Monday, March 21, 2016

TFY C7 IM ed

CHAPTER 7: VIEWPOINTS NOTES OVERVIEW

Important to know
 (1) the difference between liberals and conservatives, greens and libertarians; 
(2) that viewpoints could be characterized;
(3) that reality is interpreted or filtered through viewpoints; 
(4) that recognizing viewpoints engenders a detached perspective; 
(5) that critical readers always read with the context of source in mind; and 
(6) that different political points of view can be recognized through characteristic ideas and rhetoric. 

Need to reflect new shifts in social and political viewpoints, in their publications, beliefs, and rhetoric.

Need to clarify their understanding of viewpoint as well as to think more fluidly of examples through the construction of mind maps.


 “Rankings of Some Print Publications according to Reputations for Reliability.” 

 “Viewpoints in Literature” --  different viewpoints tell different stories. 

Whistleblower films.



POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS

 American magazines make considerable use of their knowledge of their consumers’ demographic profiles. Editors use this information both to shape the design and content of their publications as well as to attract appropriate advertisers. Thus publications can sometimes know more about their readers, socio-economic status, political views, and tastes than the readers might know about themselves. In studying these magazines, some students will have more difficulties than others in picking up the cues that suggest socio-economic class and political affiliations. On the other hand, many will know a lot about consumer products and consumer tastes. They might also be convinced that the ownership of certain products results in higher socio-economic status and esteem. 

Viewpoints in words as liberal and conservative
See  chart that compares conservative and liberal values. Not all will agree with my characterizations. 

Analyze arguments within the framework of viewpoints, 
Evaluate voter information pamphlets and political television commercials in order to arrive at your own decisions.

NEWS FRAMING  

Newspapers can be used in many ways: to teach observing, to teach detachment, to provide current examples of what we are studying, and to point out current topics of controversy in preparation for the final research paper. This exercise in news framing awareness challenges mastery of the skills of observing, of word awareness, and of separating facts from inferences, as well as from assumptions, evaluations, and opinions.

PROPAGANDA AND VESTED INTERESTS This section is newly written for this edition, framed as hidden viewpoints with hidden motives. The writing/discussion/research questions raise some serious issues that may require student research.

THE POWER OF IMAGE AS A PERSUADER This topic of image as a persuader is a major one deserving far more treatment since most advertisements depend upon visual persuasion. Your students might want to take this topic and run with it, bringing in their own examples to help one another recognize these persuasive techniques and their messages rather than to absorb them as givens. They could, for instance, put together a collection of photo ops of political figures and ask such questions as the following. How do they evoke positive impressions through dress, demeanor, and gestures? How do they convey trustworthiness, stability, power, and authority? How do they convey the archetype of the good father or the good mother? 


SHAPING WRITING TO THE READER’S VIEWPOINT: THE WRITER’S CHALLENGE 

Although this text does not teach audience analysis or how to anticipate reader viewpoint, this is a logical place to fit in a discussion of this subject. Students might be asked how they feel when they are writing an essay that will only be read by their instructor and how that might feel different from writing for their peers. They might also enjoy a discussion on how they might shape content differently when writing for different reading audiences. I have found it fun to interest students with this topic by playing the following as a kind of game. I write a thesis on the board—“Give me a thesis, any thesis,” I say to the class. I also write down the names of about three magazines with divergent perspectives, ranging from Reader’s Digest to Time or Salon. Then I ask the class to write down how they might want to revise this same thesis idea in order to better relate to each perspective. Sometimes we follow a revision choice with an outline of three topic sentences. This exercise encourages thinking flexibility and conveys the range of the problem without the need to have students write out a full essay or several versions of the same.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Word Precision Video Link

Amir Amiri's presentation for Language and Word Precision with a  reference link for session 3 on language and meaning and culture:

 As the Scholar Dr. Umar F. Abd-Allah defines language and thought during a lecture in 2014 https://youtu.be/iDBq2X-d9o0?t=2340, (part selected).

