Straight Thinking Pt 2

Inductive breakdown; too little evidence; generalization is necessary, but usually needs qualification

An either/or oversimplification; a slogan mentality; no middle ground

Predictions are normal and necessary

The greater evidence the more likely, but not positive, the prediction is valid

Attack the person rather then addressing the arguments

Attack one's friends. connections etc rather then addressing question

Addressing ones character

To attack another issues rather than the one in question; change the subject of the argument

"Post hoc" [ after this, this ]

"A" happens and then "B"; did "A" cause "B"?

Use of comparison; metaphors

1. Is it a true analogy?

2. Analogies can be helpful in clarifying but they are not evidence

Did the experts really say this?Is the expert biased?Are experts agreed?

Are they experts on this?Are they right?Have a healthy scepticism and look for lots of evidence/

Mean : add al numbers and then dived by numbers

Median: number in middle

Mode: lowest value

The conclusion is in premise

Finding reasons/alibi's/justification for action or decisions in order to justify oneself

Presenting weak arguments for the opposition, then tearing down those arguments to make them appear foolish


Love is a fallacy: Many Loves of Dobie Gillis