ANGELS AND DEVILS

FALLACIES

2009-03-14T02:43:00.000-07:00

FALLACIES -a misleading or false notion, erroneous belief.
- a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
- a component of an argument which being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form renders the argument invalid in whole.

KINDS OF FALLACIES

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
FALLACIES OF REASONING
FALLACIES OF LOGIC
FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
FALLACIES OF DEBATE

Logical Fallacies

2009-03-14T02:29:00.001-07:00

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.

Formal and Informal Fallacies

There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies)

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.

Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.

The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.

It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.

Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal fallacy”.

Informal Fallacies

Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.

All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.

Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.

An example of a strong inductive argument would be:

(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site.

Logical and Factual Errors

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious.

If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors.

Taxonomy of Fallacies

Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.

Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.

Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity manipulate language in misleading ways. Straw man arguments, for example, commit a fallacy of ambiguity.

Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on false dilemmas and circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.

These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of “Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence).

Fallacies of Language

2009-03-13T03:18:00.000-07:00

Equivocation - words w/ more than one meaning can lead to a false conclusion.

Amphiboly - exploiting ambiguity in grammatical structure to lead to a false or questionable conclusion.

Emotive language -manipulating the connotative meaning of words to establisha claim without a proof.

Example of equivocation :
-You shouldnt take a course that teaches you how to argue, You argue too much already.
-You can get a FREE college education by investing now in mutual funds.

Example of amphiboly :
- I most enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no qualifications whatsoever.
-I can assure that no person would be better for this job.

Example of emotive language :
-Try this new, lower fat double bacon cheese burger.-This is a breakthrough way to become a financially secure. Pick up the phone right now and open the door to new opportunities.

Fallacies of reasoning

2009-03-13T03:03:00.001-07:00

Logical Fallacies: Arguments, Reasoning, and the Fallacy
Fallacies are defects in an argument that cause it to be invalid, unsound, or weak. In a deductive argument, the existence of a fallacy means that the argument is not valid - even if the premises are true, the conclusion might still be false. A fallacy does not guarantee it is false; a fallacious argument fails to provide a good reason to believe the conclusion, even if that conclusion is correct.

Fallacies of presumption

2009-03-13T02:53:00.000-07:00

FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION
Fallacies of PresumptionExplanationFallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but are nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of presumption begin with a false (or at least unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their conclusion.ExamplesArguments involving false dilemmas, complex questions, or circularity all commit fallacies of presumption: false dilemmas assume that there are no other options to consider; complex questions assume that a state of affairs holds when it may not; circular arguments assume precisely the thing that they seek to prove. In each case, the assumption is problematic, and prevents the argument from establishing its conclusion.

2009-03-12T06:15:00.000-07:00

Unwarranted Assumptions
The fallacies of presumption also fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions. In these instances, however, the erroneous reasoning results from an implicit supposition of some further proposition whose truth is uncertain or implausible. Again, we'll consider each of them in turn, seeking always to identify the unwarranted assumption upon which it is based.
Accident
The fallacy of accident begins with the statement of some principle that is true as a general rule, but then errs by applying this principle to a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way.
Women earn less than men earn for doing the same work.
Oprah Winfrey is a woman.
Therefore, Oprah Winfrey earns less than male talk-show hosts.As we'll soon see, a true universal premise would entail the truth of this conclusion; but then, a universal statement that "Every woman earns less than any man." would obviously be false. The truth of a general rule, on the other hand, leaves plenty of room for exceptional cases, and applying it to any of them is fallacious.
Converse Accident
The fallacy of converse accident begins with a specific case that is unusual or atypical in some way, and then errs by deriving from this case the truth of a general rule.
Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent rebounder.
Therefore, people who wear earrings are excellent rebounders.It should be obvious that a single instance is not enough to establish the truth of such a general principle. Since it's easy for this conclusion to be false even though the premise is true, the argument is unreliable.
False Cause
The fallacy of false cause infers the presence of a causal connectionsimply because events appear to occur in correlation or (in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc variety) temporal succession.
The moon was full on Thursday evening.
On Friday morning I overslept.
Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep.Later we'll consider what sort of evidence adequately supports the conclusion that a causal relationship does exist, but these fallacies clearly are not enough.
Begging the Question (petitio principii)
Begging the question is the fallacy of using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises offered in its own support. Although this often happens in an implicit or disguised fashion, an explicit version would look like this:
All dogs are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
Since animals with hair bear live young, dogs bear live young.
But all animals that bear live young are mammals.
Therefore, all dogs are mammals.Unlike the other fallacies we've considered, begging the question involves an argument (or chain of arguments) that is formally valid: if its premises (including the first) are true, then the conclusion must be true. The problem is that this valid argument doesn't really provide support for the truth its conclusion; we can't use it unless we have already granted that.
Complex Question
The fallacy of complex question presupposes the truth of its own conclusion by including it implicitly in the statement of the issue to be considered:
Have you tried to stop watching too much television?
If so, then you admit that you do watch too much television.
If not, then you must still be watching too much television.
Therefore, you watch too much television.In a somewhat more subtle fashion, this involves the same difficulty as the previous fallacy. We would not willingly agree to the first premise unless we already accepted the truth of the conclusion that the argument is supposed to prove.

