Counterarguments Direct Ways of Refuting an Argument 1.Show that at least of the premises is false. 2.Show that an argument is not valid or strong 3.Show

Counterarguments

Direct Ways of Refuting an Argument1. Show that at least of the premises is false.2. Show that an argument is not valid or strong3. Show that the conclusion is false

Reducing to the Absurd

Reducing to the Absurd

This is a way to refute a claim or an argument by showing that at least one of several claims is false or dubious, or collectively the are unacceptable, by drawing a false or unwanted conclusion from them.

If the conclusion is absurd, then premises are not what you want.

Fallacies

If an individual has made a fallacy within their argument it needs to be repaired.

You should, however, be careful when refuting, and forming, arguments by avoiding fallacies.

Fallacy Basics

Definitions and Examples

Working Definition of Fallacy

An argument in which the reasons advanced for a claim fail to warrant acceptance of that claim

In other words, a fallacy is an attempt at an argument that is not adequate to meet expectations. An argument that is classed as a fallacy for some purposes may be good enough ( in terms of acceptable risk) for others. This is especially true of some deductive fallacies that can work as inductions.

Fallacy of Composition

To think that what holds true of a group of things taken individually necessarily holds true of the same things taken collectively

Communities of Muslims are cohesive and orderly. Communities of Jews are cohesive and orderly. So, a community composed of Muslims and Jews will be cohesive and orderly. (Will a pluralistic society always have to deal with unintended consequences?)

Fallacy of Division

To think that what holds true of a group of things taken collectively necessarily holds true of the same things taken individually

America is known for its historical commitment to freedom. So every American who plays a role in American history can be expected to have a commitment to freedom.

Ad Hominem FallaciesAbout persons instead of premises


Personal attack/favoritism


Personal attack/favoritism Inconsistency (incl. double standard)


Personal attack/favoritism Inconsistency (incl. double standard) Circumstantial (positive or negative)


Personal attack/favoritism Inconsistency (incl. double standard) Circumstantial (positive or negative) Poisoning the well


Personal attack/favoritism Inconsistency (incl. double standard) Circumstantial (positive or negative) Poisoning the wellCharacteristics of the person are not irrelevant when credibility of the source is an important factor in determining whether a claim will be expected.


Personal attack/favoritism Inconsistency (incl. double standard) Circumstantial (positive or negative) Poisoning the wellCharacteristics of the person are not irrelevant when credibility of the source is an important factor in determining whether a claim will be expected.

Genetic FallacyAbout origins of ideas instead of premises

Straw ManSubstituting a weak invention for reality


A strategy of refutation


A strategy of refutation Reworks some part of a case to make it

less viable



less viable Uses exaggeration or oversimplification

to distort original position



less viable Uses exaggeration or oversimplification

to distort original position The altered version of the original is

easier to refute than the original

Slippery SlopeMisrepresenting probability and necessity


One version asserts in the manner of inductive argument that some action will inevitably (or almost certainly) lead to some improbable consequence


One version asserts in the manner of inductive argument that some action will inevitably (or almost certainly) lead to some improbable consequence

Second version asserts in the manner of a justification or statement of principle that once committed to a course of action, it must be followed to its conclusion

Misplacing Burden of ProofAppeal to Ignorance

An attempt to evade responsibility



Burden of proof: the requirement to supply support for a claim




Burden of proof shifts, depending on conditions (lower initial plausibility, affirmative more than negative, special circumstances such as judicial “innocent until proven guilty”)




Burden of proof shifts, depending on conditions (lower initial plausibility, affirmative more than negative, special circumstances such as judicial “innocent until proven guilty”)

Problem may occur unexpectedly in debate

Begging the QuestionSkipping over an important issue


May occur as a conclusion that restates a premise



May occur as a premise controversial on the same grounds as the conclusion



May occur as a premise controversial on the same grounds as the conclusion

May occur as a premise that presupposes the conclusion

Example: We need to widen this road because there aren’t enough lanes to handle the traffic. (Begs the question of whether all that traffic should or must be on that road. Does not beg the question of how many lanes are needed.)

Documents

Counterarguments Direct Ways of Refuting an Argument 1.Show that at least of the premises is false. 2.Show that an argument is not valid or strong 3.Show