Scribd
Upload
8 views11 pages

Chaffee PowerPoint Slides - CH 11 - Final

Chapter 11 of 'Thinking Critically' by John Chaffee discusses inductive reasoning and various fallacies that can arise in reasoning processes. It outlines types of fallacies, including false generalizations, causal fallacies, and fallacies of relevance, providing examples and definitions for each. Additionally, it offers a guide for critical thinkers to evaluate their reasoning and explore complex issues.

Uploaded by

vbusby687
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views11 pages

Chaffee PowerPoint Slides - CH 11 - Final

Chapter 11 of 'Thinking Critically' by John Chaffee discusses inductive reasoning and various fallacies that can arise in reasoning processes. It outlines types of fallacies, including false generalizations, causal fallacies, and fallacies of relevance, providing examples and definitions for each. Additionally, it offers a guide for critical thinkers to evaluate their reasoning and explore complex issues.

Uploaded by

vbusby687
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

Thinking Critically, 11e

John Chaffee

Chapter 11:
Reasoning Critically
Inductive Reasoning and Fallacies

Inductive reasoning works from a


premise that is known or assumed
to be true to a conclusion.
The conclusion is supported by the
premises but does not necessarily
follow from them.
A fallacy is an unsound argument
that seems to be logical and is often
persuasive because it appeals to
emotions and prejudices.
Empirical Generalization

In this type of inductive


reasoning, a general statement is
made about an entire group
based on observing some
members of the group.
To evaluate inductive arguments,
ask:
o Is the sample known?
o Is the sample sufficient?
o Is the sample representative?
Fallacies of False Generalization

Though generalizing and interpreting to form


concepts is useful, this process can lead to
fallacious ways of thinking.
 Hasty Generalization — The samples that
support a conclusion are too small to provide
adequate support.
 Sweeping Generalization — Conclusions that
are usually true are applied to instances known
to be exceptions to the generalization.
 False Dilemma (the ‘either/or fallacy’) — A
choice is presented between two extreme
alternatives without considering additional
options.
Causal Reasoning

 One event (or events) is claimed to be the


result of another event (or events).
 The Scientific Method assumes that causal
relationships can be discovered through
investigation.
 Identify an even or relationship to be
investigated.
 Gather information.
 Develop a hypothesis — a possible
explanation for a set of facts that can be
used for further investigation.
 Test the hypothesis.
Causal Reasoning
(continued)
Evaluate the hypothesis.
Controlled Experiments are used
to investigate more complex
causal relationships through
three designs:
◦ Cause-to-effect experiments with
intervention
◦ Cause-to-effect experiments without
intervention
◦ Effect-to-cause experiments
Causal Fallacies

These common fallacies are associated with


causality:
 Questionable Cause — A causal relationship has
no real evidence.
 Misidentification of the Cause — When there is
uncertainty about the cause, it is easy to
misidentify it.
 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“After It, Therefore
Because of It”) — Because two things occur close
together in time, we assume that one caused the
other.
 Slippery Slope — This asserts that one
undesirable action will inevitably lead to a worse
action.
Fallacies of Relevance

The following thirteen kinds of fallacious


arguments use support that has little or
nothing to do with the argument.
 Appeal to Authority — in order to establish
beliefs and prove points
 Appeal to Tradition — a practice or way of
thinking is right because it is older and has
always been done a certain way
 Bandwagon — relies on reason “because
everyone does it”
 Appeal to Pity — agree with a conclusion out
of sympathy
Fallacies of Relevance
(continued)

Appeal to Fear — points out threat or fears to


support a conclusion
 Appeal to Flattery — drawing on a reader’s
vanity substitutes for relevant evidence
Special Pleading — makes someone a special
exception without justification
Appeal to Ignorance — if an opponent cannot
disprove a conclusion, then the conclusion is
asserted to be true
Begging the Question (or “circular reasoning”)
— reasoning assumes the truth of what is
being proven without relevant evidence
Fallacies of Relevance
(continued)

 Straw Man — creates an exaggerated


version of the position, and then knocks it
down
 Red Herring — introduces an irrelevant
topic to divert attention
 Appeal to Personal Attack — focuses on
the personal qualities of the person
making the argument
 Two Wrongs Make a Right — argues that a
wrong action that is a response to another
wrong action makes the first one right
The Critical Thinker’s Guide
to Reasoning

The following questions provide an organized


approach for exploring complex issues.
 What is my initial point of view?
 How can I define it more clearly?
 What is an example of my point of view?
 What is the origin of my point of view?
 What are my assumptions?
 What reasons, evidence, and arguments
support my point of view?
 What are other points of view?
 What is my conclusion?
 What are the consequences?

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy