Notes on Questions in Lecture of 02/13/2023

 Q1. Non-logical argument is big too!

Why?

Answer: Emotional appeals can often be more persuasive than logical appeals

 

Q2. This was a highly effective (ab)use of ad hominem argumentation.So why didn’t I (or someone else) point this out?

Answer: It didn’t occur to anyone that this was an ad hominem argument.

 

Q3. There are various types

• …..Example:
  • . . . . .ad feminam
• The animal experiments example was a type
  • Why?

  Answer: It was attacking the experiment design.

Q4. …..John Nash’s mathematics
…..can’t be Nobel prize-worthy
…..because he has schizophrenia

. . . . .(see movie A Beautiful Mind)

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..Amy Winehouse’s music sucks
…..because she’s in the “27 club”

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..Jimi Hendrix’s music is great
…..because he’s in the “27 club”

. . . . .logical fallacy?

 

Answer: These are all examples of ad hominem arguments.

 

Q5 …..A parent says, don’t smoke, it’s unhealthy

…..The kid says, “but you smoke”

. . . . .“Practice what you preach!”

. . . . .“So I don’t believe you!”

…..is there a logical fallacy there?

 

Answer: Yes, the parent may be a hypocrite but that has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is unhealthy. They can still be a hypocrite while telling the truth about smoking.

 

 

 

 

Q6. …..Al Gore’s house was once found to be energy-inefficient

. . . . .Is that an argument against the
existence of global warming?

. . . . .Is it an argument
against reducing CO2 output?

Answer: No, these are not arguments against either of these things. His home has nothing to do with whether or not CO2 affects the climate.

Q7. “That’s just PR spin;
he’s paid to say that”

. . . . .is that argument “to the man”?

. . . . .is it logically fallacious?

Answer: It gives us a reason to doubt what the PR person is telling us but that in and of itself does not mean the argument is false.

Q8. . . . “Take the defendant’s lawyer’s argument with a grain of salt – being paid to give a one-sided argument”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

Answer: Logically ok since it is correct that the lawyer isn’t going to tell you the whole truth.

Q9. . . . “Take the plaintiff’s lawyer’s argument with a grain of salt – it’s their job to give a one-sided argument”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

. . . “The plaintiff’s lawyer’s argument is wrong – it’s their job to give a one-sided argument”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

Answer: These are also logically sound arguments for the same reason above. However, the claim that the lawyer is wrong is not true in and of itself. Its just a reason to be suspicious.

Q10. Other countries have different approaches

Does the adversarial approach affect believability of the argument?

Can you think of a better method?

Answer: If I had to think of another method you maybe could have a third party investigate the matter and present their findings to the jury. This individual should have no ties to either side. I’m not totally sure this is an improvement though.

Q11.  . . . .”Take politician X’s argument with a grain of salt, s/he took campaign money from the ___ industry”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

. . . . .”Politician X’s argument is wrong,
s/he took campaign money from the ___ industry”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

 

Answer: The claim that we should be suspicious of the argument is correct. However, this does not mean that the argument is wrong.

 

Q12. The ad feminam argument

literally, “to the woman”

Example:

• …..Comedian Caroline Picard is a big football fan
• …..Suppose a woman critiques a team
  • …..A fan doesn’t like the comment
  • …..response 1:

 

REPORT THIS AD

. . . . . .argue it on technical merits

• …..response 2:

. . . . .dispute it by saying,

“not so – women don’t know football”

. . . . .that’s an “ad feminam” argument!

. . . . .what is the logical flaw?

. . . . .is it ethical?

 

Answer: The logical flaw is that her gender has nothing to do with whether or not what she is saying is true. It’s unethical because its manipulative by appealing to sexist stereotypes.

 

 

 

Q13. What if the argument is:

….she does not know football,
so her argument is wrong

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..she does not know football,
so her argument is iffy

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..she plays women’s football on weekends,
so her argument is right

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..she plays women’s football on weekends,
so her argument carries more weight

. . . . .logical fallacy?

 

Answer: Her not knowing football is not proof that her argument is wrong. It is a reason to be suspicious of her argument though. For the same reason, whether or not she plays football has nothing to do with whether or not her argument is true.

 

 

Q14. “You want us to get out of Iraq?
Well, Iran wants us to do that, too!”

…..“So we should not reduce troops”

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..“So your argument is traitorous”

. . . . .logical fallacy?

…..“So your argument is wrong”

. . . . .logical fallacy?

 

Answer: I don’t think this is necessarily illogical. I think it contains a hidden assumption. It seems to say that “we should not do what Iran wants because they are an enemy, therefore we shouldn’t get out of Iraq or reduce troops”. Calling the argument traitorous is a logical fallacy because treason is betraying your country in a time of war and its not clear how making an argument does that.