Critical Thinking Midterm Notes
Pseudoreasoning/Informal Fallicies
Pseudoreasoning is where a claim is set forth as a reason for believing another claim but that is either logically irrelevant to the truth of the other claim or otherwise fails to provide reasonable support.
In this part of the course we are beginning to examine arguments, or, stated more accurately, "would-be arguments," where people advance reasons for their beliefs that in fact do not support them. There are two main types of pseudoreasoning: those that appeal to emotions and those constructed like real arguments but failing in the essential task of providing real support. Lessons 10 and 11 will examine pseudoreasoning types that appeal to emotions.
Lesson 12 will study pseudoreasoning types constructed like real arguments.
Because pseudoreasoning is defined negatively (what it is not) it does not lend itself to technical categorization. The classifications offered in these lessons are not exhaustive and may overlap or fail to capture precisely what has gone wrong in an argument. While we must have a common language to communicate about different types of pseudoreasoning, the point of these lessons is to alert you to a number of ways in which reasoning fails. When you have finished this course, you may quickly forget the many names and labels but remain alert to failures in reasoning.
Common Forms of Pseudoreasoning/Fallacies
1. Smokescreen/Red Herring
2. The Subjectivist Fallacy
3. Appeal to Belief
4. Common Practice
5. Peer Pressure and Bandwagon
6. Wishful Thinking
7. Scare Tactics
8. Appeal to Pity
9. Apple Polishing
10. Horse Laugh/Ridicule/Sarcasm
11. Appeal to Anger or Indignation
12. Two Wrongs Make a Right The above list is not exhaustive. Each will be explained in the next section.
Definitions/Descriptions of Pseudoreasoning Types
1. Smokescreen/Red Herring: Most pseudoreasons introduce irrelevant considerations into a discussion, but a smokescreen or red herring does not fit
Pseudoreasoning is where a claim is set forth as a reason for believing another claim but that is either logically irrelevant to the truth of the other claim or otherwise fails to provide reasonable support.
In this part of the course we are beginning to examine arguments, or, stated more accurately, "would-be arguments," where people advance reasons for their beliefs that in fact do not support them. There are two main types of pseudoreasoning: those that appeal to emotions and those constructed like real arguments but failing in the essential task of providing real support. Lessons 10 and 11 will examine pseudoreasoning types that appeal to emotions.
Lesson 12 will study pseudoreasoning types constructed like real arguments.
Because pseudoreasoning is defined negatively (what it is not) it does not lend itself to technical categorization. The classifications offered in these lessons are not exhaustive and may overlap or fail to capture precisely what has gone wrong in an argument. While we must have a common language to communicate about different types of pseudoreasoning, the point of these lessons is to alert you to a number of ways in which reasoning fails. When you have finished this course, you may quickly forget the many names and labels but remain alert to failures in reasoning.
Common Forms of Pseudoreasoning/Fallacies
1. Smokescreen/Red Herring
2. The Subjectivist Fallacy
3. Appeal to Belief
4. Common Practice
5. Peer Pressure and Bandwagon
6. Wishful Thinking
7. Scare Tactics
8. Appeal to Pity
9. Apple Polishing
10. Horse Laugh/Ridicule/Sarcasm
11. Appeal to Anger or Indignation
12. Two Wrongs Make a Right The above list is not exhaustive. Each will be explained in the next section.
Definitions/Descriptions of Pseudoreasoning Types
1. Smokescreen/Red Herring: Most pseudoreasons introduce irrelevant considerations into a discussion, but a smokescreen or red herring does not fit