|What is the "prison of consistency" ?||
The "prison of consistency" is the concept that when one decides to associate with a particular view, they may find it hard to change their mind without embarrassment, as they aren't capable of leaving their view without losing face.
An example of someone becoming trapped in their "prison of consistency":
A person could stand firmly by the idea that "concept X" is always true, and are then presented with asituation when "concept X" is not true. But to admit they were wrong would be to lose face.
|What is a false dilemmna?||
A false dilemmna is the logic fallacy wherein a situation is (mis)represented in black and white; as a dilemmna between two mutually exclusive views in which there is no middle ground.
1) Do you want to make a donation to the humane society, or do you hate animals?
(You may not have the money to make a donation at the moment, or you object to some aspect of the particular humane society).
2) Are you against abortion, or do you believe in killing human beings?
(You may believe that a fetus does not constitute a human being.)
False dilemmnas are dangerous because they tend to oversimplify issues and engender hostility among proponents of conflicting viewpoints, obscuring the search for truth.
Related to Confirmation Bias, Belief Bias is the tendency to believe that an argument is valid simply because we agree with its conclusion. For example, consider the claim "Democrats are in favor of free speech, and since dictators are not democrats, they are obviously opposed to free speech". Since you probably agree with the conclusion, you might be tempted to say that the argument is valid. But it is not.
A fixed interest in tangible or intangible property, although the right of possession, use and enjoyment may be postponed until some future date or until the happening of some specified event.
Example: Mark Lisowski wants Allen Roberts to keep his kayak in good condition (Mark has a vested interest in the kayak) because if Allen is killed by his dog Phoebe, Mark may inherit the kayak.
|What is induction?||
Induction is the opposite of deduction. Induction starts with particular statements and moves to a general statement. For example, Metal A expands when heated; metal B expands when heated; metals C expands when headed. Therefore all metals expand when heated. In practice deduction is more certain than deduction. For one, induction makes a generalization beyond the immediate evidence of our senses. Making conclusions based upon insufficient evidence shows people’s tendency to make hasty generalizations when using induction. One example of this would be concluding that all French people are rude on the basis of one rude French waiter.
Special Pleading is a type of logical fallacy where one person applies rules or principles to others but not to his or herself.
Mr. Andersen assigns homework to be turned in Tuesday. Mark, who has constantly advocated punctuality in turning in work, turns in his assignment late but claims he should not get a zero because he "didn't feel like turning it in that day".
|What is rationalization?||
Rationalization is the process of logically justifying an argument at which the conclusion for that argument was originally arrived via different means.
pg. 131, 152-4
|What is the fallacy of false cause?||
Post hoc ergo or faulse cause means "after this, therefore on account of this." It is the logic fallacy that assumes that since one thing, A, follows another thing, B, that A is caused by B. This can be a problem since A may not always be necessarily caused by B. Even something that regular follows something like how day follows night would be somewhat of a post hoc ergo since night does not cause night. The fallacy is often seen in magical and associative thinking.
I lied yesterday and it started the rain, thus when I lie I cause rain. Anyone with even little knowledge of weather would know that lying does not call rain.
Just because a person became sick after hsi effigy was stuck with pins doesn't mean the pins are causing the pins.
|What is lateral thinking?||
Lateral thinking is the proverbial manner of "thinking outside the box". Edward de Bono makes the point that lateral thinking helps us to search for better solutions to more traditional problems. An example would be, after trying to make an object fit in a small space to no avail, finding a way to slightly deconstruct the object to make it fit and then reassemble it.
|What is a syllogism?||
A type of deductive argument consisting of the following:
1. two premises and a conclusion.
2. three terms, each of which occurs twice
3. quantifiers (ie "all", "some", or "no") which detail the quantity being referred to.
All full IB students have to take 6 IB classes.
Jacki Hess is a full IB student.
Therefore Jacki Hess has to take 6 IB classes.
|What are the laws of thought?||
There are three laws of thought on which logical reasoning is based. These three laws are:
1. The law of identity (X is X by definition)
2. The law of non-contradiction (Nothing can be both X and not-X)
3. The law of the excluded middle (Everything is either X or not X)
|What is a premis?||
A premis is a fact that is used to reach a conculsion. Most of the time there are several premises that are grouped together to reach a conclusion.
|What are quantifiers?||
In TOK quantifiers are one of the three key items that are necessary in syllogisms. Examples include "all", "some" and "no" and they tell us the amount being referred to.
|Difference between "truth" and "validity"?||
Truth is concerned with what is the case, validity with whether the conclusion follows from its premises. Truth is used when referring to statements, valid to arguments.
|What is an enthymene?||
An ethymene is an incomplete argument. It often results when someone is basing a claim on what they perceive as common knowledge and so fail to explain it.
|What is induction?||
Induction is one of the three types of reasoning where you preceed from a specific statement to a general one.
