File Size: 2.41 mb
Description
Sound reasoning is the basis of winning at argument. Logical fallacies undermine arguments. They are a source of enduring fascination, and have been studied for at least two-and-a-half millennia. Knowledge of them is useful, both to avoid those used inadvertently by others and even to use a few with intent to deceive. The fascination and the usefulness which they impart, however, should not be allowed to conceal the pleasure which identifying them can give. I take a very broad view of fallacies. Any trick of logic or language which allows a statement or a claim to be passed off as something it is not has an admission card to the enclosure reserved for fallacies. Very often it is the case that what appears to be a supporting argument for a particular contention does not support it at all. Sometimes it might be a deduction drawn from evidence which does not sustain it.
Content:-
Acknowledgments
Introduction ix
1. Abusive analogy
2. Accent
3. Accident
Introduction ix
1. Abusive analogy
2. Accent
3. Accident
4. Affirming the consequent
5. Amphiboly
6. Analogical fallcy
7. Antiquitam, argumentum ad
8. Apriorism
9. Baculum, argumentum ad
10. Bifurcation
11. Blinding with science
12. The bogus dilemma
13. Circulus in probando
14. The complex question (plurium interrogationum)
15. Composition
16. Concealed quantification
17. Conclusion which denies premises
18. Contradictory premises
19. Crumenam, argumentum ad
20. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
21. Damning the alternatives
5. Amphiboly
6. Analogical fallcy
7. Antiquitam, argumentum ad
8. Apriorism
9. Baculum, argumentum ad
10. Bifurcation
11. Blinding with science
12. The bogus dilemma
13. Circulus in probando
14. The complex question (plurium interrogationum)
15. Composition
16. Concealed quantification
17. Conclusion which denies premises
18. Contradictory premises
19. Crumenam, argumentum ad
20. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc
21. Damning the alternatives
22. Definitional retreat
23. Denying the antecedent
24. Dicto simpliciter
25. Division
26. Emotional appeals
27. Equivocation
28. Every schoolboy knows
29. The exception that proves the rule
30. Exclusive premises
31. The existential fallacy
32. Ex-post-facto statistics
33. Extensional pruning
34. False conversion
35. False precision
36. The gambler's fallacy
37. The genetic fallacy
38. Half-concealed qualification
39. Hedging
40. Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad
23. Denying the antecedent
24. Dicto simpliciter
25. Division
26. Emotional appeals
27. Equivocation
28. Every schoolboy knows
29. The exception that proves the rule
30. Exclusive premises
31. The existential fallacy
32. Ex-post-facto statistics
33. Extensional pruning
34. False conversion
35. False precision
36. The gambler's fallacy
37. The genetic fallacy
38. Half-concealed qualification
39. Hedging
40. Hominem (abusive), argumentum ad
41. Hominem (circumstantial), argumentum ad
42. Ignorantiam, argumentum ad
43. Ignorantio elenchi
44. Illicit process
45. Irrelevant humour
46. Lapidem, argumentum ad
47. Lazarum, argumentum ad
48. Loaded words
49. Misericordiam, argumentum ad
50. Nauseam, argumentum ad
51. Non-anticipation
52. Novitam, argumentum ad
53. Numeram, argumentum ad
54. One-sided assessment
55. Petitio principii
42. Ignorantiam, argumentum ad
43. Ignorantio elenchi
44. Illicit process
45. Irrelevant humour
46. Lapidem, argumentum ad
47. Lazarum, argumentum ad
48. Loaded words
49. Misericordiam, argumentum ad
50. Nauseam, argumentum ad
51. Non-anticipation
52. Novitam, argumentum ad
53. Numeram, argumentum ad
54. One-sided assessment
55. Petitio principii
56. Poisoning the well
57. Populum, argumentum ad
58. Positive conclusion from negative premise
59. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
60. Quaternio terminorum
61. The red herring
57. Populum, argumentum ad
58. Positive conclusion from negative premise
59. Post hoc ergo propter hoc
60. Quaternio terminorum
61. The red herring
62. Refuting the example
63. Reification
64. The runaway train
65. Secundum quid
66. Shifting ground
67. Shifting the burden of proof
68. The slippery slope
69. Special pleading
63. Reification
64. The runaway train
65. Secundum quid
66. Shifting ground
67. Shifting the burden of proof
68. The slippery slope
69. Special pleading
70. The straw man
71. Temperantiam, argumentum ad
72. Thatcher's blame
73. Trivial objections
74. Tu quoque
75. Unaccepted enthymemes
76. The undistributed middle
77. Unobtainable perfection
78. Verecundiam, argumentum ad
79. Wishful thinking
Classification of fallacies
71. Temperantiam, argumentum ad
72. Thatcher's blame
73. Trivial objections
74. Tu quoque
75. Unaccepted enthymemes
76. The undistributed middle
77. Unobtainable perfection
78. Verecundiam, argumentum ad
79. Wishful thinking
Classification of fallacies
Author Details
"Madesen Pirie" is president of the Adam Smith Institute and the Author or Co-author of numerous books including boost your IQ and The Sherlock Holmes Fallacy (on which this book was originally based.) He was formerly Distinguished Visiting Professor of Philosophy and Logic at Hillsdale College, Michigan.
No comments:
Post a Comment