He talks about how one’s virtue is connected to their language. He uses an anecdote about people a he knows in West Africa which has a language that does not have words for cursing and talking about other people’s families aka backbiting (gossip).
“Language has a lot to do with the way we think (Aql-intellect),” “If you want to give people freedom and Justice, teach them Language.”
Language is essential to thought, clear thinking, observations, critical thinking and intellect.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Vaughn The Power of Critical Thinking 5e Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Preface
PART 1. BASICS
1. The Power of Critical Thinking
Why It Matters
How It Works
Claims and Reasons
Reasons and Arguments
Arguments in the Rough
Key Words
Summary
Exercises
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Writing Assignments

2. Obstacles to Critical Thinking
Psychological Obstacles
The Almighty Self
The Power of the Group
Philosophical Obstacles
Subjective Relativism
Social Relativism
Skepticism
Key Words
Summary
Exercises
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

3. Making Sense of Arguments
Argument Basics
Judging Arguments
Finding Missing Parts
Argument Patterns
Diagramming Arguments
Assessing Long Arguments
Key Words
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

PART 2. REASONS
4. Reasons for Belief and Doubt
When Claims Conflict
Experts and Evidence
Personal Experience
Impairment
Expectation
Innumeracy and Probability
Fooling Ourselves
Resisting Contrary Evidence
Looking for Confirming Evidence
Preferring Available Evidence
Claims in the News
Inside the News
Sorting Out the News
Advertising and Persuasion
Identification
Slogans
Misleading Comparisons
Weasel Words
Key Words
Summary
Exercises
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

5. Fallacies and Persuaders
Fallacies: Irrelevant Premises
Genetic Fallacy
Composition
Division
Appeal to the Person
Equivocation
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Tradition
Appeal to Ignorance
Appeal to Emotion
Red Herring
Straw Man
Two Wrongs Make a Right
Fallacies: Unacceptable Premises
Begging the Question
False Dilemma
Decision-Point Fallacy
Slippery Slope
Hasty Generalization
Faulty Analogy
Persuaders: Rhetorical Moves
Innuendo
Euphemisms and Dysphemisms
Stereotyping
Ridicule
Rhetorical Definitions
Key Words
Summary
Exercises
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

PART 3. ARGUMENTS
6. Deductive Reasoning: Propositional Logic
Connectives and Truth Values
Conjunction
Disjunction
Negation
Conditional
Checking for Validity
Simple Arguments
Tricky Arguments
Streamlined Evaluation
Proof of Validity
Rules of Inference
Rules of Replacement
Proof of Validity
Key Words
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

7. Deductive Reasoning: Categorical Logic
Statements and Classes
Translations and Standard Form
Terms
Quantifiers
Diagramming Categorical Statements
Sizing Up Categorical Syllogisms
The Square of Opposition
Categorical Equivalence
Key Words
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

8. Inductive Reasoning
Enumerative Induction
Sample Size
Representativeness
Opinion Polls
Analogical Induction
Causal Arguments
Testing for Causes
Causal Confusions
Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
Key Words
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

PART 4. EXPLANATIONS
9. Inference to the Best Explanation
Explanations and Inference
Theories and Consistency
Theories and Criteria
Testability
Fruitfulness
Scope
Simplicity
Conservatism
Telling Good Theories from Bad
A Doomed Flight
An Amazing Cure
Key Words
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

10. Judging Scientific Theories
Science and Not Science
The Scientific Method
Testing Scientific Theories
Judging Scientific Theories
Copernicus Versus Ptolemy
Evolution Versus Creationism
Science and Weird Theories
Making Weird Mistakes
Leaping to the Weirdest Theory
Mixing What Seems with What Is
Misunderstanding the Possibilities
Judging Weird Theories
Crop Circles
Talking with the Dead
Summary
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments

11. Critical Thinking in Morality and the Law
Moral Arguments
Moral Premises
Moral Theories
Evaluating Moral Theories
Two Important Theories
Legal Reasoning
A Coherent Worldview
Key Words
Summary
Exercises
Field Problems
Self-Assessment Quiz
Integrative Exercises
Writing Assignments
Appendix A: Essays for Evaluation
1. "Death Penalty Discriminates Against Black Crime Victims,"USA Today
2. "Marine Parks," Bill Daly
3. "A Feminist Defense of Pornography," Wendy McElroy
4. "A Defense of Homosexuality," John Corvino
5. "More Innocents Die When We Don't Have Capital Punishment," Dennis Prager
6. "What's Wrong with Adultery?" Bonnie Steinbock
7. "A Pat-Down Is Better than a Blow-Up," Caroline Baum
8. "The Cohabitation Epidemic," Neil Clark Warren
9. "Not Being Vaccinated Is Not Acceptable,"David Ropeik
10. "Women and the Afghanistan Peace Process," Ann Jones
11. "A Deviance from God's Norm," Richard Land
12. "Marriage Still Evolving, as Ever," Buffalo News
13. "Slouching Toward Chimeras," Jeremy Rifkin
14. "Fighting Islamic Extremists Who Stifle Free Speech," Ayaan Hirsi and Daniel Huff
15. "Is Sluttishness a Feminist Statement?" Wendy Kaminer
16. "Torture: Time for Congress to End the Debate," USA Today
17. "Torture: Severe Interrogations Work," Trent Franks
18. "Freedom of Expression: Protect Student Speech—Even 'Unwise' Bong Banner," USA Today
19. "Freedom of Expression: Policy Reflects Common Sense,"Kenneth W. Starr
20. "It's Irresponsible to Spread Fear of Vaccine," USA Today
21. "Flag Amendment: Flag Needs Protection," Dianne Feinstein
Appendix B. Answers to Exercises
Appendix C. Answers to Self-Assessment Quizzes
Appendix D. Critical Thinking and Writing
Notes
Glossary
Credits
Index

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Deductive and Inductive Arguments

Deductive and Inductive Arguments


A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false. An argument in which the premises do succeed in guaranteeing the conclusion is called a (deductively) valid argument. If a valid argument has true premises, then the argument is said to be sound.
Here is a valid deductive argument: It's sunny in Singapore. If it's sunny in Singapore, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he won't be carrying an umbrella.
Here is a mildly strong inductive argument: Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.
An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its success or strength is a matter of degree, unlike with deductive arguments. A deductive argument is valid or else invalid.
The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie solely in the words used; it comes from the relationship the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion (due to definition, logical entailment, logical structure, or mathematical necessity), then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.
Some analysts prefer to distinguish inductive arguments from conductive arguments; the latter are arguments giving explicit reasons for and against a conclusion, and requiring the evaluator of the argument to weigh these considerations, i.e., to consider the pros and cons. This article considers conductive arguments to be a kind of inductive argument.
The noun "deduction" refers to the process of advancing or establishing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. "Induction" refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.
Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, then the truth of the conclusion is said to be "contained within" the truth of the premises; that is, the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. Here is a deductive argument:
John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting today. Therefore, John won't be able to attend our meeting today.
That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If 'ill' were replaced with 'happy', the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical structure (called modus ponens). Here is the form of any argument having the structure of modus ponens:
P
If P then Q
So, Q
The capital letters stand for declarative sentences, or statements, or propositions. The investigation of these logical forms is called Propositional Logic.
The question of whether all, or merely most, valid deductive arguments are valid because of their structure is still controversial in the field of the philosophy of logic, but that question will not be explored further in this article.
Inductive arguments can take very wide ranging forms. Inductive arguments might conclude with some claim about a group based only on information from a sample of that group. Other inductive arguments draw conclusions by appeal to evidence or authority or causal relationships. Here is a somewhat strong inductive argument based on authority:
The police said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.
Here is an inductive argument based on evidence:
The witness said John committed the murder. So, John committed the murder.
Here is a stronger inductive argument based on better evidence:
Two independent witnesses claimed John committed the murder. John's fingerprints are the only ones on the murder weapon. John confessed to the crime. So, John committed the murder.
This last argument is no doubt good enough for a jury to convict John, but none of these three arguments about John committing the murder is strong enough to be called valid. At least itt is not valid in the technical sense of 'deductively valid'. However, some lawyers will tell their juries that these are valid arguments, so we critical thinkers need to be on the alert as to how people around us are using the term.
It is worth noting that some dictionaries and texts improperly define "deduction" as reasoning from the general to specific and define "induction" as reasoning from the specific to the general. These definitions are outdated and inaccurate. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following argument from the specific to general is deductive, not inductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:
The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.
Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:
It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.
It is worth noting that the proof technique used in mathematics called "mathematical induction", is deductive and not inductive. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:
Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.
Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.
Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of "champagne" and so the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker's mind. He or she may merely believe that nearly all champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.
It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction between deductive and inductive  has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This argument is logically fallacious because it is invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.