Example: I have never met a dolphin that can speak English, noone I know has met a dolphin that can speak, thus I could assume that dolphins can't speak English.
|What is deduction?||
Deduction is another form of reasoning and the opposite of induction. Where as induction moves from the general to the specific deduction moves from a genral satement to a specific one.
1.Fido is a dog
2. All Dogs wag there tails
3. Thus Fido must wag his tail
|What is circular reasoning?||
Circular reasoning (also called begging the question, vicious circle is a logic falllacy that consists of assuming the truth of something you are supposed to be proving.
Example: Jesus is the Son God. I know thisbecause he said he was the Son of God and the Son of God would not lie.
If a person were asked how they know someone has respect for them saying, "This person has respect for me." This was because he has to much respect to lie to me."
|What is the "Against the man" fallacy?||
Against the man (ad hominem), the fallacy consists of attacking or supporting the person rather then the argument.
Your a democrat and democrats are idiots so you couldn't possible be right.
"Of course you believe in global warming, your a ecologist and member of green peace."
pg. 125 (also look at vested interest)
|What is equivocation as a logic fallacy?||
Equivocation is when you make two different senses to make an argument.
A hamburger is better then nothing.
Nothing is better then good health.
Therefore a hamburger is better then good health.
|What is the logic fallacy "from ignorance"?||
(ad ignorantiam) This is when you claim something is true or false on the basis that no one can disprove it.
The government has alian space crafts in Area 52 because no one is allowed inside.
|What is a loaded question?||
A loaded question is a question with a built in assumption.
Do you always cheat? Even if you answer this question no you appear to be admitting you cheat part of the time.
|What is a false annalogy?||
A false analogy is when somone using a comparing two things that are not actually alike or are less alike then indicated.
1.China and Haiti since both are develping countries.
2. China is sucessful and didn't receive US aid.
3. Thus US aid to Haiti is not needed.
In this case the example is ignoring the differences in circumstances to focus on one similarity to make a conclusion.
|What is the slippery slope?||
In logic, the slippery slope is an argumentative technique wherein one event/situation is claimed to increase the likelihood of another event/situation, often resulting in an undesirable downward spiral. In many cases, this increase in likelihood is worded so that the sequence of events appears inevitable.
If we pass laws against fully-automatic weapons, then it won't be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. Thus, we should not ban fully-automatic weapons.
If we give aid to Guatemala we'll also have to give aid to Hondura and Congo and... there'll be no end in sight.
|What is a sweeping generalization?||
When we make an all-unclusive statement with no allowance for exceptions, this is a sweeping genralization.
Saying that it always wrong to kill others. Well what about in self defence then are we not allowed to protect ourselves.
Water always boils at 100C is another sweeping genralization. If the pressure change the temperature changes that water will boil at.
|What is "poisoning the well"?||
"Poisoning the well" is a logical fallacy in which one particular side of an argument cannot be taken without discrediting itself.
If you believe in gay marriage, you are a faithless, radical, unenlightened, and therefore obviously not worthy of being a politician.
Where a parent says "The more you cry and argue that you want to stay, up the more obvious it is you need to to bed". Now if youargue you will go to bed and if you don't you still will.
|What is the appeal to pity logic fallacy?||
The appeal to pity logic fallacy (argumentum ad misercordium) is used when one makes a statement in his/her argument that is intended to invoke sympathy but is not really relevant to the issue at hand.
You should buy these cookies because I spent 7 hours decorating them.
Asking a teacher to raise your marks because if he didn't you would a B and wouldn't be able to get into Harvard.
|What is an "Appeal to Person in Authority"?||
Appeal to Person in Authority (ipsi dixit) is the fallacy when a person justifies support for the position based on the authority of the person who presented it. The persons prestige or influence is used as a means to justify the claim.
Since Picasso beleived a painter should first draw a pidgeons feet that is the preper way to become an artist.
He's a teacher of course his answer is right.
|What is the fallacy "threat of force"?||
Threat of Force (argumentum ad baculum) is when someone gets people to agree with their position by threatening them.
"You are going to sign of these documents are all in order isn't that correct? Otherwise whats going to happen to your family when you're fired and can't find a job.
|What does is the Straw Person fallacy?||
The "straw person" fallacy is where a persons view is simplified, over-exaggerated or changed in some way to make it easier to attack. The straw person fallacy is one of the most common fallacies seen in political rhetoric.
We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.
|What is the Gambler's fallacy?||
The gambler's fallacy is used to describe why people are prone to keep gambling. People mistakenly believe that after seeing a certain result come up this raises the odds. However the reality is that for each role of the dice roll, coin flip etc. the odds are the same.
