Fallacies that Violate Rules of Rational Argumentation

Summary

This tutorial segment delves into fallacies that don't fit neatly into formal or structural categories, focusing on violations of rational argumentation principles. It introduces four key rules: avoiding argumentation with those who intentionally mislead, not engaging with those unwilling to reason well, recognizing when individuals are unable to reason effectively, and ensuring arguments provide reasons for accepting conclusions. The segment promises to explore specific fallacies like straw man, red herring, and begging the question in the context of these rules.

Takeaways

• 📚 Formal or structural fallacies pertain to issues with the logic of an argument, violating the logic condition.
• 📝 Content fallacies involve problems with the truth or plausibility of an argument's premises, violating the truth condition.
• 🔍 Some fallacies don't fit neatly into formal or content categories; they may involve the arguer's unwillingness or inability to reason well.
• 🚫 Arguing with someone who is intentionally trying to mislead or deceive is futile unless the goal is to expose the deception.
• 🤔 Rule one: You can't argue with someone who is willing to lie to persuade, as they are more interested in rhetoric than rational argumentation.
• 🧠 Rule two: You can't argue with someone who is unwilling to reason well, such as those with a fixed mindset or ulterior motives.
• 😢 Rule three: You can't argue with someone who is unable to reason well, like those who are overly emotional or very young.
• 🤝 Rule four: An argument must provide reasons for accepting the conclusion; arguments that fail to do so are fallacious.
• 📖 In part three of the tutorial, fallacies like the straw man, red herring, and begging the question will be explored as violations of rational argumentation rules.
• ⚖️ The importance of understanding and identifying these fallacies is to ensure that arguments are based on rational principles and not on deception or flawed reasoning.

Q & A

What are formal or structural fallacies?

Formal or structural fallacies involve problems with the logic of an argument, violating the logic condition.

What are content fallacies?

Content fallacies involve problems with the truth or plausibility of one of the premises of an argument, violating the truth condition.

Why do some fallacies not fit easily into the categories of formal or content fallacies?

Some fallacies don't fit easily because they involve the arguer's unwillingness or inability to reason well, which is a different kind of problem than logical or truth violations.

What is the first rule of rational argumentation mentioned in the script?

The first rule is that you can't argue with someone who is intentionally trying to mislead or deceive you, as they are not genuinely open to rational persuasion.

What is the second rule of rational argumentation?

The second rule is that you can't argue with someone who is unwilling to reason well, such as those with a fixed mindset or whose aim is to convert people by any means.

Why is it inappropriate to argue with someone who is very emotional?

Arguing with someone who is very emotional is inappropriate because they are often unable to reason well, which is necessary for rational argumentation.

How does the capacity for reason in younger children relate to argumentation?

Younger children do not have as developed a capacity for reason as adults, making it often inappropriate to engage in argumentation with them.

What is the fourth rule of argumentation regarding the provision of reasons?

The fourth rule states that an argument must give reasons for believing or accepting the conclusion, which is part of the definition of an argument.

What is the take-home message regarding the violation of argumentation rules?

The take-home message is that if these rules are violated, the conditions for genuine argumentation are not present.

Which fallacies will be explored in part three of the tutorial course?

In part three, the tutorial course will explore fallacies such as the straw man or straw person fallacy, the red herring fallacy, and the fallacy of begging the question.

How are these fallacies best understood?

These fallacies are best understood as violations of the rules of rational argumentation.