News:

this is a news item (test)

Main Menu

THE TRIVIUM ~ CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

Started by M O'D, March 03, 2013, 04:26:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

M O'D

QuoteThere are over 130 footnotes for this presentation: https://www.tragedyandhope.com/the-tr... Would you like to Know More? https://www.tragedyandhope.com/th-fil...


FULL PROGRAMME HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4lR7jqYx22g


All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

#1
Description of Appeal to Common Practice

QuoteThe Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say "the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them." This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.

There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.
This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and B has blonde hair.

There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

Most people do X.
Therefore X is morally correct.
would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that thereare only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.

Examples of Appeal to Common Practice

Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."
"Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."
"Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less then men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."
"There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."

Or, whenever a Judge/Land Registrar/Solicitor claims that if the mortgage deed is void then that would mean there are over 11m void mortgages in the UK and that can't be the case, so the way the soli instructs the duped punter to sign the deed as 'borrower' and/or 'beneficial owner' when he is neither at the time he signs, get it witnessed, leave it undated and deliver to him from whom it will be sent to the bankster who will not EXECUTE it, cos 'that is how it is done', then that is an appeal to common practice. Being fallacious, it is wholly without merit ... Of course, it is also an act of professional negligence and fraud on the part of the soli as well as the bankster... Had the 'punter' known the full import of what he was doing, then he would be implicated in the fraud too... but he has been tricked by the bankster and soli, so any such claim that he is guilty too can immediately be rebutted.




http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

http://thinkfree.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2236.msg4628#new

_______________________________________________
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

M O'D

Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

QuoteThe Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following
patterns:

1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be
negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be
negative consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no
bearing on whether the belief is true or false.
For example, if someone were to say "If
sixteen-headed purple unicorns don't exist, then I would be miserable, so they must
exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to
note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.

It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and
a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation).
A RRB is evidence that objectively
and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of
some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the
belief)that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of
the claim.


The nature of the fallacy is especially clear in the case of Wishful thinking. Obviously,
merely wishing that something is true does not make it true. This fallacy differs from the
Appeal to Belief fallacy in that the Appeal to Belief involves taking a claim that most
people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.

Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

1. "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and
the world would be a horrible place!"
2. "It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at
night."
3. "I don't think that there will be a nuclear war. If I believed that, I wouldn't be able
to get up in the morning. I mean, how depressing."
4. "I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I
have a great desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore I
accept that God exists."



All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice
Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted