Chapter 6 Lecture Notes Working on Relevance

Chapter 6 Understanding Relevance: The second condition for cogency for an argument is the (R) condition and we are going to look at the three basic ideas of relevance. (i)Positive relevance (ii)Negative relevance (iii)Irrelevance

Chapter 6 Positive Relevance: A statement A is positively relevant to another statement B if and only if the truth of A counts in favor of the truth of B. This means that A counts as evidence for B. See page 148 for examples:

Chapter 6 Negative Relevance: A statement A is negatively relevant to another statement B if and only if the truth of A counts against the truth of B. This means that if A is true, it counts as evidence or reason to think that B is not true. See page 149 for examples.

Chapter 6 Irrelevance: A statement A is irrelevant to another statement B if and only if A is neither positively relevant nor negatively relevant to B. A doesn’t provide a reason to or a reason not be believe in the truth or falsity of B. See page 149 for examples.

Chapter 6 The failure of premises to be positively relevant to the conclusion constitutes a serious flaw in an argument. An argument in which the premise or premises are irrelevant is sometimes called a non sequitur. Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” Another term used for irrelevance is red herring. A red herring is a distracting remark that is irrelevant to the argument at issue.

Chapter 6 Fallacies involving Relevance: A fallacy is a common mistake in reasoning where people take the argument to be good when it is irrelevant. The Straw Man Fallacy: Criticizing a weak or mistaken version of a person’s argument and claiming the real position is flawed is to commit the straw man fallacy. The reason it is a relevance fallacy is because the weak and mistaken version of the argument is not relevant for criticism See page 155 for examples.

Chapter 6 The ad hominem fallacy: The ad hominem fallacy occurs when a critic attacks a person instead of arguing against the claims that the person has put forth. It is a relevance fallacy because attacking the person is not relevant to the rational acceptability of the premises of the argument. Ad hominem literally mean “against the man.” See page 157 for examples.

Chapter 6 Another kind of ad hominem fallacy is the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy are the tu quoque fallacy. Tu quoque literally mean “you too” and it to object to a view or advice from a person because the person doesn’t adhere to the advice. Consider this dialogue: Mom: Don’t smoke; it is bad for you. Daughter: But mom you smoke, so I should be able to. The daughter’s reply is irrelevant to the advice and is thus an instance of the tu quoque fallacy. (page 157 for more examples)

Chapter 6 There is one issue that we should watch for with ad hominem arguments. Sometimes when you attack the person, it is RELEVANT. If attacking the person is relevant to the argument, then it is not an ad hominem fallacy. Consider this example, Charles says to buy his diet pills, they work, he uses them. If Charles has gained weight while on the pills, it is okay to attack him for the claims made as long as it is relevant to his claims. See page for more examples.

Chapter 6 The Fallacy of Guilt by Association: This fallacy of guilt by association is committed when a person or his or her views are criticized on the basis of a supposed link between that person and a group or movement believed to be disreputable. When the association is not relevant, we have another relevance fallacy. See page 161 for an example. The fallacy of virtue by association claims goodness instead of guilt, but is still irrelevant.

Chapter 6 Fallacious Appeals to Popularity The appeal to popularity occurs when people seek to infer merit or truth from popularity. It is also know as the bandwagon fallacy or its Latin name, ad populam. It the issue in question is not the sort of thing that can or should be decided by popularity, then an ad populam fallacy has been committed. See pages for examples.

Chapter 6 Fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance (ad ignorantiam) An argument exemplifies a fallacious appeal to ignorance if and only if the premises describe ignorance, lack of confirmation, lack of proof, or uncertainty regarding a statement S; and a conclusion about the truth or falsity or probability or improbability of S, or a further statement, is inferred simply on the basis of this ignorance. From ignorance we can infer only lack of knowledge. We cannot infer truth or falsity or objective probability or improbability. See pages for examples.

Chapter 6 The Burden of Proof: Often a fallacious appeal to ignorance is an attempt to shift the burden of proof (or argumentative onus) onto the other person in the debate. The idea of burden of proof is one that will vary from context to context, but attempting to shift the burden with relevance fallacies are also just justified.

Chapter 6 Additional Relevance Fallacies: Trying to provide a categorization of all relevance fallacies would be long and not particularly useful. But there are two more general irrelevances that people use: fear and pity. The appeal to pity’s Latin name is: ad misericordiam. The appeal to fear’s Latin name is: ad baculum. These are fallacies when fear and pity are used to argue and are irrelevant to the conclusion. See pages

Chapter 6 Terms to review: Ad baculum fallacyad hominem fallacy Ad ignorantiam fallacyad misericordiam fallacy Ad populam fallacyburden of proof Emotional appeal Fallacious appeal to ignorance Fallacious appeal to popularity Fallacious appeal to tradition Guilt by association fallacy

Chapter 6 Terms to review: Negative relevancenon-sequitur Positive relevancereconstructed argument Red herringstraw man fallacy Tu quoque fallacy