Monday, November 9, 2015

TPCT - C10 - Judging Scientific Theories

TPCT - C10 - Judging Scientific Theories
Summary
Science and Not Science
•             Science seeks knowledge and understanding of reality, and it does so through die formulation, testing, and evaluation of theories. Science is a way of searching for truth.
•             Science is not a worldview, and we can't identify it with a particular ideology. Science is also not scientism—it is not the only way to acquire knowledge. It is, however, a highly reliable way of acquiring knowledge of empirical facts.
•             Tht: scientific method cannot be identified with any particular set of ex­perimental or observational procedures. But it does involve several general steps: (1) identifying the problem, (2) devising a hypothesis, (3) deriving a test implication, (4) performing the test, and (5) accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.
•             No hypothesis can be conclusively confirmed or confuted. But this fact does not mean that all hypotheses are equally acceptable.
•             Following the steps of the scientific method, scientists test hypotheses in many fields, including medical science. One example is the testing of the hypothesis that taking high doses of vitamin C can cure cancer.
•             To minimize errors in testing, scientists use control groups, make studies double-blind, include placebos in testing, and seek replication of their work.
•             Theory-testing is part of a broader effort to evaluate a theory against its competitors. This kind of evaluation always involves, implicitly or explic­itly, the criteria of adequacy.
•             The criteria are testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity, and conservatism.
•             The criteria of adequacy played a major role in settling the historic debate about planetary motion, and they are used today to effectively judge the relative merits of the theories of evolution and creationism.
•             Inference to the best explanation can be used to assess weird theories as well as more commonplace explanations in science and everyday life.
•             Scientifically evaluating offbeat theories can often be worthwhile in deter­mining their truth or falsity and (sometimes) in discovering new phenomena.
* When people try to evaluate extraordinary theories, they often make cer­tain typical mistakes. They may believe that because they can't think of a natural explanation, a paranormal explanation must be correct. They may mistake what seems for what is, forgetting that we shouldn't accept the
evidence provided by personal experience if we have good reason to doubt it. And they may not fully understand the concepts of logical and physical possibility.
•             The distinction between logical and physical possibility is crucial. Some things that are logically possible may not be physically possible, and things that are physically possible may not be actual.
Judging Weird Theories
•             In both science and everyday life, the TEST formula enables us to fairly ap­praise the worth of all sorts of weird theories, including those about crop circles and communication with the dead, the two cases examined in this chapter.
@ Field Problems
1.            Find a controversial health or medical theory on the Internet and design a study hi test it. Indicate the makeup and characteristics of any group in the study, whether a placebo group is used, whether the study is double­blind, and what study results would confirm and disconfirm the theory.
2.            Find a controversial theory in die social sciences on the Internet and design a study to test it. Indicate the makeup and characteristics of any group in the study, whether a placebo group is used, whether the study is double­blind, and what study results would confirm and disconfirm the theory. If the theory is one that you strongly believe, indicate the kind and level of evidence that could convince you to change your mind about it.
3.            Do research on the Internet to find information on spontaneous human combustion, the theory that a human body can catch on fire due to an unknown internal chemical or biological process. Apply the TEST for­mula to evaluate the theory. Consider at least one plausible alternative theory. Look for background information at The Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com), the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) (www.csicop.org), or Skeptic Magazine (www.skeptic.com).

Monday, November 2, 2015

Fallacies -- What, When, and Why


What is a logical fallacy?

El sueño de la razon produce monstruos.
A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical errors, not factual ones.
A logical error is a mistake in an argument, that is, a mistake in an instance of reasoning formulated in language. As the term is used in logic, an "argument" is a group of statements one of which is called "the conclusion" and the rest are called "premisses"―by the way, I spell "premiss" with two esses instead of one, for reasons explained in the Glossary; in other words, this is not a spelling mistake.
There are two types of mistake that can occur in arguments:
  1. A factual error in the premisses. As mentioned above, factual "fallacies" are not usually a question of logic; rather, whether a premiss is true or false is a matter for history or a science other than logic to determine.
  2. The premisses fail to logically support the conclusion. A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type.
In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:
  1. "Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
  2. "Your argument is a fallacy."
In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad reasoning.
Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a "fallacy" because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term "fallacy" to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.
For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument "commits" a fallacy, or is "fallacious". So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead: "Your argument commits a fallacy" or "it's fallacious."
However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, that is, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.
To sum up, in these Fallacy Files a logical fallacy is a common, deceptive type of error in arguments.

History

Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.
However, Aristotle's teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato's "Euthydemus" preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists, that is, itinerant teachers of rhetoric. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called "sophisms" and bad reasoning "sophistry". Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.
In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer. Last century, an Australian philosopher, logician, and computer scientist, Charles L. Hamblin, wrote the highly-influential book Fallacies, which is unfortunately hard to obtain nowadays.
The first half of Fallacies is a history of the general concept of logical fallacy and the development of particular named fallacies. However, the most influential part of the book was probably the first chapter, which criticized the "standard treatment" of fallacies―that is, their discussion in textbooks of the time―and his criticisms seem to have inspired much subsequent research. Of less lasting influence were Hamblin's efforts, in the latter part of the book, to develop a formal treatment of dialectical argument as a basis for a theory of fallacies.
All of the above were efforts by those in the philosophical and logical tradition to understand mistakes in reasoning, but in the decades since Hamblin's history a separate research program has developed in psychology, associated especially with the psychologists Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky. Psychologists have mainly concentrated on mistakes in reasoning about probabilities, or what logicians call "induction".
Another recent development outside of logic, philosophy, and psychology, is in the field of rhetoric. As I mentioned above, the philosophical tradition of logical fallacies began by criticizing the arguments of the sophists of ancient Greece, many of whom taught rhetoric. As a result, there has been something of a split between philosophy and rhetoric ever since, and rhetoricians have developed their own distinct treatment of fallacies, though there is considerable overlap with that of logicians. Perhaps the most influential recent work is the pragma-dialectical approach most often associated with the rhetoricians Frans Van Eemeren and the late Rob Grootendorst.
Sources:
  • Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations
  • C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies (1970)
  • Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky, editors, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982)
  • Plato, Euthydemus
  • Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst, "The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies", inFallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings (1995), edited by Hans V. Hansen & Robert C. Pinto, pp. 130-144.


Why study fallacies?

Why study how to reason incorrectly; why not just study how to reason correctly? There are two reasons:
  1. Even if you could count on reasoning correctly 100% of the time, you cannot count on others doing so. In logical self-defense, you need to be able to spot poor reasoning, and—more importantly—to understand it. To be able to correct others' mistakes, or to refute them convincingly, you need to understand whythey are wrong.
  2. Studying formal logic and the rules of correct reasoning is like having a road map that shows how to get from point A to point B. However, even the best navigators sometimes get lost, and it helps if the roads that go nowhere are clearly labeled "DEAD END", "WRONG WAY", or "DO NOT ENTER".
That is what fallacy studies is all about: marking the wrong turns that reasoners are likely to take. Thus, studying fallacies is no substitute for studying the positive principles of good reasoning—learning to navigate through logical space, so to speak. You would not set out on a trip without a road map, hoping to rely upon the "DEAD END" signs to get to your destination. Similarly, The Fallacy Files are no replacement for the study of formal and informal logic, only a supplement.