m e Learig Critical Thikig Through Atroomy: Logical Fallacie ad Ditractio Techique Joe Heafer heaferj@gmail.com PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS DOCUMENT.
Activ005 CONTENTS Cotet Quetio Sample Activ udet Verio Material Needed Poit To Remember Fallacie ad Ditractio. Lyig..................................................2 Shiftig The Burde......................................... 2.3 Appeal To Emotio......................................... 3.4 Appeal To The Pat......................................... 4.5 Appeal To Novelty.......................................... 5.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Mae, Appeal To Popular)............. 6.7 Appeal To Logic........................................... 7.8 Appeal To Igorace......................................... 8.9 Argumet By Repetitio....................................... 0.0 Attackig The Pero......................................... Cofirmatio Bia.......................................... 2.2 rawma Argumet or Chagig The Subject.......................... 3.3 Fale Premie............................................. 4.4 Haty Geeralizatio......................................... 5.5 Loaded Quetio........................................... 6.6 Feigig Offee........................................... 7.7 Fale Dilemma............................................ 7.8 Appeal To Author......................................... 8 2 A Reaoig Template 9 2. A rategy For Thikig....................................... 9 2.2 Uig The Template......................................... 9 3 Iquiry 20 3. Evidece................................................ 20 3.2 Repodig To Fallacie....................................... 20 4 Feedback 23
Activ005 Sample Activ udet Verio Quetio How do you recogize a faulty or erroeou argumet? How do you rebut uch a argumet? What cotitute evidece? Material Needed For thi activ, you will eed the followig material: familiar with the gloary a pecil (do ot ue ik) the abil to read ad follow directio Poit To Remember Ule otherwie explicitly itructed, your repoe mut ot cotai peroal opiio. All of your repoe mut be i the form of complete etece; the fewer etece the better. Spellig ad grammar mut be correct. Effective commuicatio i eetial for both learig ad doig ciece. Do t ak itructor for awer to quetio poed i activitie; you wo t get them. You may ak quetio regardig the clar of the itructio or the oude of your reaoig. If you ecouter a word you are ot familiar with, do t ak the itructor about it. Look it up firt i your gloary ad the a dictioary or ome other ource if eceary. Eure that all defiitio are uaimouly agreed upo before proceedig. There are, of coure, oud reao for thee policie. See the itructor if you have quetio, but do ot complai about thee policie. They are ot egotiable. Fallacie ad Ditractio The ame of pero i the followig page are all fictitiou. Ay imilaritie to ame of tudet i thi cla are purely coicidetal. Feel free to chage them.. Lyig Tobbacco idutry: Smokig doe ot caue cacer. No-cietit: There i coiderable diagreemet amog cietit a to the correcte of evolutio. Thee are example of the mot frequetly ued ditractio techique i all of propagada: lyig. They are alo two of the bet example of it ue. It i ow well documeted that the tobacco idutry hired cietit to lie o it behalf about the afety of mokig. The idutry clug to thi lie well ito the ed of the twetieth cetury. Regardig evolutio, the oly people who ay it i icorrect are o-cietit whoe religiou worldview i cotradicted by it. Whe omeoe ay omethig that cotradict what we curretly kow, there are two poible reao. Oe i that the pero i t kowigly paig alog icorrect iformatio ad i probably jut parrotig what he/he ha heard elewhere. The other i that the pero i ideed kowigly paig alog icorrect iformatio with the itet of deceivig the audiece. I the firt cae, o lyig i doe. I the ecod cae,
