|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 12:41:20 GMT
Humorous responses are allowed.
Assume each of the following civic groups has about 500 members.
Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club
League of Concerned Voters
Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers
Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association
1) The League of Concerned Voters and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing on which side of the lake a proposed new school should be built. The league chooses that it should be built south of the lake. The PTA chooses that it should be built north of the lake. Billy of the PTA says that polls show most people think it should be built north of the lake.
a) Billy's information is logically associated with the issue.
b) Billy has committed an ad populum fallacy of logic.
c) Billy has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic.
d) Billy committed an argument from incredulity logical fallacy.
2) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers are addressing which books should be purchased for the proposed new school. Each civic group favors a different set of books. Martin from the discussion club says that 478 of the 503 fratenal order members have no college education.
a) Martin has committed an ad hominem logical fallacy.
b) Martin's information is logically associated with the issue.
c) Martin has committed an ad populum logical fallacy.
d) Trent of the fraternal order has committed an ad baculum failure of logic.
3) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing the global rise of the ocean level. The book club says that it is rising at an alarming rate because of human activity. The PTA says that is not yet evident. Lawrence of the book club says that polls show 82 percent of people think the rate of rise is alarming.
a) Lawrence's information is logically associated with the issue.
b) Lawrence has committed an ad populum logical fallacy.
c) Lawrence has committed an ad misericordiam failure of logic.
d) Both parties have agreed to a definition of "alarming."
4) The Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association and the League of Concerned Voters are addressing whether the number of males in the military must be the same as the number of females in the military. The league prefers it be the same number of males and females. George from the league says that Martin of the PTA "ain't never caught a rabbit," and that Martin is no friend of George's.
a) Martin has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic.
b) George has committed an ear worm fallacy of logic.
c) Martin has committed a faux pax.
d) George has committed an ad hominem fallacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 1, 2018 13:20:08 GMT
I don't care which terms are used. I may be off on the terms, but I'll ad the letter which I think corresponds.
1. Most popular doesn't necessarily mean it's the right decision. b
2. You don't necessarily need a college education to pick books for school students. d (I'm assuming baculum has to do with degrees?, but I don't know who Trent is).
3. The ocean level rising either is or isn't a concern. Really doesn't matter how many people are alarmed by it. c
4. It's going after the person, not the issue at hand. d
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 13:26:37 GMT
I don't care which terms are used. I may be off on the terms, but I'll ad the letter which I think corresponds. 1. Most popular doesn't necessarily mean it's the right decision. b 2. You don't necessarily need a college education to pick books for school students. d (I'm assuming baculum has to do with degrees?, but I don't know who Trent is). 3. The ocean level rising either is or isn't a concern. Really doesn't matter how many people are alarmed by it. c 4. It's going after the person, not the issue at hand. d It's ever so slightly possible I didn't design the test well. I was trying to get people to think more about their responses. Let's see what others think before I give away my own impressions. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 1, 2018 13:43:03 GMT
My answer, to all 4 points, is "neither".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2018 13:44:06 GMT
Humorous responses are allowed. Assume each of the following civic groups has about 500 members. Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club League of Concerned Voters Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association 1) The League of Concerned Voters and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing on which side of the lake a proposed new school should be built. The league chooses that it should be built south of the lake. The PTA chooses that it should be built north of the lake. Billy of the PTA says that polls show most people think it should be built north of the lake. a) Billy's information is logically associated with the issue. b) Billy has committed an ad populum fallacy of logic. c) Billy has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic. d) Billy committed an argument from incredulity logical fallacy. 2) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers are addressing which books should be purchased for the proposed new school. Each civic group favors a different set of books. Martin from the discussion club says that 478 of the 503 fratenal order members have no college education. a) Martin has committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. b) Martin's information is logically associated with the issue. c) Martin has committed an ad populum logical fallacy. d) Trent of the fraternal order has committed an ad baculum failure of logic. 3) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing the global rise of the ocean level. The book club says that it is rising at an alarming rate because of human activity. The PTA says that is not yet evident. Lawrence of the book club says that polls show 82 percent of people think the rate of rise is alarming. a) Lawrence's information is logically associated with the issue. b) Lawrence has committed an ad populum logical fallacy. c) Lawrence has committed an ad misericordiam failure of logic. d) Both parties have agreed to a definition of "alarming." 4) The Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association and the League of Concerned Voters are addressing whether the number of males in the military must be the same as the number of females in the military. The league prefers it be the same number of males and females. George from the league says that Martin of the PTA "ain't never caught a rabbit," and that Martin is no friend of George's. a) Martin has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic. b) George has committed an ear worm fallacy of logic. c) Martin has committed a faux pax. d) George has committed an ad hominem fallacy. Who needs logic when we have religion to guide us? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 1, 2018 13:45:33 GMT
Is the goal to point out a fallacy in logic in each case?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 13:52:18 GMT
Is the goal to point out a fallacy in logic in each case? No, not necessarily. The goal is to select which of the four choices best fits the conditions given. There might or might not be a failure of logic in the brief story given. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 13:59:16 GMT
Humorous responses are allowed. Assume each of the following civic groups has about 500 members. Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club League of Concerned Voters Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association 1) The League of Concerned Voters and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing on which side of the lake a proposed new school should be built. The league chooses that it should be built south of the lake. The PTA chooses that it should be built north of the lake. Billy of the PTA says that polls show most people think it should be built north of the lake. a) Billy's information is logically associated with the issue. b) Billy has committed an ad populum fallacy of logic. c) Billy has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic. d) Billy committed an argument from incredulity logical fallacy. 2) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Fraternal Order of Constabulary Officers are addressing which books should be purchased for the proposed new school. Each civic group favors a different set of books. Martin from the discussion club says that 478 of the 503 fratenal order members have no college education. a) Martin has committed an ad hominem logical fallacy. b) Martin's information is logically associated with the issue. c) Martin has committed an ad populum logical fallacy. d) Trent of the fraternal order has committed an ad baculum failure of logic. 3) The Westmoore Library Book Discussion Club and the Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association are addressing the global rise of the ocean level. The book club says that it is rising at an alarming rate because of human activity. The PTA says that is not yet evident. Lawrence of the book club says that polls show 82 percent of people think the rate of rise is alarming. a) Lawrence's information is logically associated with the issue. b) Lawrence has committed an ad populum logical fallacy. c) Lawrence has committed an ad misericordiam failure of logic. d) Both parties have agreed to a definition of "alarming." 4) The Westmoore Parents and Teachers Association and the League of Concerned Voters are addressing whether the number of males in the military must be the same as the number of females in the military. The league prefers it be the same number of males and females. George from the league says that Martin of the PTA "ain't never caught a rabbit," and that Martin is no friend of George's. a) Martin has committed an ad hominem fallacy of logic. b) George has committed an ear worm fallacy of logic. c) Martin has committed a faux pax. d) George has committed an ad hominem fallacy. Who needs logic when we have religion to guide us? There is actually more truth in your (facetious?) comment than you might realize. Faith is efficient. People who just do what they're told can save a lot of time, resources and heartache by not testing bad ideas over and over. Of course things can go terribly wrong if they should align themselves with bad leadership. So at some point there probably should be some considerable review of matters including where possible any logic that might apply. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 14:22:08 GMT
My answer, to all 4 points, is "neither". Thanks, that's a lot of help. Okay, not really, but I'm sure you didn't mean to be anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 17:58:42 GMT
While we're waiting for the experts on these matters to find the time for us ...
... a little music.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 1, 2018 20:28:44 GMT
I have to be honest, I have no clue what the thread starter is getting at/looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 1, 2018 20:53:19 GMT
I have to be honest, I have no clue what the thread starter is getting at/looking for. You're welcome to add your own thoughts, anecdotes and lessons however tangential they might be. I am not averse to open discussion. Remember that all evidence is anecdotal until it is compiled into a more representative expression of events. If you have not engaged strangers in debate, perhaps you have argued with family members or close friends. Perhaps you have interesting stories about how you arrived at any conclusions if any. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 2, 2018 4:55:03 GMT
While we're waiting for the experts on these matters to find the time for us ...
... a little music.<Turn, Turn, Turn by The Byrds> I'm sure there are still several members of this board who would like to show us the proper way to address questions of applied logic. Let's give them all day Sunday at least. Meanwhile an interesting fact about the author of Ecclesiastes, the book in the Bible that helped inspire the song by the Byrds. His book is one of the "Simon didn't say" books insofar as he does not claim to have heard the word of the Lord as some authors of other books in the Bible do. Something else to ponder while we wait is the idea of a "Freedom Train." Before you call it an irony train, please notice there actually was a train called the Freedom Train. It calls to mind some the mixed up ideas people can have about "freedom" (There are rails a train must follow at least till it gets to a rare switching point).  |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 2, 2018 21:30:03 GMT
Before the internet happened along, arguing with strangers is not something very many people did.
After the internet, especially the virtually anonymous sites on it, some people who would not argue with strangers in real life found an outlet for their frustrations with people they always wanted to argue against but didn't want to take any real life risks.
Arguing with strangers in real life is not recommended for any children, who should and usually do (wisely) leave that to their parents. Their parents often (wisely) leave that to "authorities" with special training and more access to the requisite data for conducting arguments.
That's just what a beautiful world it is, or was.
Over time the dependence on "authority" has led to an atrophy of more persuasive arts, and that is not a beautiful thing. Today there is a very inappropriate dependence on the force of government to do all persuading, and that is a crude thing. It is also not a very successful thing because once you turn around or lower your gun your persuasive effect totally evaporates.
What the world needs now, even in America, and especially in America, is to address differences in a well studied and methodical way. Most people have never actually been and need to go to debate class.
Many people lately have assumed that "science" is the solution to this problem. They are constantly criticizing religion, blaming it for all the problems in the world, and suggesting its elimination from society. They are sadly mistaken though. Science, at least as they mean that word, is not at all equipped to settle the sort of disputes that arise in society. The things science actually can settle such as the boiling point of water are never disputed in society. That of course is the sort of science that depends on readily repeatable demonstrations, not the latest popular notions of science, held by people more fond of than capable of science. If everyone agreed what the problem is, the chances are very good lately that science can solve it. There are of course still some exceptions especially in medicine. When people cannot agree what the problem is then science is totally useless. As it turns out, almost all the issues in society become issues because people cannot agree what the problem is.
They then attempt to use the force of government to settle any and all differences. Here we are.
What I have prepared in the OP is a sort of debate lesson 101, when and where to apply various types of arguments. The so called argumentum ad hominem is a type of argument, as is argumentum ad populum, and several others. None of these types of arguments is always a "fallacy." I've said that many times before, but here we have specially designed examples to better illustrate the point.
The first question about the location of the school definitely involves an argumentum ad populum, however it is not a fallacy, illogical or even irrelevant. In fact the location of the school is a matter for the people to decide. Science can offer advice about the relative heating and cooling costs of each location. Science can offer advice about the driver, bus, and fuel costs of each location, and many other details. In the end however it comes down to where most people (populum) want the school.
In the third question about sea level rise there is also and argumentum ad populum, however in that case it is misapplied. One might say an argumentum ad populum "fallacy" occurred. The sea does not respond to or reflect the will of the people. What they believe about it doesn't matter. If the sea level is indeed rising it will be obvious through real science that it is. The wonderful thing about real science is how obvious it is. There are indeed many changes in many locations to the level of the sea. Moving "plates" of the Earth's crust, rivers building up weighty silt that depresses the crust and other factors have in fact changed the "isostatic" level (local level) of the sea. Evidence of a "eustatic" (worldwide) rise in sea level remains rather trivial for the time being.
In fourth question is an example of an "ad hominem fallacy" as most people here understand the term. Insofar as the personal flaws, if any, of only one person supporting an idea are not relevant, such an argument is not reasonable. The flaw might be "true" (logically speaking) but it is not "relevant." I recommend you not use the term "ad hominem" in your debates. It is not the automatic fallacy you often imagine. Rather stress the relevance of the information you find objectionable, since that is the real issue anyway.
In the second question is also definitely an "ad hominem" argument, however in this case it involves no fallacy. Since the overwhelming majority of the people supporting an idea have the same shortcoming, that might well be significant. It becomes expedient to find other supporters of the same idea who do not have that shortcoming. Of course an argument could be made that only a few college graduates in a group should be able to persuade the rest of the group. However an argument could also be made that they are in such a minority as to be intimidated and conceal what they believe in order to maintain their membership in the group. That could happen in real life. Some Trump supporters might be intimidated.
|
|
