Thinking from A to Z
eBook - ePub

Thinking from A to Z

Nigel Warburton

Share book
  1. 176 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Thinking from A to Z

Nigel Warburton

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

What is 'humpty-dumptying'? Do 'arguments from analogy' ever stand up? How do I know when someone is using 'weasel words'? What's the difference between a 'red herring' and a 'straw man'?

This superb book, now in its third edition, will help anyone who wants to argue well and think critically. Using witty and topical examples, this fully-updated edition includes many new entries and updates the whole text. New entries include:



  • Principle of Charity
  • Lawyer's Answer
  • Least Worst Option
  • Poisoning the Well
  • Sentimentality
  • Sunk Cost Fallacy
  • Weasel Words
  • 'You would say that wouldn't you'.

Thinking from A to Z may not help you win every argument, but it will definitely give you the power to tell a good one from a bad one.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Thinking from A to Z an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Thinking from A to Z by Nigel Warburton in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Filosofia & Storia e teoria della filosofia. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2013
ISBN
9781135866518

A

absurd consequences move

Proving that a position is false, or at least untenable, by showing that if true it would lead to absurd consequences. This is sometimes called a reductio ad absurdum. It is a common and highly effective method of refuting (see refutation) a position.
For example, if someone asserts (see assertion) that anyone who takes a mind-altering drug is a danger to society and should be locked away, then it is easy to refute them by using an absurd consequences move. Alcohol is a mind-altering drug that many of the greatest contributors to western civilisation have used on occasion. Are we then to lock away everyone who has ever used alcohol? Clearly that would be absurd. So, we can be confident that the generalisation which led to the conclusion that we should do so is untenable. It at least has to be refined so that it is clear precisely which mind-altering drugs are supposed to be covered by the term (but see ad hoc clauses).
Consider another example. A politician might argue that a good way of increasing the income to the treasury would be to investigate every taxpayer’s tax returns thoroughly, thereby clamping down on tax evasion. However, in practice this would cost far more to carry out than could possibly be reclaimed and so can be seen to lead to the absurd consequence that a scheme for increasing income would end up by reducing it. This gives us good grounds for jettisoning the politician’s suggestion as matters now stand (assuming, of course, that the sole reason for implementing such a policy was to increase treasury income). If a cheaper way of investigating tax returns could be developed then the politician’s suggestion might not lead to absurd consequences and could be a viable policy.
One problem with using the absurd consequences move is that there is usually no touchstone for absurdity; one person’s absurdity is another’s common sense. Unless a view implies a contradiction there is no easy way of demonstrating its absurdity (see biting the bullet). Nevertheless, if you can see that obviously absurd consequences follow from a position, it gives you good grounds for rejecting it.

adage

See truth by adage.

ad hoc clauses

Clauses added to a hypothesis to make the hypothesis consistent with some new observation or discovered fact. If your hypothesis is threatened by some inconvenient fact which it is incapable of explaining, you have two options: you can either abandon your hypothesis and seek a new one which is capable of explaining this new fact; or else you can add a special clause to your general hypothesis, an ad hoc clause. Patching up a hypothesis is a move which can be acceptable, but often is not. This is most clearly seen by considering examples.
A politician might claim that if the rich are encouraged to grow richer then the poorest of the nation will benefit because the wealth that the rich generate will gradually trickle down to the poor. For the sake of argument, suppose (see supposition) that a five-year study showed that no such trickle-down effect occurred. The politician might then be expected to abandon the initial hypothesis. However, another option would be to add a special clause to the hypothesis to prevent the evidence presented by the study standing as a refutation of it. For instance, the new hypothesis could be, ‘If the rich are encouraged to grow richer then the poorest of the nation will benefit because the wealth that the rich generate will gradually trickle down to the poor, but the effects of this will not be visible in the first five years.’ If the country in question was just coming out of a recession, a different ad hoc clause could be appended: ‘but the effects of encouraging the rich to become richer will be masked by the effects of a recession.’
A biologist might begin with the hypothesis that all independent living organisms are either unicellular (consist of a single cell) or multicellular (have many cells). However, the existence of a bizarre animal, known as slime mould, confounds this hypothesis, revealing it as a false dichotomy since at one stage slime mould is an independent unicellular organism and at another stage of its development it combines with other unicellular slime moulds to form a multicellular organism. The existence of slime mould confounds the hypothesis. In the light of this, the biologist might modify the initial hypothesis to, ‘All independent living organisms except slime mould are either unicellular or multicellular.’ This would be an acceptable modification; however, if there were a large number of species which, like slime mould, defied the simple dichotomy in the hypothesis then adding further ad hoc clauses would at a certain point undermine the power of the generalisation.
There is a fine line between making a hypothesis more detailed in the light of further evidence and undermining its power as a generalisation by adding numerous exception clauses.

