Logical Fallacies, The Utility of Logic and Argumentation (eBook)
368 Seiten
Bookbaby (Verlag)
979-8-3509-7321-1 (ISBN)
Dr. Jerry J. Marty received his medical degree in 1976 from Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit. After that, he completed six postgraduate years of training at Montefiore Hospital and Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Strong Memorial Hospital/University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, completed an additional year in straight Internal Medicine at Saint Joseph's University Hospital-VA Medical Center/Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. He undertook an eight-week fellowship in Forensic Pathology at The Detroit Medical Examiner's Office and a visiting fellowship in Clinical Cytology and Fine Needle Aspiration at the Karolinska Hospital and Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. The author is board-certified in Anatomic, Clinical, and Cyto-Pathology with a sub-specialization in Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. He has authored several publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and two separate Book Chapters in his field of expertise, specifically in Cytopathology and Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology. Among his earlier responsibilities, Dr. Marty had teaching positions at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and, later, at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine and Pharmacy. A Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree at George Washington University, School of Business (GWSB), Washington, D.C., was conferred on May 17, 2009. Dr. Marty's most recent professional position until 2016 was as Chairman of Pathology and Medical Director of Laboratories at MedStar Franklin Square Medical Center, a three hundred seventy-eight bed Joint Commission accredited hospital facility in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Marty is based in the United States and enjoys travel, photography, and chess when he's not working.
The objective of this book is to equip the reader with the skill set to identify and avoid Logical Fallacies and understand the utility of Logic and the principles of argumentation. Whether you're a university or postgraduate student, a middle manager or CEO, an entrepreneur, or a professional seeking to leverage your Critical Thinking2 and argumentation skills, this book is a guide as well as serves as a road map along your journey to the identification of logical fallacies, the utility of logic and argumentation. It is designed to navigate as well as illuminate the path to the achievement of your goals. Discernment, reasoning, and Critical Thinking2 with a deeper understanding of the "e;How,"e; "e;What,"e; and "e;Why"e; - are some lessons to be learned. You will become more effective as a writer, orator, debater, and critical thinker. Ultimately, the result will be for the reader to become more insightful and nuanced when participating in the expository arena of debating ideas. By the time you reach the final chapter, you will have gained a much deeper understanding of how to think more critically, rationally, logically, and, thereby, reason and posit your Argument or Claim more effectively. Some Chapter highlights follow. Chapter Two presents Formal Logical Fallacies (deductive or non-sequitur) fallacies, where the structure or form of an Argument or Claim is invalid, regardless of the truth or falsity of its underlying premises. Then, deep diving into the world of Informal Logical Fallacies in Chapter Three, skip-stones from the classic "e;Ad hominem"e; attack to "e;Equivocation,"e; to the "e;Slippery Slope"e; Argument, and many others. Each Logical Fallacy is dissected and explained in detail, accompanied by a real-world example(s) to illustrate their corrupt or erroneous usage, parlance, and impact. By uncovering and understanding the various types of fallacious reasoning, readers will be better equipped to circumvent the complexities of faulty reasoning in argumentation and arrive at truth using sound, stepwise, rationally derived conclusions through logic. The knowledge process, and therefore truth, is the final desired outcome in argumentation. Reasoning, using principles of logic, and Critical Thinking2 are complementary important subject matters of the Book discussed in Chapters Four through Eleven. Templates, worksheets, frameworks, techniques and tools as well as checklists for problem solving and decision-making are presented in Chapter Twelve. Chapter 13 discusses how Artificial Intelligence (AI) will become central to Critical Thinking2, Logic, and argumentation, closing the circle. The Epilogue presents the Mandela Effect as a special topic. Appendix One presents an argumentation and logic Reasoning API designed to help users construct, evaluate, and refine Arguments. It offers several key features, including Logical Fallacy detection, Argument construction templates, and Argument strength and validity feedback. Appendix Two offers an Excel Visual Basic for Application (VBA) Code and a separate MACRO Code program (automating manual actions) to identify a Logical Fallacy within text utilizing basic keyword matching to detect the most common Logical Fallacies. Appendix Three is a lighthearted example of the Utility of logic, and pragmatism applied to the "e;Weather Rock."e;This book is a companion to Critical Thinking2 A Force Multiplier (2024), a Primer on Problem Analysis and Decision-Making, and a great introduction to furthering your career and studies. The wisdom and lessons contained within both Books can be utilized to supplement your Life-Long Learning, optimize your presentations of Arguments or Claims in the Boardroom, classroom, lecture hall, and across the negotiating table, or be a resource reference for Leaders, Business Managers, and Entrepreneurs, as well as those aspiring to reach those lofty heights.
