PowerPoint Presentation

Logical FallaciesOcampo, O. & Villacruzes, I.Deductive and Inductive: An OverviewPhilosophy makes a distinction between two types of logic: deductive and inductive, under each of which are different qualifications for fallacy.Deductive fallacies are relatively straightforward and almost always proves the argument is wrong.Inductive fallacies are less rigid and tend to take on a variety of forms, and do not necessarily mean that the argument for which the fallacy was made is wrong.Water-tight ConclusionsDeductive Fallacies

Deduction: Water-tight ConclusionsThe definition for validity in deductive reasoning is simply that it is impossible to have an argument whose premises are all true and yet have a false conclusion.IE. Truth of the premises entails truth of the conclusionAny argument that do not meet this definition is immediately committing a logical error and is thus a fallacy.HoweverThough deductive reasoning is a reliable standard by which to establish the validity of an argument, its stringent requirements are usually not applicable to arguments regarding human decision-making.For example, it is not possible to use deductive reasoning to prove that a product of a certain brand is unquestionably the best brand to purchase, since the premises for consuming goods and services varies from one consumer to the other in terms of usefulness, quality, price, etc.Deductive reasoning is formulaic, making it very nice to look at, but difficult to apply in human issues that include morality, ethics, and justice.Etc: lifespan, whether or not it was tested on animals, whether or not it has allergens5Educated AssumptionsInductive Fallacies

Induction: Educated AssumptionsWhereas deductive reasoning bases its conclusion on concrete premises and formulaic reasoning, inductive reasoning involves more arbitrary reasoning (though this must not be confused with ambiguity.)In debates involving inductive reasoning, it is crucial to establish definitions of the terms that will be used to avoid subjectivity of language as we will see later.Inductive reasoning is less clean-cut, but this only serves to match the human condition of life, which is uncertain and fluid, but which nonetheless requires critical observation and action.Induction: Educated AssumptionsSome choose to group fallacies of inductive reasoning, at times referred to as informal fallacies, under three categories: relevance, ambiguity, and presumption. However, they maintain that this categorization is artificial, since some fallacies are difficult to classify under any single group.Well, not all the fallaciesALL THE FALLACIES!!!

Its IRRELEPHANT!!!Fallacies of relevance are predicated on premises that are not relevant to the truth of the conclusion.Such fallacies may attempt to elicit emotional responses, increase shock value, or attack the credibility of the source of the argument.

Its IRRELEPHANT!!!Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)Bandwagon FallacyFallacists FallacyFallacy of CompositionFallacy of DivisionGamblers FallacyGenetic FallacyIrrelevant Appeals (+)Moralistic FallacyNaturalistic FallacyRed HerringWeak Analogy

Irrelevant AppealsAppeal to Antiquity / TraditionAppeal to AuthorityAppeal to ConsequencesAppeal to ForceAppeal to NoveltyAppeal to PityAppeal to PopularityAppeal to PovertyAppeal to WealthLabo mo, Pre?!Fallacies of ambiguity relies on the nuances of language and the fact that some words can have more than one meaning to misdirect or mislead the argument.

Labo mo, Pre?!Accent FallaciesEquivocation FallacyStraw Man Fallacy

Remember in HP & the Half Blood Prince, when Snape was teaching Harry non-verbal spells:Harry: Yes.Snape: Yes, sir.Harry: There is no need to call me sir, Professor.Sassssssssss.14Masama mag-assume!Fallacies of presumption use false premises or premises with uncertain truth values to defend their argument. It involves jumping to an unsupported conclusion and taking that hasty conclusion as established fact.

Masama mag-assume!Affirming the ConsequentArguing from Ignorance/Personal IncredulityBegging the Question / Circular ReasoningComplex Question/Loaded Question FallacyCum Hoc Fallacy/False CausalityFalse Dilemma / Bifurcation FallacyHasty Generalisation FallacyNo True Scotsman FallacyPost Hoc FallacyMiddle Ground FallacySlippery Slope FallacySweeping Generalisation FallacySubjectivist FallacyTu Quoque Fallacy

FALSE DILEMMA!!!False Causality

Per capita consumption of sour cream (US)Vs. Motorcycle riders killed in noncollision transport accidentFalse Causality

Number of people who died by becoming entangled in their bedsheetsVs. Total revenue generated by skiing facilitiesFalse Causality

Age of Miss AmericaVs Murders by steam, hot vapours and hot objectsChance to win more food?Disclaimer: The examples given may or may not align with the personal opinion of the presenters. The purpose of the given statements is merely to practice identification of fallacies.Exercises

ExercisesContraception is not a natural process and therefore is wrong.Appeal to hypocrisyAppeal to natureStrawmanNo true ScotsmanB.ExercisesEat your food because thousands of poor children are starvingAmbiguityAppeal to natureBlack or whiteAppeal to emotionD.ExerciseIf we allow same-sex marriage, soon everyone will be marrying their dogs.Slippery slopeSpecial pleadingAppeal to authorityAd hominem

I kid you not, people actually make this argument. :/A.Exercise every morning. Taba mo.The moment they met, the detective asked the victims son why he killed his father that night.Slippery slopeGamblers fallacyBegging the questionLoaded questionD.Exercise your right to partay!Everyone is throwing their trash in the street. Im sure it wont make any difference if I tossed this candy wrapper there.BandwagonMiddle groundAppeal to hypocrisyAppeal to emotionA.O ano, conclusion nanaman?Conclusion

Conclusion, e di i-opinion!Logic requires very critical evaluation of the premises and the conclusion in order to establish its coherency.Fallacies can be found around us everyday and can be used as sales tools, false reassurance, and even weapons to compel people to act. It is our duty and privilege to use our abilities to objectively weigh the validity of a logical argument.ReferencesRichardson, J.; Smith, A.; Meadan, S. thou shalt not commit logical fallacies, 2015. Web. 25 February 2015.Wilson, M. "Hilarious Graphs Prove That Correlation Isnt Causation". Fast Company, 2015. Web. 1 March 2015.Logical Fallacies, 2009. Web. 20 Feb 2015.