fallacies of relevance

2009-03-12T06:06:00.001-07:00

FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE - When an argument relies on premisses that are not relevant to its conclusion, and that therefore cannnot possibly establish its truth...Fallacy of relevance > Ad Hominem ArgumentsAlternative name: Insults and personal attacksEXPLANATION:The most common and well-known version of the ad hominem fallacy is just a simple insult, and is called the abusive ad hominem. It occurs whenever a person has given up attempting to persuade a person or an audience about the reasonable of a position and is not resorting to mere personal attacks.Examples and Discussion:Whenever you see personal attacks and abusive ad hominem arguments being used in a discussion, it is unlikely that anything productive will come out of it in the end. A person who can only make their case by attacking others probably doesn't have much of case to begin with.1. Who cares what you think about movies? You're just an ignorant American who doesn't know anything about real culture.2. You have claimed that John Edward doesn't really talk to the dead, but how can we believe what an atheist says?In both cases, something objectionable is identified about a person: one is an ignorant American, the other is an atheist. The arguer then goes on to conclude that, just because of this objectionable fact, what they say about a particular topic should be ignored.Instead of showing where the people have made an error in any of their statements, the argument simply attacks them for who they are, and claims that we can dismiss anything said without even considering it. But in neither case is this objectionable fact related to the topic at hand - especially when these "objectionable" facts are just plain insults.The proper way to evaluate the merits of an argument is by looking at what the argument says, not by distracting people's attention from the argument by insulting the person and then, unreasonably, concluding that your insult is a good reason to dismiss the argument

fallacies of ambiguity

2009-03-12T06:05:00.001-07:00

Fallacies of AmbiguityAmbiguous LanguageIn addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.EquivocationAn equivocation trades upon the use of an ambiguous word or phrase in one of its meanings in one of the propositions of an argument but also in another of its meanings in a second proposition.Really exciting novels are rare.But rare books are expensive.Therefore, Really exciting novels are expensive.Here, the word "rare" is used in different ways in the two premises of the argument, so the link they seem to establish between the terms of the conclusion is spurious. In its more subtle occurrences, this fallacy can undermine the reliability of otherwise valid deductive arguments.AmphibolyAn amphiboly can occur even when every term in an argument is univocal, if the grammatical construction of a sentence creates its own ambiguity.A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup truck.Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.In this example, the premise (actually heard on a radio broadcast) could be interpreted in different ways, creating the possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion.AccentThe fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or written emphasis. Thus, for example:Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with heavy stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion.CompositionThe fallacy of composition involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to every individual member of a class (or part of a greater whole) to the possession of the same feature by the entire class (or whole).Every course I took in college was well-organized.Therefore, my college education was well-organized.Even if the premise is true of each and every component of my curriculum, the whole could have been a chaotic mess, so this reasoning is defective.Notice that this is distinct from the fallacy of converse accident, which improperly generalizes from an unusual specific case (as in "My philosophy course was well-organized; therefore, college courses are well-organized."). For the fallacy of composition, the crucial fact is that even when something can be truly said of each and every individual part, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of the whole class.DivisionSimilarly, the fallacy of division involves an inference from the attribution of some feature to an entire class (or whole) to the possession of the same feature by each of its individual members (or parts).Ocelots are now dying out.Sparky is an ocelot.Therefore, Sparky is now dying out.Although the premise is true of the species as a whole, this unfortunate fact does not reflect poorly upon the health of any of its individual members.Again, be sure to distinguish this from the fallacy of accident, which mistakenly applies a general rule to an atypical specific case (as in "Ocelots have many health problems, and Sparky is an ocelot; therefore, Sparky is in poor health"). The essential point in the fallacy of division is that even when something can be truly said of a whole class, it does not follow that the same can be truly said of each of its individual parts.Avoiding FallaciesInformal fallacies of all seventeen varieties can seriously interfere with our ability to arrive at the truth. Whether they are committed inadvertently in the course of an individual's own thinking or deliberately employed in an effort to manipulate others, each may persuade without providing legitimate grounds for the truth of its conclusion. But knowing what the fallacies are affords us some protection in either case. If we can identify several of the most common patterns of incorrect reasoning, we are less likely to slip into them ourselves or to be fooled by anyone else.