FORMAL FALLACIES, also known as deductive fallacies or non sequitur (Latin for “it does not follow”), occur when the structure or form of an Argument is invalid, regardless of the truth or falsity of its underlying premises. These logical fallacies violate the rules of logic and reasoning, leading to conclusions that do not logically follow and flow from the underlying premises. Flaws in deductive reasoning, such as invalid syllogisms or logical contradictions, characterize formal fallacies.
2.0 Typology And Categorization
- 2.01 Affirming The Consequent
- 2.02 Denying The Antecedent
- 2.03 Affirming A Disjunct
- 2.04 Denying A Conjunct
- 2.05 Fallacy Of The Undistributed Middle
- 2.06 Fallacy Of Four Terms (Ambiguous Middle Term)
2.01 Affirming The Consequent
Affirming the consequent is a formal logical fallacy that occurs when someone infers the antecedent of a conditional statement from its consequent.
When there is a simple conditional statement, where a condition or precursor (antecedent) results in a consequent condition, they are interchanged in their places. It is a variant non sequitur type of reasoning, also called the fallacy of the converse (converse error, or confusion of necessity and sufficiency). These converse errors are quite common in everyday deliberation and communication and can occur when communication is problematic or when there is a failure to consider other possible reasons for the scenario or circumstance.
The logical fallacy takes the form:
If A, then B.
B is true; therefore, A is true.
[Example: “If it is raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Consequently, it is raining.” The conclusion (“it is raining”) does not logically follow from the premises, as there could be many other reasons why the streets are wet besides rain.]
Notably, the opposite statement with the converse switch or denying the consequent is a correct logical form of Argument, for example: “If the road is not slippery, then it’s not raining.”
2.02 Denying The Antecedent
Denying the antecedent is the inverse of affirming the consequent and occurs when someone infers the negation of the consequent from the negation of the antecedent.
This is a formal non sequitur logical fallacy.
The reasoning is not valid because there could be other reasons to explain the conclusion.
The fallacy takes the form:
If A, then B.
A is false.
Therefore, B is false.
[Example: “If it’s a dog, then it’s a mammal.”]
Denying both antecedent and consequent would result in the following non sequitur:
If it’s not adog, then it’s not a mammal.
[Example: “If it is raining, then the streets are wet. It is not raining. Therefore, the streets are not wet.” The conclusion (the streets are not wet) does not logically follow and flow from the premises, as there could be other reasons why the streets are wet besides rain.]
2.03 Affirming A Disjunct
This is also called the fallacy of the alternative disjunct or a false exclusionary disjunct. The fallacy lies in concluding that one disjunct must be false because the other disjunct is true. In truth, they both may be true because “or” is defined inclusively rather than exclusively.
It is a fallacy of equivocation between the operations OR and XOR.
The fallacy takes the form:
A or B is true.
A is true. Therefore, B is false.
[Example: “I am working, or I am at home. I am working, so I must be at home. In fact, I am working at home.”]
[Example: “Leave the door open! There are cats or dogs still outside.”]
The fallacy also takes the form:
A is true, or B is true.
B is true. Therefore, A is not true.
[Example: The affirming a disjunct is found in the following: “Both cats are inside so we can close the door now; no one is outside.” The fallacy rests in conjecturing and expressing that if one disjunct is true, then another must be false when, actually, they may both be true.]
2.04 Denying A Conjunct
Very similar to “false dichotomy.”
