Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
I think the answer previously given is not correct. Appeal To Possibilities is where it is concluded that something is true because it is possible. That was not the question asked, which was whether a conclusion should be rejected because it is possible that it is not true. The question is a good question and goes (again) to the distinction between validity in Deductive Logic and strength in Inductive Logic. Inductive Logic only requires that the conclusion probably follow from the premises, and if there is only an infinitesimal chance that the Earth will be destroyed by an asteroid in the next 24 hours, then it is a strong argument to conclude that it won't. Only deductive arguments require 100% certainty for validity, and that is because the form of the conclusion follows with necessity from the form of the premises. Deductive arguments never say anything new about the outside world; they only say what you can infer from the form of the premises. Whether confusing a strong Inductive argument with the need for deductive certainty is a named fallacy-I'm not aware that it has been named. |
|||||||
answered on Wednesday, Mar 30, 2022 03:39:35 PM by Ed F | ||||||||
Ed F Suggested These Categories |
||||||||
Comments |
||||||||
|
|
Depends on what they meant. I'd need to see the context to be sure, but I can make three educated guesses: "There's always a possibility you're wrong" - just a factual statement, and it's probably correct (since most arguments are probabilistic, or inductive). "You can't be 100% sure you're right, therefore you're wrong" - non sequitur as it doesn't follow that someone not being certainly right means they have to be wrong. There's a much greater probability that the person is right, so that should be what we focus on. "There's a possibility you're wrong and I'm right, therefore I'm right" - appeal to possibility since the claim is asserted as true based on mere possibility, rather than evidence. |
|||
answered on Wednesday, Mar 30, 2022 07:31:29 PM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | ||||
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
|
|
Perhaps, the most insidious fallacy of them all: the appeal to possibilities. |
answered on Wednesday, Mar 30, 2022 02:18:34 PM by Mchasewalker | |
Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|