Philosophy...... due Friday....... 42 items no essay to write

Introducing "FALDs (Fallacious, Argument-Like Devices)"

Below's . . .

. . . a good 13.5 minute video introduction to our new topic (Unit 10 - FALDs), but remember to keep separate in your own mind our technical definition of "argument" (a series of claims, precisely one of which functions as the conclusion, and the others of which function as premises) and the every-day definition of "argument" (an interpersonal disagreement, often being discussed in an emotionally charged manner). Four of the five fallacies discussed here are on our list. Oh: Feel free to skip the last couple of minutes. They're not relevant to our course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qb-h0sXkH4

You might want to take notes on the five fallacies covered here on the "Idea Channel."  It could save you time later.  (What he calls the "black and white" fallacy, we call "false alternatives" or "false dilemma."  Also, this fallacy [FALD] may occur even when you're given a larger number of options.  This occurs, for example, when you have responses A, B, C, D, and E on an exam question, but none of them are correct, and yet there is some correct answer!)

A FINAL NOTE:  All fallacies are FALDs, but not all FALDs are fallacies.  Technically, a fallacy must be an argument in which you have not been given good reason to regard the conclusion as true.  FALDs are broader:  you could be persuaded that something is true when you have actually been given no argument at all!

Mathematical Comparison - FALD

Mathematical comparison – FALD

This is a nice example of a fallacy of little evidence.  In most cases, the accurate use of numbers from a mathematical perspective (like adding, dividing, and using geometry to graph) can be straight-forward and accurate, but the data can be used to slant the information to incline you to view things from a very particular perspective which may affect other beliefs you have.  It may, of course, also be selective, in case part of the data fail to support the conclusion the arguer wants you to arrive at.    It can also be expressed selectively.  Compare: 

The American Philosophical Association alone has 11,400 members.  That’s way too many people walking around believing they are philosophers, and that’s just counting those in one professional organization.  After all, in Antiquity I can recall there having been only a handful of philosophers for each generation.  During the fifth and fourth centuries BC, for example, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle come to mind, but you didn't have thousands of people claiming to be philosophers!

with this:

In the United States alone, a conservative estimate is that there are over fifty million professionals.  The American Philosophical Association accepts into its membership those who are not U.S. citizens, yet it still constitutes only .002% of all professionals.  That’s nearly zero percent of the professional population!  In fact, there is only one philosopher for every 4,386 professionals in other fields, and only one thinker for every 33,333 U.S. citizens.  One professional cannot possibly serve the needs of thirty-thousand-plus people.  We need to encourage more people to think and to train to become professional philosophers.

The point of the above contrasting paragraphs is that they both contain accurate mathematical calculations, but the mathematical information has been used to selectively argue for opposed conclusions.  This is the central problem of Mathematical Comparison:  while the numbers are accurate, opposed conclusions can be argued for on the basis of correct math.

Referencing mathematics, data, science, and logic, are also sources of potential intimidation.  Ask yourself if you are more likely to take seriously an argumentative essay that includes a lot of statistical data, versus one that is free of such data.  Somehow we can be psychologically tricked by the presence of numbers into believing that the writer has "really done their research" or "must be really smart," and then on the basis of this alone, we may wrongly conclude that we are forced to accept their conclusion if we, too, want to be on the right side of an issue.  As the above contrasting paragraphs - based on the same data - make clear, this is not the case.  Both conclusions cannot be true at the same time under the same circumstances.  Math is of course helpful, but it is not in-and-of-itself the determiner of whether a position on an issue is reasonable or not reasonable.