2009-03-12T06:03:00.001-07:00

COMMON FALLACIES IN REASONING1. FAULTY CAUSE: (post hoc ergo propter hoc) mistakes correlation or association for causation, by assuming that because one thing follows another it was caused by the other.example: A black cat crossed Babbs' path yesterday and, sure enough, she was involved in an automobile accident later that same afternoon.example: The introduction of sex education courses at the high school level has resulted in increased promiscuity among teens. A recent study revealed that the number of reported cases of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) was significantly higher for high schools that offered courses in sex education than for high schools that did not.2. SWEEPING GENERALIZATION: (dicto simpliciter) assumes that what is true of the whole will also be true of the part, or that what is true in most instances will be true in all instances.example: Muffin must be rich or have rich parents, because she belongs to ZXQ, and ZXQ is the richest sorority on campus.example: I'd like to hire you, but you're an ex-felon and statistics show that 80% of ex-felons recidivate.3. HASTY GENERALIZATION: bases an inference on too small a sample, or on an unrepresentative sample. Often, a single example or instance is used as the basis for a broader generalization.example: All of those movie stars are really rude. I asked Kevin Costner for his autograph in a restaurant in Westwood the other evening, and he told me to get lost.example: Pit Bulls are actually gentle, sweet dogs. My next door neighbor has one and his dog loves to romp and play with all the kids in the neighborhood!4. FAULTY ANALOGY: (can be literal or figurative) assumes that because two things, events, or situations are alike in some known respects, that they are alike in other unknown respects.example: What's the big deal about the early pioneers killing a few Indians in order to settle the West? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.example: Banning "head" shops from selling drug paraphernalia in order to curb drug abuse makes about as much sense as banning bikinis to reduce promiscuity.5. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."example: We can safely conclude that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy, because thus far no one has been able to prove that there is not.example: The new form of experimental chemotherapy must be working; not a single patient has returned to complain.6. BIFURCATION: (either-or, black or white, all or nothing fallacy) assumes that two categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, that is, something is either a member of one or the other, but not both or some third category.example: Either you favor a strong national defense, or you favor allowing other nations to dictate our foreign policy.example: It’s not TV. It’s HBO.7. FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.example: Either you buy a large car and watch it guzzle away your paycheck, or you buy a small car and take a greater risk of being injured or killed in the event of an accident.example: You can put your money in a savings account, in which case the IRS will tax you on the interest, and inflation will erode the value of your money, or you can avoid maintaining a savings account in which case you will have nothing to fall back on in a financial emergency.8. FAULTY SIGN: (also includes argument from circumstance) wrongly assumes that one event or phenomenon is a reliable indicator or predictor of another event or phenomenon.example: the cars driving in the opposite direction have their lights on; they must be part of a funeral procession.example: That guy is wearing a Raiders jacket and baggy pants. I’ll bet he’s a gang member.9. DAMNING THE SOURCE: (ad hominem, sometimes called the genetic fallacy) attempts to refute an argument by indicting the source of the argument, rather than the substance of the argument itself.example: There is no reason to listen to the arguments of those who oppose school prayer, for they are the arguments of atheists!example: The American Trial Lawyers Association favors of this piece of legislation, so you know it has to be bad for ordinary citizens.10. TU QUOQUE: (look who's talking or two wrongs make a right) pointing to a similar wrong or error committed by another.example: Gee, Mom and Dad, how can you tell me not to do drugs when you both smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol?example: The United States has no business criticizing the human rights policies of the Third World nations, not as long as discrimination and segregation continue to exist in the United States.11. EQUIVOCATION: allows a key word or term in an argument to shift its meaning during the course of the argument. The result is that the conclusion of the argument is not concerned with the same thing as the premise(s).example: Only man is rational. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is rational.example: No one who has the slightest acquaintance with science can reasonably doubt that the miracles in the Bible actually took place. Every year we witness countless new miracles in the form recombinant DNA, micro-chips, organ transplants, and the like. (the word "miracle" does not have the same meaning in each case)12. BEGGING THE QUESTION: (petitio principii) entails making an argument, the conclusion of which is based on an unstated or unproven assumption. In question form, this fallacy is known as a COMPLEX QUESTION.example: Abortion is murder, since killing a baby is an act of murder.example: Have you stopped beating your wife?13. TAUTOLOGY: (a sub-category of circular argument) defining terms or qualifying an argument in such a way that it would be impossible to disprove the argument. Often, the rationale for the argument is merely a restatement of the conclusion in different words.example: The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.example: You are a disagreeable person and, if you disagree with me on this, it will only further prove what a disagreeable person you are.14. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.example: If it's good enough for (insert celebrity's name here), it's good enough for me.example: Laws against marijuana are plain silly. Why, Thomas Jefferson is known to have raised hemp on his own plantation.15. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.example: Of course we have to play "pomp and circumstance" at graduation, because that's always been the song that is played.example: Why do I make wine this way? Because my father made wine this way, and his father made wine this way.16. APPEAL TO THE CROWD: (ad populum or playing to the gallery) refers to popular opinion or majority sentiment in order to provide support for a claim. Often the "common man" or "common sense" provides the basis for the claim.example: all I can say is that if living together is immoral, then I have plenty of company.example: Professor Windplenty's test was extremely unfair. Just ask anyone who took it.17. STRAW MAN: stating an opponent's argument in an extreme or exaggerated form, or attacking a weaker, irrelevant portion of an opponent's argument.example: A mandatory seat belt law could never be enforced. You can't issue citations to dead people.example: What woman in her right mind could truly desire total equality with men? No woman wants the right to be shot at in times of war, the right to have to pay alimony, or the right to have to use the same restrooms as men.18. SLIPPERY SLOPE: (sometimes called a snowball argument or domino theory) suggests that if one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable. A slippery slope always assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some eventual dire outcome.example: If the Supreme Court allows abortion, next think you know they'll allow euthanasia, and it won't be long before society disposes of all those persons whom it deems unwanted or undesirable.example: If I let one student interrupt my lecture with a question, then I'll have to let others and, before long, there won't be any time left for my lecture.19. APPEALING TO EXTREMES: A fallacy very similar to slippery slope, which involves taking an argumentative claim or assertion to its extreme, even though the arguer does not advocate the extreme interpretation. The difference between the two fallacies is that appealing to extremes does not necessarily involve a sequence of causal connections.example: Husband to ex-wife: Well, if you want to be completely fair about dividing everything up, you should get one of my testicles and I should get one of your breasts!example: Debtor to creditor: Hey, you've already repossessed my car and my television. Why don't you just draw a quart of blood or carve a pound of flesh from my heart too?20. HYPOTHESIS CONTRARY TO FACT: This fallacy consists of offering a poorly supported claim about what might have happened in the past or future if circumstances or conditions were other than they actually were or are. The fallacy also involves treating hypothetical situations as if they were fact.example: If you had only tasted the stewed snails, I'm sure you would have liked them.example: If Hitler had not invaded Russia and opened up two military fronts, the Nazis would surely have won the war.21. NON SEQUITAR: (literally means "does not follow") in a general sense any argument which fails to establish a connection between the premises and the conclusion may be called a non-sequitar. In practice, however, the label non-sequitar tends to be reserved for arguments in which irrelevant reasons are offered to support a claim.example: I wore a red shirt when I took the test, so that is probably why I did so well on the test.example: Mr Boswell couldn't be the person who poisoned our cat, Truffles, because when I used to take Truffles for walks he always smiled and said "Hello" when we walked by.22. RED HERRING: attempting to hide a weakness in an argument by drawing attention away from the real issue. A red herring fallacy is thus a diversionary tactic or an attempt to confuse or fog the issue being debated. The name of the fallacy comes from the days of fox hunting, when a herring was dragged across the trail of a fox in order to throw the dogs off the scent.example: accused by his wife of cheating at cards, Ned replies "Nothing I do ever pleases you. I spent all last week repainting the bathroom, and then you said you didn't like the color."example: There's too much fuss and concern about saving the environment. We can't create an Eden on earth. And even if we could, remember Adam and Eve got bored in the Garden of Eden anyway!23. INCONSISTENCY: advancing an argument that is self-contradictory, or that is based on mutually inconsistent premises.Example: A used car salespersons says, "Hey, you can’t trust those other car salesman. They’ll say anything to gt you to buy a car from them."Example: A parent has just read a child the story of Cinderella. The child asks, "If the coach, and the footmen, and the beautiful clothes all turned back into the pumpkin, the mice, and the rags, then how come the glass slipper didn’t change back too?"

