Understanding How Fallacies, Critical Thinking and Decision Making Techniques Are All Linked Togethe
How it all comes together 1
Understanding how fallacies, critical thinking and decision making techniques are all linked together. What is a logical fallacy? According to the Webster dictionary (1996), a fallacy is a false notion. A statement or argument based on a false or invalid inference. Fallacies can be divided into two different groups; the first one is the fallacy of relevance where the premises are irrelevant to the outcome. The other is fallacy of insufficient evidence, where the premises may be relevant to the outcome but does not have enough evidence to support that outcome. Relevance can be described in three different categories; 1. It can be positively relevant- where it supports a certain statement. 2. It can be negatively relevant-where a statement goes against another statement. 3. It can be logically irrelevant-where it does and does not support the statement (Bassham, 2002). After reading over the different fallacies, I have decided to pick the following three since I believe they happen more than not without anyone noticing they are doing it. Attacking the person- this fallacy falls under fallacy of relevance where one may attack the arguer rather than the argument itself. However not all personal attacks are fallacies, to be considered a fallacy, (1) an arguer rejects another person 's argument and (2) the arguer attacks the person who offers the argument rather than considering the merits of the argument. The other two fallacies I have chosen, falls under the fallacy of insufficient evidence. They are inconsistency- inconsistency or self-contradicting between two statements that are logically incompatible with each other. This fallacy usually occur when the arguer asserts inconsistent premises, asserts a
How it all comes together 2
premise that is inconsistent with the conclusion or argues inconsistent conclusions. The final fallacy I have chosen is questionable cause; this fallacy is committed when we identify a
Understanding how fallacies, critical thinking and decision making techniques are all linked together. What is a logical fallacy? According to the Webster dictionary (1996), a fallacy is a false notion. A statement or argument based on a false or invalid inference. Fallacies can be divided into two different groups; the first one is the fallacy of relevance where the premises are irrelevant to the outcome. The other is fallacy of insufficient evidence, where the premises may be relevant to the outcome but does not have enough evidence to support that outcome. Relevance can be described in three different categories; 1. It can be positively relevant- where it supports a certain statement. 2. It can be negatively relevant-where a statement goes against another statement. 3. It can be logically irrelevant-where it does and does not support the statement (Bassham, 2002). After reading over the different fallacies, I have decided to pick the following three since I believe they happen more than not without anyone noticing they are doing it. Attacking the person- this fallacy falls under fallacy of relevance where one may attack the arguer rather than the argument itself. However not all personal attacks are fallacies, to be considered a fallacy, (1) an arguer rejects another person 's argument and (2) the arguer attacks the person who offers the argument rather than considering the merits of the argument. The other two fallacies I have chosen, falls under the fallacy of insufficient evidence. They are inconsistency- inconsistency or self-contradicting between two statements that are logically incompatible with each other. This fallacy usually occur when the arguer asserts inconsistent premises, asserts a
How it all comes together 2
premise that is inconsistent with the conclusion or argues inconsistent conclusions. The final fallacy I have chosen is questionable cause; this fallacy is committed when we identify a
References: 1. Arillo, C. (2003, Oct). Analyzing the Presidency (point of view). Business World, 1. 2. Bassham, (2002). Afterward. Critical thinking-a student 's introduction: (pp143-188). Boston, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. 3. Bateman, S. (2003). Afterward. The new competitive landscape (pp. 70-75). (6th ed.). Boston, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. 4. Daniel, C. (1996, Oct). Politicians don 't lie, they tell fallacies. Morning Star, 1. 5. Mckenzie, L. (1992, Jun). Critical thinking in Health Care Supervision. Healthcare Supervisor. 6. Webster 's II New Riverside Dictionary. (1996) Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company