Structural Fallacies

Structural fallacies are great. You know that when someone's argument is structurally false, their argument is wrong, despite the content of their argument. The way they argued their point makes them automatically wrong. Most of these types of fallacies are arguing backwards. An example of this type of structural fallacy would be this:

(All) fat people are jolly.

I'm jolly.

Therefore, I'm fat.

Assuming all fat people are jolly, (which isn't true), the fact that I'm also jolly does not necessarily mean that I'm fat. While I could be fat, being jolly does not make me fat. That is backwards reasoning. To put it more simply, the backwards argument goes like this:

All A is B.

C is B.

Because all A is B and C is also B, C is A.

So when someone's argument is structured in this way, you know that despite the content, the argument is very weak because its structure is unrepairable. So even if you agree with someone's content, you should still point out that their argument is weak because of their weak structure.

False Dilemmas

A false dilemma is a misleading argument that presents either this or that conclusion as the only possible conclusions in fact, other conclusions exist. The most popular example of this is the saying, "If you're not with us, then you're against us". This is a false dilemma because these two choices are clearly not the only two choices; just because you're not on the same side as someone does not mean you are against them. It's possible that you are a neutral third party, but because of the false dilemma it seems as if you would be against "them". The problem with the false dilemma is it allows no room for any other conclusions other than the ones presented when we know that other possible conclusions exist. If you changed the wording to something like, "What's your stance on etc?" It would leave room for someone to be with you, against you, or somewhere in between. The false dilemma is eliminated.

Exercise 1

I will be analyzing the structure of the following:
1. My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. 2. People do not like living next door to such a mess. 3. He never drives any of them. 4. They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. 5. It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values.

Argument? Yes.

Conclusion: Neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard.

Additional premises needed: Talked to neighbors, and they do not like living next door to such a mess. It is bad for the neighborhood and will decrease property values because people do not like living to such a mess.

Identify any subargument: 2,3,4, and 5 are independent and support the conclusion, 1.

Good Argument? Not really. In theory, the argument makes sense, but all of his supporting arguments are assumptions. For example: people do not like living to such a mess. That is a vague generalization. If the arguer had gone out of his/her way to ask the neighbors and mentioned that the neighbors didn't like living next to " a mess", then it would be a valid point. But as it is, they're simply assuming that "people don't like living to such a mess."

This exercise was mildly useful, I think. I had to dissect an argument and see where it was lacking, but I don't think it's actually all that useful unless these dissections are critiqued because otherwise I'm not actually learning where I could have strengthened the argument etc. This exercise only works if we get feedback on our work because otherwise we won't really know how well we dissected the argument, is essentially what I'm trying to say. The reason I think it's slightly useful though is because it does give a better understanding on how an argument works, though. Since I didn't make the argument, only dissecting it, I can objectively critique it because I don't have any vested interest in proving this argument correct or false. I'm a neutral third party and can simply see where the argument is strong or lacking. If I could carry this mentality over to my own arguments, I could learn to strengthen my own arguments.

The Three Tests to a Good Argument

According the the Critical Thinking textbook, an argument is good if it meets three criteria:

1) The premise must be plausible.

2) The premise must be more plausible than the conclusion.

3) The argument must be valid or strong.

Carl Sagan wrote about an invisible dragon in his garage. The invisible dragon can breathe heatless flames, and is incorporeal. Sagan writes, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?" Essentially, what he is saying is that the argument is pointless if the premise cannot be proved.

Since the premise is the opposite of what one could consider plausible, the argument is rendered bad. The second rule, that the premise must be more plausible than the conclusion, also fails. The conclusion that dragons exist based on the idea that they cannot be detected in any way does not prove that they exist.

The third rule, that the argument must be valid or strong, does succeed. Let's look at the premise and the conclusion again.

Premise:

"There is an invisible dragon in my garage that cannot be detected by any physical means."

Conclusion:

"Dragons exist, they just can't be seen, felt, or heard in any way shape or form."

So, this argument would be valid, but a weak argument because it can't be proven since the invisible dragon is undetectable.

This argument is valid. Thus, it succeeds on the third rule.

Valid Versus Strong

A valid argument and a strong argument are two completely different things. A valid argument is only valid if, given that the premise is true, the conclusion cannot be false. If they do, it's no longer a valid argument. For example, here is a valid argument:

Premise:
The government wouldn't allow TV stations to broadcast false information on the airwaves.
Conclusion:
Everything I see on TV is true.

It's valid because under the circumstances that the government would not allow TV stations to broadcast lies on their stations, It would be impossible for anything I see on TV to be a lie.
An invalid argument would be something like

Premise:
So and so is single.
Conclusion:
So and so must be ugly.

This argument is invalid because given that so and so is ugly, the reason for so and so being single doesn't have to stem from their ugliness. They could have just broken up with someone, taken a break from their relationship, or they could actively choose to be single, turning down any suitors. Or they could be ugly. But the argument is invalid.

A strong argument is an argument that, given a true premise, the conclusion can be proven false, but the chance of the conclusion being false is small. For example:

Premise:
I and everyone I know have experienced a phenomenon known as rain.
Conclusion:
You, at some point in your future, will experience rain.

This is a strong argument because it is very likely to be true. The conclusion, that you, the reader will experience rain at some point in the future is very likely to happen. However, there is a possibility that you suddenly phase out of existence at this very moment and that I will be wrong about you experiencing rain in the future. But I will almost certainly be right.

"I've never seen so much snow in my life."

Vague statements are generally unhelpful and convey little to no information. For example, by reading the title statement, we can infer that the speaker hasn't seen x amount of snow ever, in his lifetime. That's it. We can't determine how much snow he's actually seeing, unless we happen to be there with him at the time. We don't know his scale for comparing amounts of snow. For example, he might be from a tropical area that never snows, so now that he's experienced a snowy day, it automatically becomes the largest amount of snow that he's ever seen, regardless of the amount of snow being (relatively) large or small. However, based on movies, when someone utters this statement, it tends to be during times when there is a snowstorm or such, so that it tends to be snowing heavily at the time. So when the author is saying that he's "never seen so much snow in" his "life", he's implying that it's snowing pretty heavily. But since there's nothing to back up this claim, we can't determine how much snow he's seeing at the time.

Objectivity Versus Subjectivity

I was trawling the 'nets today when I saw something online that I realized would be a perfect example of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. It was a short current affairs bio page of a politician named Yulia Tymoshenko. The descriptor underneath her name went something along the lines of, "prime minister of Ukraine, world's hottest politician". Conventionally, I would say that the objective statement is "prime minister of Ukraine"
and the subjective would be "world's hottest politician", and this would be correct. She is the prime minister of Ukraine. It isn't a matter of what someone thinks about her. To say that she is the "world's hottest politician", on the other hand, is obviously subjective, because it is but one person's thoughts on her physical attractiveness. Someone could think that she really isn't the "world's hottest politician", because physical attractiveness is based on an individual's opinion. However, I would contest that what are facts, but a majority consensus about an idea? For instance, people once thought the Earth was flat. We now know that in fact, the Earth is not flat. But to these ancient people, the Earth being flat was an undisputed fact. Consequently, our own factual views of the Earth might change at some undetermined point in the future. What we view as facts are really nothing more than the general prevailing thought on a subject. This being said, If it were possible to show pictures of every current politician to every single person on the Earth and had them judge each politician's level of attractiveness, I am willing to bet a shekel or two that Yulia Tymoshenko would have the highest attractiveness ratings of any current politician, thus objectively earning her the title of "World's hottest politician". QED.