2009-03-12T05:03:00.000-07:00

Examples of Fallacies:
Inductive Argument
Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats. Premise 2: Bill is an American cat. Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.
Factual Error
Columbus is the capital of the United States.
Deductive Fallacy
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine. Premise 2: Portland is in Maine. Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine. (Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)
Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel. Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white. (While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).

COMMENTS: PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE

2008-12-31T01:21:00.000-08:00

I think filipinos in general does not want a new set of laws replacing the old governing Constitution. They are tired and sick of those capricious and personal interest of the lawmakers, There is no need to change the Constitution considering the condition that we are experiencing either with regards to economic and political settings. 2010 election is approaching and there is no doubt that some prominent candidates were preserving there assets and weapons especially the candidates from the senate. obvioslly these people won't allow a sudden change in the Constitution because they are afraid that certain changes might involve extension of term in the current administration run by Pres. Arroyo. so they oppossed vigorioslly expressing there nays to such changes. So theres is no way a change minght be achieve as what the Congress are expecting for almost all of the Senators are not in the affirmative. However if we believe that such changes will bring prosperity and improvements let us examine the effects first. Congress are planning to have changes in the economic provisions in the Constitution, they said it is so strict and limited. Thus there planning to eliminate the limitations to foriegners in terms of investment and property ownership. I think these is not a good idea for Filipino people will be the one to suffer the consequence. backlash will be on our side if these will happen for it will not only kill the small traders but the entire Philippine economy.

CASE DIGEST - AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO

2008-12-31T00:57:00.000-08:00

Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a “milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth (for both countries).”
JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a comprehensive plan for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our commitments to the WTO.
The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard Government’s rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists who raised there very serious concerns about the country being turned into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on broader national development concerns.

Issues:

1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the Congress

2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and take cognizance of the instant petition.

3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full public disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying access thereto.

Rulings:

The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto.

In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has become moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.

The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be 'ample opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is approved' – the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.”

It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine representatives from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in an area of greater national interest.

