******** REMINDERS ********

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

========
*   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.
========
******** end of REMINDERS ********

*   now, here are a few MORE logical fallacies of relevance:

------------
Red Herring Fallacy
------------

*   Introducing irrelevant information or commentary as a 
    means to avoid the original argument, or to claim that 
    the irrelevant information settles the original argument

*   [note that a single argument CAN have multiple kinds
    of logical fallacies in it...!]

    *   consider Straw Man and Red Herring:
        *   BUT Straw Man DOES always involve MISREPRESENTING
            another person's argument or claim;
            (Red Herring does not necessarily misrepresent
	    another person's claim)

        *   Red Herring DOES always involve CHANGING or
	    EVADING the issue (Straw Man does not necessarily
	    change or evade the issue)

------------
Equivocation Fallacy
------------

*   Using ambiguous language or multiple meanings of words 
    to link premise(s) and conclusion in a non-logical way

    *   committed when a key word is used in two or more
        senses in the same argument,

	and the apparent success of that argument depends on
        its shift in meaning

------------
Begging the Question Fallacy
------------

*   Defending a Conclusion by using a (usually reworded) form 
    of the Conclusion as a Premise!

************
MOVING ON to CHAPTER 6 -
FALLACIES of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
************

*   Mistakes in reasoning that occur because the premises, though
    logically relevant, do not provide sufficient evidence to support
    the conclusion

------------
Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
------------

*   Citing an authority whose reliability is doubtful

    *   authority: a person or source that possesses special knowledge,
        competence, or expertise in a particular field

*   what are some reasons that a person's/source's reliability as
    an authority might be doubted?
    *   may not actually be a genuine authority on the subject at hand
    *   may be categorized as biased on the subject at hand
    *   beause their observations might be questionable
    *   because it is not being cited corrrectly or in context
    *   because the source conflicts with expert consensus
    *   because the source might be already known to be generally
        unreliable


------------
Appeal to Ignorance
------------

*   Claiming that a conclusion is true, simply because nobody has proved
    that the conclusion is false

*   The fallacy of treating a lack of evidence against a conclusion as
    evidence for the conclusion

STOPPED HERE in class on Wednesday, 
    we'll add more on Friday;