Activ005 m e however, the pero i lyig. Whe cofroted with evidece to the cotrary, may people will cotiue to lie becaue their goal i to perpetuate the lie ad have it accepted a truth, ometime for fiacial reao. Ufortuately, thi tactic work, epecially i moder America ociety. They alo cotiue to lie becaue they kow they will likely ot be accued of lyig. They kow that callig omeoe a liar i frowed upo i polite ociety, which i alo why may people are afraid to poit out lie. What if the pero doe t kow he/he i paig alog icorrect iformatio? Well, the pero i t guilty of lyig but i ideed at fault for ot checkig the verac of the iformatio he/he i paig alog. If, after beig educated o the topic, the pero till pae alog icorrect iformatio, the he/he become guilty of lyig ad i doig o for deviouly propagaditic reao or i profoudly tupid. (upid i a perfectly legitimate word i thi cotext, o do t be offeded by it ue here.) Lyig happe whe you kowigly pa alog icorrect iformatio..2 Shiftig The Burde eve: I wa abducted by alie ad take aboard oe of their pacecraft. Sarah: Wow! I do t believe you though. eve: Ca you prove I wa t abducted? Sarah: Nope. eve: If you ca t prove me wrog, I mut be tellig the truth!. What evidece did eve attempt to provide to back up hi claim? eve provided o evidece at all. I place of evidece, he put Sara i the poitio of havig to provide evidece to upport HIS claim. The ower of a outrageou claim i the ONLY pero obligated to provide upportig evidece. However, ANYONE ca provide evidece to refute ay claim. I ciece, there i a uwritte rule requirig the pero makig a claim repoible for producig evidece backig up that claim. The pero hearig the claim, call them liteer, have o uch repoibil. The liteer uually do ot have the backgroud kowledge or other ufficiet iformatio to reliably judge the claim. eve kow i advace that Sarah doe t kow aythig about alie, o itead of backig up hi ow claim, he hift the burde of backig it up oto Sarah. eve aert that her iabil to back up hi claim mea it mut be true ad uquetioable. eve i uig the fallacy of hiftig the burde to wi the argumet. Shiftig the burde happe whe you make omeoe ele repoible for providig evidece upport your claim. The more outrageou the claim, the more upportig evidece i required. 2
Activ005 Sample Activ udet Verio.3 Appeal To Emotio Jae: Did you ee that cocert to raie moey for the earthquake victim? Jack: Yeah I did. Did you doate ay moey? Jae: Yeah. I gave fifty dollar. Jack: I do t have that kid of moey. Jae: You hould cotribute omethig! Did t you ee the photo? Thoe people looked o ad! The photo puhed me over the edge. Jack: Oh I aw the photo, but it take more tha ad photo to make me part with fifty dollar. 2. What evidece did Jae attempt to provide to jutify her moetary cotributio? 3. Should Jae evidece be truted? Explai briefly. 4. Doe Jack have a poit or i he jut beig mea? Explai briefly. 5. By beig keptical, i Jack implyig that charitie i geeral are ot worthy of fiacial cotributio? 3
Activ005 Emotio hould ever be ued a evidece i ciece. Emotio ca be maipulated by omeoe who kow how effective our repoe to them ca be. Jae i uig the fallacy of appeal to emotio to jutify her charitable cotributio. m e Appeal to emotio ivolve maipulatig emotio to make omeoe behave a certai way or to do omethig they ormally would ot do. 6. What evidece, ot baed o emotio, could Jae have ued to covice Jack to doate ome moey?.4 Appeal To The Pat Barry: Baic phyic ha t chaged i over a hudred year. I ee o reao to chage the way it taught. Becky: Have t you heard of ew pedagogical techique? Barry: Yeah, but it bee doe the ame for geeratio o we hould t chage that. 7. What evidece did Barry attempt to provide to back up hi claim? 8. Should Barry evidece be truted? 4
Activ005 Jut becaue omethig, i thi cae teachig phyic, ha bee doe a certai way for a log time doe ot mea that way i good. It alo doe ot mea that way i bad either. Barry i uig the fallacy of appeal to the pat to jutify ot chagig the way phyic i taught. m e Appeal to the pat i a jutificatio baed oly o the way omethig ha bee doe i the pat. 9. What evidece could Barry have cited to covice Becky hi claim i true?.5 Appeal To Novelty Lia: Teachig ciece by iquiry i a relatively ew pedagogical trategy. It better tha exitig method. Liam: So, what are you uggetig? Lia: I m uggetig that we hould adopt iquiry-baed itructio. After all, it the ewet thig. Liam: Chage i t a bad thig. Let do it! 0. What evidece did Lia provide to back up her claim?. Should Lia evidece be truted? 5