In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise thereof.”
Rulings:

FINAL DEBATE

2008-12-29T00:22:00.000-08:00

FINAL DEBATE Obama vs Mc cain

Watching there video on youtube is facinating and listening to every words they say is quite inspiring. I think every electoral candidates has his own phrase and lines to describe his platform and the kind of adminstration he envisioned. Obama during the debate claims that his policies and concerns are more accurate in terms of providing the american citizen a better option with respect to economic, tax, education, health care benifits, and enerygy policies were explained in a simple and clear statement,which for me is more appealing. On the other hand Sen. Mc cain is much more of an agrressive type of debater, he first initiate an attack on Obama's platform and its campaign citing numerous allegations on Obama's mistakes and lapses in the past. It seems to me that Obama is the much more convincing in his statements in answering the issues trown to him. he backed it with reliable facts citing research, surveys, reports and other reliable facts. Mc cain's argument has no standing, he's basis of reasonings is Obama's strenght. Every time he (Mc cain) attacks it turns out he's in the loosing end because the issues he trow to he's rival are of no strong source as if it were just heresay. So that's why i go for Obama as a winner of this dabate.

2008-12-25T21:04:00.000-08:00

ARGUMENTATION-A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of rational proofs,discussions,disputations.
= Reasoning or expressed in words,to induce belief.-Matter for questions,business in hand.-The independent variable upon whose value of a function depends.
ARGUMENTS= What they are,How to make them and How to avoid making bad ones-Class Objectives ABLE TO: Choose an effective topic>Identify the parts of an argument is valid or sound.>List and explain major logical fallacies.>Demonstrate how arguments are organized in parts.
ARGUMENTS has two parts :
CLAIM (aka position or conclusion)>The claim that arguer wants to defendEVIDENCE (aka premises)>Statements that give reason of support."WHAT DOES THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS A RETURN TO THE CONCEPT OF SWIFT AND CERTAIN JUSTICE. IF WE NEED MORE COURTS,JUDGES AND PRISONS. SO BE IT.STAND AS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I SAY LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME" JOHN PEARSON
(EXAMPLE OF EVIDENCE) "WHEN INDIVIDUALS VOLOUNTARILY ABANDON PROPERTY,THEY FORFEIT ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN IT THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD.
(EXAMPLE OF CLAIM) THEREFORE A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF ABANDONED PROPERTY IS NOT UNREASONABLE UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT"EVIDENCE- Statement that gives reason for support ORGANIZING A PROPOSAL ARGUMENT.
1.Present the problem that needs to be solve.>A.Describe the problem B.Provide a history for the problem C. Argue that the problem can be solve,but dont solve it yet.2.Present the proposal A.Present your claim (thesis).>B.Explain the specifics of the proposal.>C.Explain the specifics of the proposal.3.provide a summary of the opposing viewpoints.>A. Counter argue (this section can summarize opposing solutions and discuss why they arent valid)4.Justification: convince the reader that the proposal should be adopted>A. Solution is feasible: Reason 1 is presented and developed.>B.Solution solves the problem: Reason 2 is presented and developed>C. Solution is the best solution: Reason 3 presented and developed etc..5.Conclusion>A.Restate your proposed solution>B.Summarize main arguments>C.Entice your readers to act.PREPARING TO WRITE AN ARGUMENT(http/www.slide share.net/remnil argumentation)TOPIC: >Select one: What are you passionate about>Ponder all sides: What is your purpose.PERSPECTIVE: >Select one what is your claim? your position?>Take a stand and begin articulating itEVIDENCE: >Gather examples and support. Do you need a statistics? anecdotes?authoritative sources?COUNTER ARGUMENT: >Identify and understand it.>Put yourself in the other sides shoes.>Know how to refute it.Can you do it ethically?

