLY IRRELEVANT reasons to support the conclusion.

    *   This is covered in Chapter 5 of the text.

*   A FALLACY OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE is one where the premises 
    may be relevant, but DON'T PROVIDE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to 
    support the conclusion.

    *   This is covered in Chapter 6 of the text.

============
TYPES of RELEVANCE
============

*   POSITIVE RELEVANCE is a statement that (if true) 
    tends to SUPPORT the conclusion.

*   NEGATIVE RELEVANCE is a statement that (if true) 
    tends to GO AGAINST the conclusion.

    *   NEITHER of the above are a logical fallacy!

*   LOGICAL IRRELEVANCE is a statement that (if true) 
    has NO bearing on the conclusion.

========
*   Logical Fallacies of Relevance use 
    logically irrelevant statements in ways that 
    tend to fool the listener 
    (either accidentally or deliberately) 
    into believing the conclusion, despite that irrelevance.
========

------------
"Ad Hominem" Fallacy
------------
*   A Personal Attack on the Speaker
   
    *   X is bad, so X's argument must be bad.

    *   Attacking the person, rather than the substance of 
        the argument, says nothing about the argument's 
        soundness, from a logical standpoint

------------
“Attacking the Motive” Fallacy
------------

*   An Attack on the Speaker's Motivations

    *   calling into question the motives of one's opponent, BUT often
        without showing that the supposed motive has any ROLE in forming
        their conclusion

    *   Subtly different from Ad Hominem – it questions the motives 
        of the speaker

    *   A “Conflict of Interest” refutation of someone's argument can 
        be relevant, or it can be just a “Attacking the Motive” Fallacy

------------
"Look Who's Talking" Fallacy (Tu Quoque)
------------

*   An Attack on the Speaker's Hypocrisy

    *   An attack on the speaker on the grounds of 
        "you don't practice what you preach"

    *    Assertion that an argument must be false simply because 
         the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it themself.

------------
"Two Wrongs Make a Right" Fallacy
------------

*   Justifying a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is 
    just as bad or worse.


------------
Scare Tactics (or Appeal to Force)
------------

*   Coercing the listener with an irrelevant threat if 
    they do not accept the arguer's conclusion

------------
Appeal to Pity Fallacy
------------

*   The arguer inappropriately attempts to evoke feelings of 
    pity or compassion in the listener,
    AND
    this appeal is irrelevant to the truth of the arguer's conclusion;

------------
Bandwagon Argument Fallacy
------------

*   An argument that persuades the listener to join the (supposedly)
    popular point of view or (supposedly) generally accepted norm 
    without any appeal to RELEVANT logic or facts 

------------
Straw Man Fallacy
------------

*   Mischaracterizing an opponent's position or argument to one's 
    own advantage.

    *   be wary of an argument that has a premise that defines
        what opponents of that argument are saying or doing.
	That premise deserves extra scrutiny!

...will continue on Wednesday;