Activ005 Jut becaue omethig, i thi cae a teachig method, i ew doe ot mea it i good. It alo doe ot mea it i bad either. Lia i uig the fallacy of appeal to ovelty to jutify adoptig a ew teachig method. m e Appeal to ovelty i a jutificatio that omethig i good oly becaue it i ew. 2. What evidece could Lia cite to covice Liam her claim i true?.6 Appeal To The People (Appeal To The Mae, Appeal To Popular) David: A a creatioit, I ca tell you that a recet poll how that approximately half of all America thik evolutio i wrog. That approximately oe hudred-fifty millio people! That may people ca t be wrog. Therefore, evolutio i wrog ad hould be replaced by omethig with which more people agree. 3. What evidece did David attempt to provide to back up hi argumet? 4. Should David evidece be truted? 6
Activ005 m e A claim or argumet may be wrog regardle of how may people agree or diagree with it. Sciece i ot determied purely by popular coeu. David i uig the fallacy of appeal to the people or appeal to the mae to jutify evolutio correcte. Note that i thi cotext, popular ca refer to the populatio approval or diapproval of a opiio. A ciece book i called popular if it iteded audiece i the geeral populatio; it ha othig to do with ale volume. Be careful whe you ecouter thi word. Appeal to the people mea jutifyig a claim or argumet baed o popular coeu. 5. What evidece could David cite that hi cocluio i true?.7 Appeal To Logic Kare: How ca I prove that ixty-four divided by ixtee i equal to four? Karle: That imple. Write 64/6 ad cacel out the 6. You re left with 4/, which i jut equal to 4. Kare: Make ee to me! 6. What evidece did Karle attempt to provide to back up hi argumet? 7. Should Karle evidece be truted? 7
Activ005 m e Oe might thik that logic alway lead to correct cocluio, but thi i ot true! Although oe tep may follow logically from aother, all tep mut be correct for the cocluio to be correct. I other word, i a log chai of reaoig, every idividual lik mut be correct for the cocluio to be correct. No itermediate tep ca violate a exitig or etablihed framework (framework are dicued i a previou activ). Every premie mut be true. With a fale premie, aythig, o matter how outrageou, ca be logically prove. Karle i uig the fallacy of appeal to logic to jutify hi cocluio. Appeal to logic i uig a eemigly logically coected erie of tep to jutify a claim or argumet, but oe or more of the tep or premie i wrog or violate a exitig framework. 8. How hould Kare repod to Karle? Note that thi awer i provided for you. Do t get ued to thi!.8 Appeal To Igorace Johy: Do we have ay evidece at all that vaccie caue autim? Loie: I ve reearched the literature exteively ad there i o uch evidece. Johy: So that mea we do t kow for ure? Loie: It jut mea there i o evidece that vaccie caue autim. Johy: That ugget that vaccie mut caue autim the if we ca t etablih that they do t. 9. What evidece did Johy attempt to provide to back up hi argumet? You may fid your awer difficult to articulate. Thik carefully about it. 8
Activ005 m e The lack of evidece for omethig i ot equivalet to the preece of evidece for either that omethig or a alterative to that omethig. Thi ca be tricky to thik about, o read that lat etece agai lowly ad carefully. Johy i uig the fallacy of appeal to igorace to jutify hi cocluio. The word igorace or igorat hould ever be take a a iult (although they are frequetly iteded to be take that way by people who are igorat of the word actual meaig). It imply implie a lack of kowledge. Everyoe i igorat of omethig; o oe kow everythig there i to kow. Igorace, lack of kowledge, i ever a ubtitute for kowledge. Here, Johy i uig the fallacy of appeal to igorace to jutify hi cocluio. There i oe cae i which abece of evidece may ideed be evidece for the the alterative to omethig. Suppoe you carry out a tet of a predictio that ay X mut exit, ad your tet give egative reult, meaig that you fid o evidece that X exit. Now uppoe you carry out thi ame tet multiple time, ad each time the tet give egative reult. It i etirely poible that your repeatedly egative reult idicate that the aumptio that X exit i icorrect that X may ot actually exit. Thi perfectly reaoable cocluio may be accepted oly after you have accouted for all other ource of experimetal error. I your proce correct? I your equipmet or apparatu operatig correctly? Are you makig umerical or computatioal error? If everythig ele ha bee accouted for, the acceptig the lack of evidece for X exitece may idicate that X doe ot exit. There i at leat oe itace of thi happeig i ciece, pecifically aroud the tur of the twetieth cetury. Appeal to igorace mea uig the lack of evidece for omethig a the preece of evidece for that omethig or a alterative to that omethig. 20. How hould Loie repod to Johy? 2. Ha Loie etablihed cocluively whether or ot vaccie caue autim? Explai briefly. 9