Rhetoric Arguments

2008-12-25T20:55:00.000-08:00

RHETORIC ARGUMENTS
(http//www.slide share.net/nskarns/rhetoric-The art of study of using language effectively and persuasively.-A treatise or book discussing this art.-A style of speaking,writing especially the language of a particular subject.-Language that i elaborate pretentions,insincere,or intellectually vacuous.-Verbal communication discourse-Study of the technique and rules for using language effectiveTHE THREE MAIN PARTS OF RHETORICAL ARGUMENTS A-INVENTION=Includes subject matter with identifying the matter at hand.And the ability to persuade the audience."The means of persuasion includes first direct evidence,which is witnesses and contracts.Which the speakers 'uses' but does not invent.Second 'artistic means of persuasion,which include the presentation of the speaker's character as a trustworthy,logical,logical argument that may convince the audience and the pathos or the emotion that the speaker can awaken the audience.The artistic means of persuasion utilize 'topics' which are ethical or political premises on which argument can be built or are logical strategies such as arguing from cause to effect.-ARRANGEMENT=means the organization of a speech into parts.through the order on which the arguments is presented.The arrangement should include an introduction,narration, proof and conclusion.-STYLE=Is how the speaker says the material. There are two parts to style the 'diction' or the choice of words or the composition, 'the putting together of words intosentences which include periodic sentences,structure,prose,rhythm and figures of speech.

Tree of Rhetoric

2008-12-25T20:54:00.001-08:00

TREE OF RHETORIC
LOGOS (LOGICAL)CAUSE/EFFECT:>If we start school late,students will learn more.DEDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasons from principles.INDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasons from experience.STATISTICS: EXAMPLE > 3% OUT OF 10% OF WOMEN ADOPTING BIRTH CONTROL.CONTRADICTIONS: Finding logical holes in the opposite argument.>EXAMPLE: "People who are against later school times say that early start allow students more time to study,but whats stopping them from studying in the morning?"PATHOS (EMOTIONAL)>The use of emotional arguments to persuade and convince.>Appeals to negative emotions,fears,discrimination,revenge.ETHOS (CREDIBILITY)>Persuading by convincing the audience that the speaker is worth listening to.

Argumentation and Persuation

2008-12-25T20:52:00.000-08:00

ARGUMENTATION AND PERSUATION
ARGUMENTATION PERSUASIONBY:maria keckler (http//www..net/mkeckler)>Appeals to reason >Involves emotional language>Makes logical connections >Appeals to readers:supported by evidence -concerns-beliefs-values>When argumentation and persuasion blend in an ethical manner,emotional appeal supports rather than replaces logicand sound reasoning.PURPOSE:>Inspire change or action>Challenge belief>Inspire thoughts and awareness

The Toulmin Model Asserts

2008-12-25T20:49:00.001-08:00

The Toulmin model asserts that most arguments consist of the following 6 parts:
We can also identify 3 other important parts of an argument
Assumptions Counter-examples Implications
Counter-arguments
The Toulmin Model
Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.
Example: “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason]The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”
There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often established. They have the acronym “GASCAP.”
Generalization
Analogy
Sign
Causality
Authority
Principle
These strategies are used at various different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in combination.
Common Warrants
1. Argument based on GeneralizationA very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.
2. Argument based on AnalogyExtrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?
3. Argument via Sign/ClueThe notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.
4. Causal ArgumentArguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are:
Mixing up correlation with causation
Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
5. Argument from AuthorityDoes person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on?
6. Argument from PrincipleLocating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?
Rebuttals and Main/Faulty/Return Paths Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will often include discussions of possible objections and counterarguments to the position being advanced. Academic arguments typically take place in disciplinary communities in which a variety of competing or divergent positions exist. When preparing to 'speak' to the community by writing an argument, writers are aware of the arguments against which they must build their claims, and of the counterarguments which are likely to emerge. Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part of the process of building arguments, refining them, interpreting and analyzing them. There are several main reasons for introducing counterarguments and objections.
1. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
2. It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers, anticipating the objections that many readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the positions opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal with possible objections can thus work to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments.
3. By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is against, one clarifies the position that is being argued for.
When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take one of 3 approaches.
Strategic concession: acknowledgment of some of the merits of a different view. In some cases, this may mean accepting or incorporating some components of an authors' argument, while rejecting other parts of it.
Refutation: this involves being able to show important weaknesses and shortcomings in an opponent's position that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to be rejected.
Demonstration of irrelevance: showing that the issue in question is to be understood such that opposing views, while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in fact meet the criteria of relevance that you believe define the issue