A flipped coin turns up heads this does not mean the flip will be tails in fact the percentage is still 50-50.
|What is meant by the term complex question?||
A Complex question refers to a question with two separate parts set in such a way that we must answer both parts as a whole. The two sections are joined with an and which makes the question require a single answer for both sections.
Wasn't the party boring and entertaining?
What did you think of the movie wasn't the acting excellent and the set poorly done?
|What is the logic fallacy "argument to the masses"?||
Argument to the masses (argumentum ad populum), also called bandwagon technique, is the fallacy when a person makes an emotional appeal to people making use of our cultural heritage, deeply held attitudes or ideals in our society. They may often come in the shape of patriotic or traditional appeals. Proverbs are at times examples of argument to the masses.
If you believe in traditional home values you will vote for...
You should buy this product because everyone else is and has received overwhelming high marks.
|What is an irrelevant conclusion?||
(ignoratio elenchi) This basically refers to a conclusion that just does not follow from the premises. The argument instead of proving what the arguer says proves something else.
You should support the new housing bill. We can't continue to see people living in the streets; we must have cheaper housing. (We may agree that housing s important even though we disagree with the housing bill.)
People are unable to get treatment we need. This is because our current health care is insufficient. Therefore you must support the new health care bill. (Even if we agree with the premises we might believe there is a better way to deal with the issue then the health care bill.)
|What is the fallacy of prejudicial language?||
The prejudicial language fallacy is where loaded or emotive terminology is used to give moral goodness to believing the preposition.
Good Catholics will vote against Obama because he support right to choice.
Any person with any sensibility would not wear clothes like that to school.
|What is the "consequences" fallacy?||
The author refers to the possible bad consequences holding a belief would have.
If you believe in evolution that would mean we are nothing better then apes.
You think we should just withdraw from Iraq, you just want to leave Iraqi government alone to fight Al-Qaida?
|What is the fallacy of unrepresentative sample?||
The fallacy of unrepresentative sample is the fallacy committed when a sampling is used in an argument that does not provide a good representation of the majority view.
The Portland population is overwhelming in support of improved national bicycle safety laws, the ones on the ballot should easily pass. (Portland is one of the biggest bicycling cities in the US).
We took a survey of seniors in Mr. Anderson's 7th period TOK class and they were overwhelming in support of getting more holidays.
|What is the fallacy referred to as statistical accident?||
The statistical accident fallacy occurs when a general rule is applies when the circumstances indicate it should be an occasion of exception to the rule instead.
Taylor always comes to school and never misses a day. (If he's not there he might be sick)
Killing someone is always wrong. (what if they break into your house an attack you)
|What is the fallacy of converse statistical accident?||
The fallacy of converse accident occurs when an exception is used in justification when a generalization should have been used instead. It is the inverse of the statistical accident fallacy.
Since we use highly addictive drugs on medical patients, everyone should have access to them.
You let Robert leave the class to go to the bathroom, you should let everyone leave.
|What is the logic fallacy complex clause?||
Complex cause is where the end result is caused by a variety factors, of which the identified cause is only a single part. Also used to refer in circular cases where the effect is part of the cause.
The redwood in my yard grew bigger, then yours because it got more sun. (That might be, but it was also watered more, was in a wider space, and wasn't trimmed yearly like ours).
|What is logic fallacy affirming the consequent?||
Affirming the consequent is where assume If A then B, B therefore A.
All orangutans are monkeys, thus all monkey are orangutans (clearly now true).
All cross country runners run, thus everyone who runs is a cross country runner.
|What is the fallacy denying the antecedent?||
Any argument where it is, If A then B if not A therefore, not B.
If you run then you stay in shape. But you don't run. Thus, you are not in shape. (there are other ways to stay in shape)
All orangutans are monkeys. But this is not an orangutan. Thus it is not a monkey.
|What is the logic problem of inconsistency?||
The logic fallacy of inconsistency is where more then one claim is asserted, but they cannot all be true because some are contradictory.
Robert is younger then Sally. Sally is younger then Joe. Joe is younger then Robert.
Robert and Rebecca are the same height. Tristan is shorter than Robert, but taller then Rebecca.
|What is the genetic fallacy?||
The genetic fallacy is the assumption since one thing B has its origin in another A, and properties possessed by A are also possessed by B. Sometimes this may be true sometimes not.
Like father, like son. My father is a incredibly smart so so will I.
My parents are democrats so when I grow up I will also be a democrat.
|What is the relatavist fallacy?||
The retavist fallacy is when someone claims that "its true for me" and generally comes up when someone can't justfy their position.
I justify my belief in dragons with, "dragons are real to me even if they are not for you".