Stuff

Agreement Fallacy

A red herring error can be difficult to identify, as it is not always known how the different topics concern them. A “secondary topic” can be used in a relevant or off-topic manner. The great fleshy divergences of our time usually involve many layers in which different sub-themes fit in. We can protect ourselves from the red herring error by clarifying how our part of the conversation is relevant to the central theme. Specifically, ad hominem is a relevant error when a person rejects or criticizes another person`s opinion on the basis of personal, substantive, physical appearance or other characteristics that are not relevant to the argument at issue. (2) Clues: arguing that an adversary should accept or reject an argument because of circumstances in his life. If the adversary is a pastor, it is such a mistake to suggest that he should accept a particular argument, because it would be incompatible with Scripture not to. To say that the reader, because he is a Republican or a Democrat, must vote in favor of a particular measure is also an illusion. The particular circumstances of the adversary have no control over the truth or lie of a particular claim. The spokesperson or author must additional evidence to provide a strong argument. It also resembles, in a way, genetic error. If you are a university student who wants to learn to think rationally, you just need to avoid mistakes.

As a post-hoc, the slippery slope can be a difficult mistake, because sometimes a chain of events can really be predicted to follow a particular action. Here`s an example that doesn`t seem misleading: “If I don`t fail English 101, I can`t get a degree. If I don`t have a degree, I probably won`t have a good job, and I may very well end up doing temporary work or returning burgers for next year.¬†Appeal to inappropriate authority (argument ad verecundium, literally “argument of what is inappropriate”): A call to inappropriate authority, such as a famous person or a source who may not be reliable or who may not know the subject. This mistake tries to capitalize on feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous person. It is not misleading to refer to an approved authority when the individual`s expertise is in a strict area of knowledge. On the other hand, it is misleading to quote Einstein to settle a dispute over education or economics. Darwin, an authority on dementia to cite in religious affairs, is misleading. To quote Cardinal Spellman on legal issues is a deception. The worst culprits are usually movie stars and psychological helplines. A subcategory is the appeal to biased authority. In this kind of appeal, the authority is someone who really knows the case, but who may have professional or personal motivations that make his professional judgment suspicious: “For example, to find out if the brotherhoods are beneficial for this campus, we interviewed all the presidents of Frat.” Or: “To find out whether or not mud extraction really endangers the breeding sites of the Tucogee Salamander, we interviewed the sludge owners who said there was no problem.” Indeed, it is important to get “both points of view” into a single argument, but basing an essential part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional or financial interests at stake can lead to biased arguments.

As Upton Sinclair once said, “It`s hard to make a man understand something when his salary depends on the fact that he doesn`t understand.” Sinclair points out that even a competent authority may not be entirely rational on a subject if it has economic incentives that distort its thinking. Error of enquisition (aka Alfred North Whitehead`s “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness”): The error of treating a word or idea as equivalent to the real thing represented by that word or idea, or the error of treating an abstraction or process as equivalent to a concrete object or ding.

Comments are closed.