ad hominem move

A Latin phrase meaning ‘to the person’. It is used in two main ways, which can lead to confusion (see ambiguity). By far the most common use is to draw attention to the devious move in debate which I discuss in the section getting personal, that is, shifting attention from the point in question to some non-relevant aspect of the person making it. Calling someone’s statement ad hominem in this sense is always a reproach; it involves the claim that the aspects of the arguer’s personality or behaviour which have become the focus of discussion are irrelevant to the point being discussed.
For example, someone might argue that we shouldn’t take seriously the findings of a medical scientist who had researched the beneficial effects of jogging on the cardiovascular system on the grounds that the scientist was overweight and probably couldn’t run more than a hundred yards. However, this fact is entirely irrelevant (see irrelevance) to the scientist’s ability to assess the evidence. If the scientist had been shown to be a liar, or an incompetent researcher, then that would be relevant to our understanding of the results of the research. But to focus on the scientist’s level of fitness is an example of an ad hominem move in the first sense. This should not be confused with the charge of hypocrisy, not practising what you preach. The sedentary scientist would only be a hypocrite if he or she urged others to take up jogging.
An ad hominem argument in the second sense is a legitimate demonstration of an opponent’s inconsistency. This is a much rarer use of the term. An argument is ad hominem in this second sense if it involves turning the argument back on the opponent (sometimes known as the ‘you too’ or ‘tu quoque’ move). For instance, if someone argues both that all killing is morally wrong and that there is nothing immoral about capital punishment, then (provided that you can demonstrate that capital punishment is a form of killing — not a difficult task), you can use an ad hominem argument (in the second sense) in response. It is impossible without contradicting yourself (see contradiction) to claim that all forms of killing are morally wrong and that one form of killing is not morally wrong. That is tantamount to saying both that all killing is morally wrong and that it is not true that all killing is morally wrong. In this case turning the argument back on the opponent would clearly demonstrate that his or her position was untenable.
It is important to distinguish the two senses of ad hominem because the first is an informal fallacy; the second a perfectly acceptable move in argument.

affirming the antecedent

A valid argument (see validity) with the following form:
If p then q
p
Therefore q
Here p and q are used to stand for any states of affairs that you care to insert: the antecedent is p and the consequent q. This form of argument is often known by its Latin name, modus ponens, which means ‘the mood that affirms’. An example of affirming the antecedent is
If you have bought this book I will receive a royalty.
You have bought this book.
Therefore I will receive a royalty.
Another example of affirming the antecedent is
If you are a goldfish then you can ride a bicycle
You are a goldfish
Therefore you can ride a bicycle
Note that in this second example the obvious absurdity of the first premise doesn’t affect the validity of the argument: both arguments have the same logical form.
Affirming the antecedent should be clearly distinguished from the formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent.

affirming the consequent

A formal fallacy which may have the superficial appearance of a valid argument (see validity). It has the following underlying form:
If p then q
q
therefore p
For instance, both of the following have the same underlying structure as I have given in terms of p and q above:
If you possess a Green Card you can work legally in the United
States.
You can work legally in the United States.
So you’ve got a Green Card.
and
If a car runs out of fuel it stops.
Your car has stopped.
So your car has run out of fuel.
It is probably easier to see what is wrong with this form of argument by considering some more examples of the same form:
If she secretly loved me and didn’t want her boyfriend to find
out then she wouldn’t reply to my letters.
She hasn’t replied to my letters.
So she secretly loves me and doesn’t want her boyfriend to find
out.
What is wrong with this argument is that even if the two premises are true, then the conclusion isn’t necessarily true: it might be true and it might not. So it’s not a reliable deduction. Its conclusion is a non sequitur: it doesn’t necessarily follow. It treats the fact of her not replying to my letters as a sufficient condition (see necessary and sufficient conditions) of her secretly loving me and not wanting her boyfriend to find out. But it is obvious that the first premise does not maintain that the only possible reason for her lack of response is that she secretly loves me; for the argument to be valid we would have to read ‘if’ as meaning ‘if and only if’ (sometimes written by logicians as ‘iff’), and in most contexts it would be a sign of delusion or at least wishful thinking to believe that the first premise offers the only possible explanation of her lack of response. There are numerous alternative explanations for her silence: she might be irritated by my letters, she might not want to encourage me, she might never have opened them. There is nothing inconsistent (see consistency) about believing both that if she secretly loves me and doesn’t want her boyfriend to find out then she won’t reply to my letters and that the fact that she hasn’t replied to my letters is not necessarily an indication that she secretly loves me.
Another example. People who have AIDS are prone to colds and often suffer from night sweats. But it would be a mistake to think that just because you are prone to colds and suffer from night sweats that you must have AIDS. That is only one possible explanation; it in no way follows logically from the premise ‘If you have AIDS then you will be prone to colds and may suffer from night sweats’ that anyone who has these symptoms must have AIDS. To arrive at that conclusion you would need to believe that only people who have AIDS are prone to colds and nights sweats; and that is obviously untrue.
A more exaggerated example makes it clear that this form of argument is not a reliable one. It is undoubtedly true that if I had bought a new car then I would be massively overdrawn at the bank. As it happens, I am massively overdrawn; but there are numerous alternative explanations for this phenomenon, such as that my publisher isn’t paying me high enough royalties to support my extravagant lifestyle. I couldn’t reliably conclude from the fact that I am overdrawn that I must have bought a car. That would clearly be absurd. This technique of considering an obviously absurd argument of the same form in order to show the invalidity of a type of argument is a useful one; it helps separate the possible distraction of the particular content of an argument from the underlying structure. If the argument is an invalid one, even if it happens to yield a true conclusion, then we should not rely on it since the conclusion is not one that follows logically from the premises (see bad reasons fallacy).
One reason why fallacy of affirming the consequent can be tempting is that it superficially resembles a valid form of argument known as affirming the antecedent (modus ponens):
If p then q
p
therefore q
An argument with this form is:
If you burp your baby after feeding she’ll sleep soundly.
You have burped your baby after feeding.
So she’ll sleep soundly.
Here if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The fallacious form of this argument would be:
If you burp your baby after feeding she’ll sleep soundly.
Your baby is sleeping soundly.
So you must have burped her.
But, as the earlier examples demonstrated, affirming th...

Table of contents