Fallacy Summary and Application Paper
Fallacy Summary and Application Paper
What information can be gathered from, "Begging the Question," "Hasty Generalization," and "Appealing to Emotion?" Though from first glance, they generally do not have much in common. However, when looking deeper, you will see that they are all different types of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies, by definition, are errors of reasoning. Or, to put it in a simpler form, errors that may be recognized and corrected by prudent thinkers (Downes, 1995). The following quote helps explain why logic is important to us in today 's society. "Logic is not everything. But it is somethingsomething which can be taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live (Fischer, 1970, p. 306)." Begging the Question is a type of fallacy that is used quite a bit. It is considered to be a fallacy of assuming when trying to prove something. One of the main things to remember with the use of this fallacy is that the term "Begging the Question" has a very specific meaning. This means that if someone was trying to prove something to us but they are not being specific and leave room for more questions, which is why this type of fallacy is said to be a "circular argument." When you are confronted with something that could possibly a form of "Begging the Question" one should consider all the facts, and question ones self in order to see if all the arguments line up, or if it is an implied interpretation or expression of the writer and/or speaker. One example of "Begging the Question," as can be use by a number of more fallacy 's is, "God must exist." One can surmise that God exists because it is written in the Bible. Another might question that assumption by asking, "Why should I believe the Bible?", or "Can the writings in the Bible actually be revered as God 's true word, or did someone just make them up?" However, another bigger
What information can be gathered from, "Begging the Question," "Hasty Generalization," and "Appealing to Emotion?" Though from first glance, they generally do not have much in common. However, when looking deeper, you will see that they are all different types of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies, by definition, are errors of reasoning. Or, to put it in a simpler form, errors that may be recognized and corrected by prudent thinkers (Downes, 1995). The following quote helps explain why logic is important to us in today 's society. "Logic is not everything. But it is somethingsomething which can be taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live (Fischer, 1970, p. 306)." Begging the Question is a type of fallacy that is used quite a bit. It is considered to be a fallacy of assuming when trying to prove something. One of the main things to remember with the use of this fallacy is that the term "Begging the Question" has a very specific meaning. This means that if someone was trying to prove something to us but they are not being specific and leave room for more questions, which is why this type of fallacy is said to be a "circular argument." When you are confronted with something that could possibly a form of "Begging the Question" one should consider all the facts, and question ones self in order to see if all the arguments line up, or if it is an implied interpretation or expression of the writer and/or speaker. One example of "Begging the Question," as can be use by a number of more fallacy 's is, "God must exist." One can surmise that God exists because it is written in the Bible. Another might question that assumption by asking, "Why should I believe the Bible?", or "Can the writings in the Bible actually be revered as God 's true word, or did someone just make them up?" However, another bigger
References: Downes, S. (1995). Stephen 's Guide to the Logical Fallacies. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/ Fischer, D. H. (1970). Historians ' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. : Harper & Row. Labossiere, M. C. (1995). Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0. Retrieved January 21, 2005, from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ University of Phoenix (2004). Master List of Logical Fallacies. Retrieved December 17, 2006, from https://mycampus.phoenix.edu/secure/resource/resource.asp