Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy [Pehme köide]

Edited by (Independent Researcher), Edited by (San Diego State University, California, USA), Edited by (works in the non-profit sector with at-risk youth, USA)
  • Formaat: Paperback / softback, 456 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 229x152x28 mm, kaal: 658 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 21-Sep-2018
  • Kirjastus: Wiley-Blackwell
  • ISBN-10: 1119167906
  • ISBN-13: 9781119167907
Teised raamatud teemal:
  • Formaat: Paperback / softback, 456 pages, kõrgus x laius x paksus: 229x152x28 mm, kaal: 658 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 21-Sep-2018
  • Kirjastus: Wiley-Blackwell
  • ISBN-10: 1119167906
  • ISBN-13: 9781119167907
Teised raamatud teemal:

A timely and accessible guide to 100 of the most infamous logical fallacies in Western philosophy, helping readers avoid and detect false assumptions and faulty reasoning 

You’ll love this book or you’ll hate it. So, you’re either with us or against us. And if you’re against us then you hate books. No true intellectual would hate this book.

Ever decide to avoid a restaurant because of one bad meal? Choose a product because a celebrity endorsed it? Or ignore what a politician says because she’s not a member of your party? For as long as people have been discussing, conversing, persuading, advocating, proselytizing, pontificating, or otherwise stating their case, their arguments have been vulnerable to false assumptions and faulty reasoning. Drawing upon a long history of logical falsehoods and philosophical flubs, Bad Arguments demonstrates how misguided arguments come to be, and what we can do to detect them in the rhetoric of others and avoid using them ourselves.

Fallacies—or conclusions that don’t follow from their premise—are at the root of most bad arguments, but it can be easy to stumble into a fallacy without realizing it. In this clear and concise guide to good arguments gone bad, Robert Arp, Steven Barbone, and Michael Bruce take readers through 100 of the most infamous fallacies in Western philosophy, identifying the most common missteps, pitfalls, and dead-ends of arguments gone awry. Whether an instance of sunk costs, is ought, affirming the consequent, moving the goal post, begging the question, or the ever-popular slippery slope, each fallacy engages with examples drawn from contemporary politics, economics, media, and popular culture. Further diagrams and tables supplement entries and contextualize common errors in logical reasoning.

At a time in our world when it is crucial to be able to identify and challenge rhetorical half-truths, this bookhelps readers to better understand flawed argumentation and develop logical literacy. Unrivaled in its breadth of coverage and a worthy companion to its sister volume Just the Arguments (2011), Bad Arguments is an essential tool for undergraduate students and general readers looking to hone their critical thinking and rhetorical skills.

Arvustused

In view of the contemporary controversies surrounding many of the fundamental concepts of logic discussed, this synopsis is no mean feat, given the exacting formalities of the subject. As a helping hand to students new to critical thinking, the book is immensely successful and useful