The first premise states that at least one of the two conjuncts (antecedent and consequent) is false and concludes that the other conjunct must be true.
[Example: “Are you paying by cash or by card?”]
Not both P and Q.
Not P.
Therefore Q.
Even if we cannot pay using both methods (denying a conjunct), that doesn’t mean we have to pay using one. In truth, another possibility is not buying at all or paying by check.
Related is the false dilemma fallacy.
The fallacy takes the form:
It is not the case that both A and B.
A is false. Therefore, B is true.
Not both P and Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, P.
[Example: “I cannot be both at work and at home. I am not at work, so I must be at home. I am at a park.”]
To deny a disjunct and affirm the other disjunct as a conclusion is a validating form of Argument in propositional logic called disjunctive syllogism.
2.05 Fallacy Of The Undistributed Middle
The fallacy takes the form:
Every A has B.
C has B, so C is A.
[Example: “Every bird has a beak, so that creature must be a bird. The creature is a turtle.”]
The fallacy of undistributed middle occurs when the middle term of a categorical syllogism is not distributed in either premise.
This formal logical fallacy is also called a syllogistic fallacy.
This non sequitur (non distributio medii) is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism (logical conclusion based on two premises of grouping) is not distributed.
The fallacy takes the form:
All A are B.
All C are B.
Therefore, all A are C.
[Example: “All cats are animals. A lion is an animal. Therefore, a lion is a cat”].
If, in the example above, the first line, cats and animals are swapped, then the Argument would be valid, though not very sound.
[Example: “All cats are mammals. All dogs are mammals. Therefore, all cats are dogs.” The middle term (“mammals”) is not distributed in either premise, leading to an invalid conclusion.]
This fallacy is also called the politician’s syllogism (politician’s fallacy or politician’s logic).
[Example: “We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.”]
2.06 Fallacy Of Four Terms (Ambiguous Middle Term)
The fallacy of four terms occurs when a categorical syllogism contains four terms instead of the required three terms.
The fallacy takes the form:
All A are B.
All C are D.
Therefore, all D are A.
[Example: “All dogs are mammals. All birds have wings. Therefore, all wings are mammals.” The conclusion introduces a fourth term (“wings”) that is not present in the premises, making the Argument wholly invalid.]
A formal logical fallacy, called quaternio terminorum, another syllogistic fallacy also occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three.
Using four terms invalidates the syllogism.
In everyday...
| Erscheint lt. Verlag | 8.10.2024 |
|---|---|
| Sprache | englisch |
| Themenwelt | Wirtschaft |
| ISBN-13 | 979-8-3509-7321-1 / 9798350973211 |
| Haben Sie eine Frage zum Produkt? |
EPUB (Ohne DRM)Größe: 5,5 MB
Digital Rights Management: ohne DRM
Dieses eBook enthält kein DRM oder Kopierschutz. Eine Weitergabe an Dritte ist jedoch rechtlich nicht zulässig, weil Sie beim Kauf nur die Rechte an der persönlichen Nutzung erwerben.
Dateiformat: EPUB (Electronic Publication)
EPUB ist ein offener Standard für eBooks und eignet sich besonders zur Darstellung von Belletristik und Sachbüchern. Der Fließtext wird dynamisch an die Display- und Schriftgröße angepasst. Auch für mobile Lesegeräte ist EPUB daher gut geeignet.
Systemvoraussetzungen:
PC/Mac: Mit einem PC oder Mac können Sie dieses eBook lesen. Sie benötigen dafür die kostenlose Software Adobe Digital Editions.
eReader: Dieses eBook kann mit (fast) allen eBook-Readern gelesen werden. Mit dem amazon-Kindle ist es aber nicht kompatibel.
Smartphone/Tablet: Egal ob Apple oder Android, dieses eBook können Sie lesen. Sie benötigen dafür eine kostenlose App.
Geräteliste und zusätzliche Hinweise
Buying eBooks from abroad
For tax law reasons we can sell eBooks just within Germany and Switzerland. Regrettably we cannot fulfill eBook-orders from other countries.
aus dem Bereich
