Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

1. Unit 10.5 Argumentation andLogic IntroductiontoTheoryandTerminology Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

2. Argumentation Theory „Since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers and rhetoricians, argumentation theorists have searched for the requirements that make an argument correct, by some appropriate standard of proof, by examining the errors of reasoning we make when we try to use arguments. These errors have long been called fallacies, and the logic textbooks have for over 2000 years tried to help students to identify these fallacies, and to deal with them when they are encountered.” Douglas Walton, Argumentation Theory a Very Short Introduction Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

3. Argumentation Theory We do not have 2000 yearsforthis! So, wheretostart? The answeris: Yoghurt. Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

4. „OneofSovietGeorgia‘sseniorcitizensthoughtDannon was an excelentyogurt. • Sheoughttoknow. She‘sbeeneatingyogurtfor 137 years“ Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

5. YoghurtExample In Soviet Georgia they eat a lot of Yoghurt. (Premise) In Soviet Georgia a lot of people live past 100. (Premise) The eating of the yoghurt is causing people in Soviet Georgia to live past 100. (Implicit Conclusion: Correlation to Cause) If you want to live longer you should eat yoghurt. (Generalization) You want to live longer. (Implicit Premise) You should eat Yoghurt. (Implicit Conclusion) Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

6. Tasks in Argumentation Four tasks undertaken by argumentation: • Identification Identify premises and conclusion • Analysis Find implicit premises and conclusion • Evaluation  Determine whether an argument is weak or strong • Invention Construct new arguments to prove a specific conclusion Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

7. PremisesandConclusions Life on planet earth is subject to gravity. Peter will not fly away when jumping. Little girls like pink most out of all colors. Parents should buy only pink clothes for their daughters. Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

8. Logical Fallacies Unclear or equivocate terms The author uses a term (with more than one meaning) inconsistently.  For example, “public interest” in one sense means what is in the best interest of the public (e.g., clean air, roads, schools).  In another sense, it means what the public is interested in (e.g., celebrity gossip). Appealing to authority in an area outside their expertise Appealing to an authority where the subject matter is outside the expertise of the authority. Causation confusions A is correlated with B = A caused B.  Maybe.  That’s just one possible explanation for the correlation. Here are the other 3 possible explanations:1) B caused A2) C caused both A and B3) A and B are merely coincidentally correlated and really something else, X, caused B. Circular reasoning The premise is a mere restatement of the conclusion. “The company has a compliance policy. We followed the compliance policy and therefore did the right thing.” Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

9. Logical Fallacies Confusing probability for certainty Could be is not must be. Confusing is for ought Descriptive simply describes the state of the world.  The tree is small.  Prescriptive reveals values.  The tree ought to be big.  The prescriptive reveals what we care about.   Percentages vs. quantity Percentages don’t necessarily reveal quantity and vice versa. For example, Group A gets a 10% raise and Group B gets a 50% raise. Who will earn more money afterward? Who got the higher pay raise? Surveys and samplings to reach a general conclusion Surveys and samplings must be random (non-biased). Asking a group of accountants from a textile company about their working conditions will only tell you how the working conditions for accountants are in that company, not how the working conditions are for all employees in the company. Hasty generalization Hasty generalization is very similar to sampling error. The difference is that the conclusion is very broad. You cannot make a generalization based on small sample size or based on one or two incidents. Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

10. Logical Fallacies If one argument fails the opposite conclusion must be true Just because an argument has been proven wrong, the opposite conclusion is not necessarily true.   Relative v. absolute A is better than B, therefore A is good? Not necessarily. Confusing one possible solution for the only solution Can also be used in the negative. This happens when one solution to a problem turns out not solve the problem, and then the conclusion might say that the problem cannot be solved. Red herring The argument does not address the relevant issue. Rather, it addresses some other issue that is tangential or has nothing to do with it but, for some reason, commands attention. Can be used for distraction. Tradition fallacy and novelty fallacy The fact that something is old does not mean that it is right or better. In the same vein, just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean that it is right or better. Same is true for novelties. Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic

11. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. Unit 10.5 Argumentation and Logic