Lecture 7_More fallacies of relevance

Lecture 7_More fallacies of relevance - Lecture 7 More...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Lecture 7 More Fallacies of Relevance Patrick Maher Philosophy 102 Spring 2009 Review Definition Fallacies of relevance are fallacies in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. That is, the premises do not provide genuine evidence in support of the conclusion. The last lecture covered: Appeal to force Appeal to pity Appeal to the people direct indirect Ad hominem abusive circumstantial tu quoque Accident Definition Accident: A general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to cover. The specific case has some property, or accident, that prevents the general rule from applying. Example Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Therefore, I should not be arrested for shouting Fire! in the movie theater last night. Straw man Definition Straw man: An arguer distorts an opponents argument, refutes the distorted version of the argument, and then concludes that the opponents real argument has been refuted. Example Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in public schools. Obviously Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism. But atheism is what they used to have in Russia. Atheism leads to the suppression ofthey used to have in Russia....
View Full Document

Page1 / 11

Lecture 7_More fallacies of relevance - Lecture 7 More...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online