8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 41:
Line 54: − − For example: − − * Hitler and his top aides argued that the theory of ballistics could be used to bomb London − * Hitler and his top aides committed war crimes − * Therefore, the theory of ballistics is likely wrong
no edit summary
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.
Appeals to pity are very commonly seen in business. A factory manager may make the following argument: "our factory's overheads are too high, and we cannot maintain our business if we continue here. Therefore we should relocate to an area where labour is cheaper." An appeal to pity would be of the following type: "but our workers have bills to pay, families to support, we cannot fire them." That statement may be true, but is fallacious because it is not relevant to the manager's argument.
===''Appeal to Consequences''===
An ''appeal to consequences'' is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true. The following is an example:
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be miserable, thinking that life is meaningless
* Therefore, evolution is false
This argument commits the ''appeal to consequences'' fallacy because it provides no evidence for its conclusion; all it does is appeal to the consequences of believing in evolution. Evolution is not disproven solely because it leads to bad consequences for those who believe in it. The following is a similar example:
* If you believe in evolution, then you'll be more respected in academic circles
* Therefore, evolution is true
This makes an appeal to the positive consequences of believing in evolution, without actually providing any proof of evolution itself. Just because belief in evolution makes you more respected by [[liberal]] professors, this does not mean that evolution is correct.
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false
*Therefore P is false
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====