phi103 week 4 discussion 1 RESPONSE r b

Read the fallacies presented by your classmate and analyze the reasoning that they have presented. Respond in a way that furthers the discussion. For example, you might comment on any of the following types of questions: Have ever seen or fallen for similar fallacies in your own life? Are any of the cases presented also instances of some other type of fallacy? Is there a sense in which the reasoning might not be fallacious in some cases? What can people do to avoid falling for such fallacies in the future? 6 sentences or more.

Week 4- discussion 1:

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is the fallacy that an argument isn’t valid because of who is stating it.

For example:

“You can’t believe what your gynecologist said, he’s a man! What does he know about a woman’s body?”

The fallacy comes in because people assume that someone who isn’t a woman can’t possibly know how to treat one. A more correct way for someone to make this claim might be:

“Your doctor should only be trusted if he has proven himself to be a capable care-giver, and shown that he is taking your thoughts and feelings into consideration.”

Hasty Generalization

A Hasty Generalization is a fallacy that occurs when an assumption is made about something or someone based on too little information or data.

For example:

“I have had 3 different babysitters from the local college take excellent care of my children. Therefore, all babysitters from the college must be excellent.”

The fallacy comes in when too small of a demographic has been used to make the assumption. If there are only 4 or 5 babysitters from the college then the assumption could be very believable and considered valid, but if there are 100 babysitters who attend the college, but I have only used 3, then my claim is invalid. The claim might be better stated this way:

“I have had 3 different babysitters from the local college take excellent care of my children. I know that the college does thorough background checks of all the babysitters and they require intensive training classes for them. Therefore, it’s probably safe to assume that any of the babysitters might be just as good.”

Appeal to Ignorance

An appeal to ignorance is a fallacy that consists of an argument where the claim is true because it has not been proven to be false, or the opposite, that a claim is false because it has not been proven to be true.

For example:

“You can’t prove that God isn’t real. Therefore, He must be.”

The fallacy is present because a statement or claim has been made about something that hasn’t been proven but is still believed. If the claim has no valid premises to support it than it cannot be considered valid. A better way to make this claim might be:

“I believe that God is real. I have read much documentation from scholarly sources that support much of what was written about him in the Bible, so I believe that the Bible is true. Therefore, I believe that God is real.”

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW