PHI 105 21st Century Skills: Critical Thinking And Problem Solving (PHI 105)

PHI 105 21st Century Skills: Critical Thinking And Problem Solving (PHI 105) APPEAL TO IGNORANCE - ANS An appeal to ignorance uses lack of evidence (for or against) as the basis of the argument. For example, if something can't be disproven, it must be true! Example You have a family member who has a terminal disease. You hear of a possible new cure being offered in another country. You contact the group promoting this cure and ask if it works. They say, "No one has ever shown that it doesn't work, so of course it works!" HASTY GENERALIZATION - ANS Definition A hasty generalization occurs 'when a conclusion is drawn from a sample that is too small or selective to assume with any confidence that it represents the subject accurately' (Goodpaster & Kirby, 2006, p. 205). POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC - ANS Definition Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc at times is one of the most persuasive fallacies. Assuming that because B follows A, A must have caused B. This is an easy fallacy to assume because this could happen, but we cannot always assume this happens. Some things just happen due to coincidence and the two things really having nothing to do with each other. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc can also be the source of superstitious thinking. Think about an athlete who wears his 'lucky' socks and the team wins the game, you might conclude that wearing 'lucky' socks leads to winning. Maybe you break a mirror and then soon after you get into an accident, you might conclude that breaking the mirror led to that misfortune. These occurrences are merely coincidental and are not the reason for one's misfortune. APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - ANS An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true (Nizkor, 2013). In the video above, we see a young man proceed with a lawsuit based on the advice of his doctor even though the doctor has no legal background whatsoever. This erroneous acceptance is based on the belief that the person is the expert or authoritative so therefore everything they say must be true. In this case, the doctor was not qualified to make a claim about the legality of the car cash, so his reasoning was fallacious.