--L. C. Archie, emeritus, Lander University

CHOICE April 2019

Notes on Contributors xiii
Introduction 1(34)
Part I Formal Fallacies
35(32)
Propositional Logic
37(2)
1 Affirming a Disjunct
39(3)
Jason Iuliano
2 Affirming the Consequent
42(4)
Brett Gaul
3 Denying the Antecedent
46(5)
Brett Gaul
Categorical Logic
49(2)
4 Exclusive Premises
51(4)
Charlene Elsby
5 Four Terms
55(5)
Charlene Elsby
6 Illicit Major and Minor Terms
60(3)
Charlene Elsby
7 Undistributed Middle
63(4)
Charlene Elsby
Part II Informal Fallacies
67(343)
Fallacies of Relevance
69(2)
8 Ad Hominem: Bias
71(6)
George Wrisley
9 Ad Hominem: Circumstantial
77(6)
George Wrisley
10 Ad Hominem: Direct
83(5)
George Wrisley
11 Ad Hominem: Tit Quoque
88(6)
George Wrisley
12 Adverse Consequences
94(4)
David Vander Laan
13 Appeal to Emotion: Force or Fear
98(4)
George Wrisley
14 Appeal to Emotion: Pity
102(4)
George Wrisley
15 Appeal to Ignorance
106(6)
Benjamin W. McCraw
16 Appeal to the People
112(3)
Benjamin W. McCraw
17 Appeal to Personal Incredulity
115(3)
Tuomas W. Manninen
18 Appeal to Ridicule
118(3)
Gregory L. Bock
19 Appeal to Tradition
121(4)
Nicolas Michaud
20 Argument from Fallacy
125(3)
Christian Cotton
21 Availability Error
128(5)
David Kyle Johnson
22 Base Rate
133(4)
Tuomas W. Manninen
23 Burden of Proof
137(3)
Andrew Russo
24 Countless Counterfeits
140(5)
David Kyle Johnson
25 Diminished Responsibility
145(4)
Tuomas W. Manninen
26 Essentializing
149(3)
Jack Bowen
27 Galileo Gambit
152(5)
David Kyle Johnson
28 Gambler's Fallacy
157(3)
Grant Sterling
29 Genetic Fallacy
160(3)
Frank Scalambrino
30 Historian's Fallacy
163(2)
Heather Rivera
31 Homunculus
165(3)
Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray
32 Inappropriate Appeal to Authority
168(4)
Nicolas Michaud
33 Irrelevant Conclusion
172(2)
Steven Barbone
34 Kettle Logic
174(3)
Andy Wible
35 Line Drawing
177(4)
Alexander E. Hooke
36 Mistaking the Relevance of Proximate Causation
181(4)
David Kyle Johnson
37 Moving the Goalposts
185(4)
Tuomas W. Manninen
38 Mystery, Therefore Magic
189(4)
David Kyle Johnson
39 Naturalistic Fallacy
193(3)
Benjamin W. McCraw
40 Poisoning the Well
196(5)
Roberto Ruiz
41 Proving Too Much
201(3)
Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray
42 Psychologist's Fallacy
204(4)
Frank Scalambrino
43 Red Herring
208(4)
Heather Rivera
44 Reductio ad Hitlerum
212(3)
Frank Scalambrino
45 Argument by Repetition
215(4)
Leigh Kolb
46 Special Pleading
219(4)
Dan Yim
47 Straw Man
223(4)
Scott Aikin
John Casey
48 Sunk Cost
227(3)
Robert Arp
49 Two Wrongs Make a Right
230(4)
David LaRocca
50 Weak Analogy
234(7)
Bertha Alvarez Manninen
Fallacies of Ambiguity
239(2)
51 Accent
241(5)
Roberto Ruiz
52 Amphiboly
246(4)
Roberto Ruiz
53 Composition
250(2)
Jason Waller
54 Confusing an Explanation for an Excuse
252(3)
Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray
55 Definist Fallacy
255(4)
Christian Cotton
56 Division
259(2)
Jason Waller
57 Equivocation
261(5)
Bertha Alvarez Manninen
58 Etymological Fallacy
266(4)
Leigh Kolb
59 Euphemism
270(3)
Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray
60 Hedging
273(4)
Christian Cotton
61 If by Whiskey
277(3)
Christian Cotton
62 Inflation of Conflict
280(2)
Andy Wible
63 Legalistic Mistake
282(4)
Marco Antonio Azevedo
64 Oversimplification
286(3)
Dan Burkett
65 Proof by Verbosity
289(4)
Phil Smolenski
66 Sorites Fallacy
293(6)
Jack Bowen
Fallacies of Presumption
297(2)
67 Accident
299(2)
Steven Barbone
68 All or Nothing
301(4)
David Kyle Johnson
69 Anthropomorphic Bias
305(3)
David Kyle Johnson
70 Begging the Question
308(3)
Heather Rivera
71 Chronological Snobbery
311(3)
A.G. Holdier
72 Complex Question
314(3)
A.G. Holdier
73 Confirmation Bias
317(4)
David Kyle Johnson
74 Conjunction
321(3)
Jason Iuliano
75 Constructive Nature of Perception
324(6)
David Kyle Johnson
76 Converse Accident
330(2)
Steven Barbone
77 Existential Fallacy
332(3)
Frank Scalambrino
78 False Cause: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
335(3)
Bertha Alvarez Manninen
79 False Cause: Ignoring Common Cause
338(4)
Bertha Alvarez Manninen
80 False Cause: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
342(4)
Bertha Alvarez Manninen
81 False Dilemma
346(2)
Jennifer Culver
82 Free Speech
348(3)
Scott Aikin
John Casey
83 Guilt by Association
351(3)
Leigh Kolb
84 Hasty Generalization
354(3)
Michael J. Muniz
85 Intentional Fallacy
357(3)
Nicolas Michaud
86 Is/Ought Fallacy
360(4)
Mark T. Nelson
87 Masked Man
364(3)
Charles Taliaferro
88 Middle Ground
367(2)
Grant Sterling
89 Mind Projection
369(2)
Charles Taliaferro
90 Moralistic Fallacy
371(3)
Galen Forestnan
91 No True Scotsman
374(4)
Tuomas W. Manninen
92 Reification
378(4)
Robert Sinclair
93 Representative Heuristic
382(3)
David Kyle Johnson
94 Slippery Slope
385(3)
Michael J. Muniz
95 Stolen Concept
388(4)
Rory E. Kraft, Jr.
96 Subjective Validation
392(4)
David Kyle Johnson
97 Subjectivist Fallacy
396(3)
Frank Scalambrino
98 Suppressed Evidence
399(4)
David Kyle Johnson
99 Unfalsifiability
403(4)
Jack Bowen
100 Unwarranted Assumption
407(3)
Kimberly Baltzer-Jaray
Index 410
ROBERT ARP is an instructor of philosophy and a researcher for the US Army. He has published numerous books and articles in philosophy and other areas. More information about his work and research interests can be found on his website.

STEVEN BARBONE is an Associate Professor of philosophy at San Diego State University. He has published numerous articles and book chapters on Baruch Spinoza.

MICHAEL BRUCE works in the software industry in San Francisco. With Steven Barbone, he edited Just the Arguments (Wiley Blackwell, 2011). An avid researcher in the history of philosophy and psychology, he has been published widely and is an active blogger for Psychology Today.