Activ005 m e.9 Argumet By Repetitio Joe: Two plu two equal five. eve: You re crazy! Two plu two i four, ot five. Joe: Two plu two equal five. Two plu two equal five. Two plu two equal five. Two plu two equal five. eve: Idiot! Week later o a tet, Joe aked, "What i two plu two?" eve wrote, "Two plu two equal five." Joe ay i cla, "eve ha leared that two plu two equal five. I m a great teacher!" 22. What evidece did Joe attempt to provide to back up hi teachig? (ote the quote) Thi wa a rather illy example, but may time i real life people ue repetitio, rather tha evidece, a a way to get their poit acro ad to make other people agree with them. Politicia are epecially well traied i thi tactic ad regularly exploit it. Much of your previou educatio wa probably baed almot etirely upo repetitio rather tha evidece-baed explaatio, epecially if you atteded ieffective chool. I thi example, Joe icorrectly aumed that eve had leared imple additio baed o a correct awer o a tet. More likely, though, eve kew that to get the credit, he had to give a expected awer rather tha a correct ad reaoed awer. Sometime repetitio i eeded to mater certai kill. It i ued i thi very activ! By itelf, repetitio i ever a good replacemet for evidece i arguig oe poit. Joe i uig the fallacy of argumet by repitio to jutify hi cocluio. Argumet by repetitio mea uig repetitio a a ubtitute for evidece. If the thig beig repeated i icorrect ad that i kow by the peaker, the the peaker i alo guilty of lyig. 23. How hould eve repod to Joe claim i cla? 0
Activ005 m e.0 Attackig The Pero Seator Sort: Thi ciece bill i jut aother part of the liberal ageda ad mut be defeated! 24. What evidece did Se. Sort attempt to provide to back up hi claim that the ciece bill mut be defeated? Whe arguig agait a claim, a commo trategy i to aociate a egative label to the claim. Thi etablihe a metal coectio betwee the label ad the claim ad ha othig to do with the claim at all. The egative aociatio i all that matter, ad may people will be peruaded to reject the claim baed etirely o the label. Thi i othig more tha a adult verio of childhood ame callig. Oe would thik that adult could argue their poit without reortig to uch tactic, but ame callig i ued all the time. Almot all political campaig rely o it. At thi level, we call ame callig attackig the pero or a ad homiem attack. It i really othig more tha ame callig ued i place of evidece. Attackig the pero mea reortig to ame callig, however ubtle, a a ubtitute for evidece i arguig oe poit. 25. How hould the bill upporter repod to Se. Sort commet?
. Activ005 Cofirmatio Bia m e Roberta: I get my ew from multiple ource. Bob: I oly get my ew from Fox New. Roberta: Why i that? Bob: It the oly ource that I coitetly agree with. Roberta: Are you eriou? Bob: Yep. I alway agree with everythig I hear there ad it the oly ource I trut. 26. What evidece did Bob attempt to provide for hi choice of Fox New a hi oly ource for ew? A huma, we ted to trut ource with which we agree. We all have doe o i the pat, ad doig o i ot ecearily a bad thig. It i a geuie pychological tedecy. However, jut becaue we agree with omeoe doe ot mea that that omeoe i uig correct reaoig or ha reached a correct cocluio. Your itructor ca make a good cae for ayig that oe plu oe i eleve rather tha two. The argumet i perfectly reaoable, but of coure it doe ot give the correct reult withi the accepted framework of arithmetic. Whe Bob treat Fox New a reliable olely becaue he agree with what he hear there, he i committig a cofirmatio bia. Thi mea he ue oly ource with which he agree ad thu hi ource are biaed toward hi ow belief ad opiio. He ever experiece cotrary belief ad opiio. He biae hi ource toward thoe that reiforce hi ow peroal