1
I am answering all three questions to provide examples for you! DON’T FREAK OUT. You only have to answer two!
1. Pick one of the following logical fallacies (straw man, begging the question, ad hominem, post hoc, false dichotomy, or hasty generalization) and search social media for an example of this fallacy in action. Once you have found an example of this fallacy, please 1) take a screenshot of the fallacy to submit for your reflection and then 2) explain how this example fits the criteria of whatever particular fallacy you are doing, and 3) what steps you would need to take in order to fix the logical fallacy (that is to make this a good, coherent argument.)
While both of these tweets are examples of hasty generalizations, I will focus on the second tweet in particular. Hasty generalizations are fallacies because they draw conclusions about something based on one or two instances of something. It is one thing to say “given my experience” I have seen that x, y, or z happens. However, it is not logical to draw conclusions about entire populations (either over 50 or younger workers) based on one individuals experience. In order to make this tweet a sound argument, this individual would need to provide at least some data (or cite a source that has data) rather than generalize about an entire population given one person’s very limited experience in the workforce.
2. Find a letter to the editor (or an opinion piece) on an issue you care about: sports, politics, arts, a local cause, a school or person, etc. [This can be most any news source or blog, etc. so long as whatever source you use has an editor!] After copying the link (or taking a screenshot of the letter) please analyze the argument by answering the eight questions.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2021/jul/01/denmark-unity-and-belief-could-carry-them-to-the-euro-2020-final
What?
1. What is the focus of the text? The focus of this text is Denmark’s impressive performance so far in the 2020 European championships. 2. What is their fundamental argument? Penille Harder’s argument is that while some might think that trauma that the Denmark team has gone through will make them less successful this tournament, actually they will be more successful. 3. What point are they trying to prove? I believe that Penille is arguing that Denmark should not be discounted so easily.
Why? 1. Why have they written this? Penille wrote this argument to support the Denmark team. 2. What/who is it in response to? Penille’s post seems to be in response to individuals who have suggested that Denmark will not be successful given their trauma earlier in the year. 3. What was it written for? I think this was written both to bolster support for the Denmark team, to encourage them, and also to silence those commentators who have been not giving Denmark their due.
How? 1. How have they proved their point? Penille proves her argument by suggesting that the team has already shown how successful they are by overcoming the collapse of their player during the game. Because of the grace the team, and team manager had in dealing with this situation on live tv, the pressure of winning a game is nothing in comparison. 2. How does the argument take shape? Penille begins by focusing on the traumatic experience these players have suffered and reinterating the pride that all of Denmark has for the team. She then argues that because Denmark no longer feels such pressure to succeed (because their fan are happy with them no matter what) they have as good of chance, if not a better chance to win as their opponents.
3. Create a thought experiment to prove a philosophical intuition you have about something. Please review the examples below if you need help sorting out how to write a thought experiment.
The hypothesis of this thought experiment is that people fundamentally trust testimony, even if they are critical of testimony in general.
Suppose a student, Thor, is in a philosophy class where they are discussing knowledge. During the class, Thor begins to doubt that testimony is sufficient reason to have knowledge of something. On his way home from class he steps into the street and someone yells “watch out for the car!” What does Thor do? Thor would look up for the car/try to get out of the way. Now if Thor didn’t believe that testimony was a true source of believe, would Thor have reacted this way? Probably not. Now someone might say, actually the fact that Thor looks up to see the car means that he is not trusting in testimony alone (he needs to have further proof of the car.) But is there a way to show that Thor might just trust testimony without needed to double check? Maybe if someone yells ‘the train is leaving.’ Might Thor then run to get the train without looking for himself? Would the individual who yelled it need to be some kind of authority he could trust (like a MTA worker?)
The post 1 I am answering all three questions to provide examples for you! appeared first on PapersSpot.