Writing Matters Section 11f details many of the logical fallacies often encountered in inductive and deductive reasoning, so that we may recognize them when analyzing and avoid them when creating arguments. The book describes and gives examples for each fallacy, so I'll just give an overview of the fallacies they list.
The book first lists fallacies often encountered in inductive arguments. In inductive arguments the conclusion (the point you are trying to make) is drawn from and supported by the premises (evidence) you provide to support your conclusion. Fallacies in inductive reasoning occur when one draws a conclusion that is not supported by the premises. Examples of these fallacies are: hasty generalization (jumping to conclusions), sweeping generalization, and false analogy. Another common fallacy often encountered in inductive and deductive arguments is bandwagon appeal (a.k.a. appeal to majority) one of many fallacies that--though they seem to provide evidence for the conclusion--are not actually valid evidence.
Next, the book details many fallacies often found encountered in deductive arguments. In deductive arguments a specific conclusion is derived from generally accepted and known premises; fallacies in deductive reasoning often take the form of misleading, wrong, or missing premises, or errors in form and logical strength of the argument. Fallacies in deductive reasoning include: begging the question (circular reasoning), post hoc, ergo propter hoc (false cause), and either-or (false dilemma or false alternative). Other fallacies often found in deductive (as well as inductive) reasoning include non sequiters (irrelevant arguments), ad hominems (personal attacks).
The list of fallacies in the book is by no means exhaustive, but there are plenty of great resources online should you want to learn more!
 |
| Picture |
No comments:
Post a Comment