worldview. Cofirmatio bia mea coultig oly ource that agree with oe peroal worldview rather tha a variety of ource that cotradict oe worldview, that may be more reliable, or may be a better reflectio of real. Some of you may thik thi example of cofirmatio bia i a ubverive attempt to idoctriate you agait Fox New. It i othig of the ort. Some of you may alo thik thi example i a attempt to iject the itructor peroal worldview ito the coure. Udertad that it i ot. Thi example came from actual coveratio overheard by your itructor. If you do ideed thik thee thig, or imilar thig, you eed to critically thik about your ow biae ad how they hape your peroal worldview. Remember, you are the eaiet pero to fool. You are alo the pero mot likely to fool you. (That i a paraphrae of a quote by Richard Feyma, a well kow phyicit.) Everyoe, icludig you ad your itructor, ha biae. It i ot the cae that all biae are bad. It i ot the cae that all biae are good. You eed to be aware of your ow biae ad try very hard ot to let them cotradict objective evidece. I thi particular example, ote that may people get belligeret whe they are accued of uig cofirmatio bia or whe Fox New i cotradicted. Thi how their igorace of the meaig of bia ad 2
Activ005 igorace of the fact that beig biaed i ot ecearily harmful. By the way, you could jut a well replace every metio of Fox New ad replace it with NPR ad till have a valid example of cofirmatio bia. Thik about that very carefully. Experimet with it. m e 27. How hould Roberta repod to Bob?.2 rawma Argumet or Chagig The Subject Chaa: We dicued the Big Bag model i comology cla today. Do you kow how much of our Uivere it correctly explai? Carol: Hah! It wrog! Chaa: Why? How do you kow? Carol: The Uivere had to have come from omethig. You ca t get omethig from othig. You ca oly get omethig from omethig. Chaa: What doe thi have to do with the Uivere? Carol: Well, it mea the Big Bag model mut be wrog becaue it ay the Uivere, which i omethig, came from othig. 28. What evidece did Carol attempt to provide for her claim that the Big Bag model mut be wrog? Thi i a frequetly heard argumet agait the Big Bag model cotet. Carol i ubtly, ad maybe eve ukowigly, chagig the ubject away from the Big Bag model to aother claim etirely, the ubject of gettig omethig from othig. Thee are two very differet claim. After chagig the ubject, Carol the attack the ew ubject rather tha the origial claim that the Big Bag model i icorrect. That way, Carol ever ha to actually addre that claim. Brilliat! Thi tactic i called etablihig a trawma argumet. It i baically othig more tha chagig the ubject ad the attackig the ew ubject rather tha the old ubject. A trawma argumet reult from chagig from oe ubject to a ew ubject, ad the attackig the ew ubject while ever actually addreig the old ubject. 3
Activ005 29. How hould Chaa repod to Carol? m e.3 Fale Premie Clark: Everythig that happe ad that we oberve mut have a caue. If the Big Bag really happeed, the it too mut have had a caue. Comologit ca t tell u what caued the Big Bag. Therefore, the Big Bag model mut be wrog. Ruty: That doe t make ee. Clark: Why? 30. What evidece did Clark attempt to provide for hi cocluio that the Big Bag model mut be wrog? Sometime we try to etablih a cocluio by logical argumet. Whe ay tep i the argumet i icorrect, we have the fallacy of appeal to logic which i decribed i a previou example. Whe the very firt premie i icorrect, we call thi fallacy fale premie. It i oe thig to commit a error withi a erie of logical tep, but it i quite aother to begi with a fale premie. If you begi with a fale premie, there i o limit to the thig which ca be icorrectly etablihed. Fale premie mea begiig a logical argumet with a premie that i ot true. 3. How hould Ruty repod to Clark? 4
Activ005 m e A tactic frequetly ued by thoe who rely o thi fallacy to upport their ow cocluio i to forbid other to ue thi fallacy agait them. Coider the fale premie i the argumet above, amely that everythig mut have a caue. The people who mot ofte ue thi fallacy ue it to coclude that a uperatural beig created ad overee our Uivere. However, they refue to addre what caued thi beig to exit. They awer that thi beig ha jut alway bee ad thu violate their ow premie. They are electively callig a fallacy o other people argumet but ot allowig it o their ow, which i a commo trategy..4 Haty Geeralizatio Daa: The lat ciece coure I took at a commu college wa a joke. Atroomy will be jut a eay. Dai: Are you ure about that. Daa: Yep. Why hould t I be? Dai: Atroomy may be differet. Daa: Nah. All commu college ciece coure are the ame. 32. What evidece did Daa cite to back up the cocluio that all commu college ciece coure are the ame? It i eay to let pat experiece cloud our judgemet of the preet, ad we ted to do jut that. However, a bad experiece with oe thig i o way mea that all uch thig will alo give a bad experiece. The ame i true of good experiece. We hatily jump to uch aumptio i the abece of evidece. Daa ue the fallacy of haty geeralizatio to jutify her cocluio. Haty geeralizatio mea aumig that a good or bad experiece with a particular thig will be the ame for all uch thig without ay evidece to upport that aumptio. Note that thi fallacy goe from the pecific to the geeral, ad thi i the key to recogizig thi fallacy i omeoe reaoig. 33. How hould Dai repod to Daa? 5
Activ005 m e.5 Loaded Quetio TV hot: Good eveig. O toight how we take up the topic of evolutio ad why it hould ot be taught. Shaw (watchig at home): Jut how log are we goig to allow ciece teacher to get away with thi fraud that i evolutio? Sharo (watchig at home): Well... 34. What two iue doe Shaw quetio addre? Now, omethig iteretig happeed here. Coider the poible awer to Shaw quetio. Shaw aert that teachig evolutio cotitute fraud, ad that hould be the mai iue here. It i t though, becaue Shaw ha cleverly (perhap ukowigly) made the iue oe of how log the fraud i to be perpetuated. Oe week? Oe moth? Oe year? There i o good awer. Fraud i bad o matter how log it edure. I other word, thi quetio ha o atifactory awer. No awer will appeae Shaw becaue the cocluio ha already bee etablihed. Thi i a example of a loaded quetio. A loaded quetio i oe for which there i o atifactory awer to a dicreetly implied foregoe cocluio. 35. How hould Sharo repod to Shaw? Here are more example of thi fallacy: Do you upport the troop protectig your freedom? Why are you agry at God? Why are you o agry? Why do you hate America? Are you till a alcoholic? 6
.6 Activ005 Feigig Offee m e TV hot: You mea to tell me that your work o extraterretrial life ha ever bee peer reviewed? Guet: I m outraged that you would brig that up! You ve offeded me ad thi iterview i over! People ometime reort to deperate tactic whe backed ito a corer. Here, the hot aked a legitimate quetio that the guet hould be able to calmly awer. Itead, the guet ed the dicuio with the claim of beig offeded. Word ca evoke ager, melacholy, rage, happie, or eve comfort. Offee, you mut udertad, i othig more tha a way of immediately huttig dow all dicuio. It i frequetly ued to avoid havig to jutify claim or argumet or to avoid awerig quetio. It i the oe fallacy for which there i o recovery or rebuttal. It i fial, ad the pero claimig offee alway wi, at leat i hi or her mid. The guet i uig the ditractio of feigig offee to hut dow the dicuio. Feigig offee i claimig to be offeded for the purpoe of huttig dow otherwie legitimate debate or dicuio. 36. How hould the hot repod to the guet?.7 Fale Dilemma Tom: Well, I ll either get a A or a F i atroomy. Ray: Hmm. I thik you re wrog about that. Tom: How o? Sometime whe preeted with a choice, we forget that there may be more tha two optio. Whe we do thi, we commit a fale dilemma. It fale becaue there really are more tha two optio. Fale dilemma mea preetig oly two optio for a choice whe there are really more tha two optio. Be careful! If there really are oly two optio, the preetig them doe ot cotitute a fallacy. 37. How hould Ray repod to Tom? 7
Activ005 m e 38. Rephrae Tom firt commet o that i ot fallaciou. (HINT: Aume that icomplete are ot allowed at Tom college.).8 Appeal To Author Profeor: Mot tar i our galaxy are ot like Su at all. udet: I m ot ure I believe that. Profeor: I have a degree i atroomy, o you ca trut what I way. The profeor (ad ote that we do t kow what diciplie thi profeor practice) i uig hi/her academic credetial a evidece that what he/he ay mut be correct. Thi i the equivalet of ayig It true becaue I ay o. i place of actual evidece. Rather tha give actual evidece, the profeor ue the fallacy of appeal to author to jutify hi/her cocluio. Appeal to author mea uig oe poitio of author or oe credetial, or ome other potetially authoritative ource of iformatio (a book perhap) i the abece of evidece to jutify a cocluio. 39. What evidece could the profeor provide to jutify hi/her claim? 8
Activ005 2 A REASONING TEMPLATE WARNING: You mut be careful whe decidig if thi fallacy i beig ued. I ciece, there come a poit at which you mut accept the valid of the work of other cietit. At that poit, however, the pero, book, or otherwie ource of author mut be able to provide more evidece tha credetial or merely the writte word. Thi evidece may come i may form. Providig thi evidece i uually a ig that the author i trutworthy. Sample Activ udet Verio 2 A Reaoig Template 2. A rategy For Thikig To help you lear to recogize ad deal with fallacie ad ditractio techique, ue the followig template to trai yourelf how to thik through a ituatio. Read through the template, fillig i the blak a you go for your particular ituatio. Thi pero i tryig to covice me that. Itead of uig evidece, thi pero i uig to covice me. Uig to covice me itead of evidece cotitute the fallacy of. Itead of uig to covice me, thi pero hould have, or could have, ued to covice me. Note that the blak are merely place holder ad ot ecearily proportioal to what goe i the blak. It i importat to ot omit ay part of the template whe uig it to reao through a ituatio. It i importat to thik completely ad thoroughly i order to trai yourelf to thik ratioally ad correctly. 2.2 Uig The Template Coider the followig exchage: Joe: You ca t trut that guy work. He a alcoholic. Celete: He publihed hi work i all the right joural. Joe: Yeah, but he till a alcoholic ad alcoholic uually do t thik ratioally. Therefore, you hould t trut aythig he publihed or aythig he ay. 40. Ue the reaoig template to detect whether or ot a fallacy ha beig ued. Write out the etire template, fillig i the blak a you go. 9
Activ005 3 INQUIRY Sample Activ 3 Iquiry 3. Evidece You have bee aked a lot about evidece i thi activ, but you have ot bee explicitly aked to defie evidece. Oe reao i that evidece i rather difficult to defie. Take ome time ow to dicu thi i your group. 4. I the pace provided, make a attempt to operatioally defie evidece i term of what thig (for lack of a better word) do ad do ot cotitute valid evidece. For example, would you coider a pero memory of a evet to be valid evidece that the evet really happeed? Would you coider a photograph to be valid evidece? Would you coider a mathematical equatio to be valid evidece? udet Verio 3.2 Repodig To Fallacie I geeral, a fallacy i a error i reaoig that may or may ot lead to a erroeou cocluio. Some fallacie are better claified a ditractio techique or trategie. There are literally hudred of claified fallacie ad you have oly ee a mall umber of them here. 42. For each example you aw, you were aked for a repoe to the pero committig the fallacy. Take a few miute to compare your repoe with thoe from other group. Make ay ote i the pace provided. Geerally, the bet way to repod to a fallacy i to poit it out. With ditractio techique uch a takig offee thi i uually all that ca be doe. I ituatio where there i evidece to couter a fallaciou claim or argumet, that evidece hould be preeted immediately. Some people ue fallacie to lure you ito dicuio or debate (ote the quote) to make you look foolih. Thi i epecially true with people addreig the fictitiou overlap of religio ad ciece. 20
Activ005 3 INQUIRY Sample Activ udet Verio 43. Take a few miute to thik of ome ituatio where fallacie are ued thi way ad lit them here. 44. How do you recogize a faulty or erroeou argumet? How do you rebut uch a argumet? What cotitute evidece? CHECKPOINT 45. Map thi activ ito a may of the elemet of thought a you ca. 2
Activ005 3 INQUIRY m e 46. Every activ will have at leat oe tadard aociated with it. STANDARD I ca recogize the fallacie ad ditractio techique decribed i thi activ ad I ca properly poit them out to the pero or ource uig them. 22
Activ005 4 FEEDBACK Sample Activ udet Verio 4 Feedback What could be doe to make thi activ more iteretig? Pleae be hoet. 23