Name as many fallacies of reasoning that you can identify in the Death Penalty article? (i.e. Ad Hominem) Review the pptx on Fallacies. FALLACIES A fallacy is a “trick” that is either a

Name as many fallacies of reasoning that you can identify in the Death Penalty article? (i.e. Ad Hominem) Review the pptx on Fallacies. FALLACIES A fallacy is a “trick” that is either a
Eight Week Session Module 4 Chapter 7: Critical Thinking Are There Any Fallacies In The Reasoning? FALLACIES A fallacy is a “trick” that is either a mistake in logic or an attempt to mislead through deceptive reasoning. There are three major fallacies: First, there are erroneous assumptions. Since assumptions are hidden or unstated, they often go be detected. Incorrect assumptions can lead a critical thinker to agree with faulty reasoning. Second, there are distractions. Distractions are used to make irrelevant information seem relevant to the conclusion, which could lead a critical thinker to agree with faulty reasoning. Finally, there is dependent reasoning. Dependent reasoning occurs when the support for the conclusion depends on the conclusion already being true. Failure to detect dependent reasoning can mislead critical thinkers. COMMON REASONING FALLACIES *Equivocation Equivocation happens when someone tricks you into believing that different words word or phrases, which have completely different meanings, are really the same thing. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Appeals to Authorities Appeals to authorities are a very common form of evidence. You should be cautious when you encounter appeals to authorities. An attempt should be made to determine if the authority has a vested interest or bias. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when they appeal to questionable authorities. *Ad Hominem Arguments Ad hominem arguments are arguments in which you attack a person, not their ideas. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Ad Populum Arguments Ad populum arguments are arguments based on popularity, not reasoning. If you grew up in New York City you are undoubtedly aware of the popular “Brooklyn Bridge” counter-argument for ad populum arguments. The child tells the parent that “everyone is going” to the party on Friday night. The parent questions that “if everyone was going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do it as well?” You should be cautious when you encounter ad populum arguments. *Extension Fallacy Extension fallacies happen when the communicator’s position is extended to an unfair and unreasonable position. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *False Dilemma False dilemmas are presented when you are purposely forced to choose between two choices. The possibility of other alternatives are never hinted at by the communicator. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Oversimplification Oversimplification provides fertile ground for ambiguities and assumptions. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Confusing “what should be” With “what is” Very often people will make assumptions about certain things and believe that they are universally held by other others. This phenomenon is also known as wishful thinking. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Perfect Solution We have already learned about the myth of the “right answer”. The perfect solution is similar to this concept. There is no perfect solution to any problem. The only solution that a critical thinker will arrive at is the one that conforms with their reasoning and reflects their value preferences. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. *Confusing Naming With Explaining In Sociology, this phenomenon is called labeling. Instead of investing the time to understand something we rush to hastily categorize it. If a new employee joins you at work it is natural for that person to ask questions. Suppose the new employee want to know about the supervisor. The response given is that the supervisor is “uptight.” It would be more accurate to say that the supervisor is concerned about time and leave abuse and expects total compliance with company policy. You should reject the communicator’s reasoning when this occurs. Chapter 4: Much Ado about Practically Nothing As we have previously stated we can use our understanding the Normal Distribution to interpret data such as IQ scores. In your text, Huff presents the example of two individuals: one with an IQ score of 98 and the other with a score of 101. If 100 is the mean, how do interpret these findings? Well, we need to go back to the normal curve and the 95% CI, which represents the area 2 standard deviations from the mean or the area in which we believe the true mean lies. You will recall that the confidence interval is determined from the standard deviation and standard error, but that the CI gives us a unit of measurement that corresponds to the mean. In this case IQ. So what can we conclude? Is the individual presenting with the IQ of 101 more intelligent than the individual with an IQ of 98? To answer this question we will have to apply our critical thinking skills in the form of statistical reasoning. An IQ test represents an individual’s performance on a test; consequently, on any given day the individual’s performance can vary. As we have discussed before, due to the empirical rule and the normal distribution, the area 2 standard deviations from the mean indicates the probable range in which we believe the true mean or IQ lies. Knowing these figures give more meaning to the probable error and can ensure that we do not make much ado about practically nothing. Many Peer review journals now routinely report the mean and the 95% CI, in lieu of or in addition to the standard error and standard deviation, because of its ease in interpretation. Remember the 95% CI provides us the figures that comprise the range of the upper and lower confidence interval (+/-2 sd). Now let me refer you to the article on Confidence Intervals Box 2: (What are Confidence Intervals p 5). Here, Ramipril was compared to a placebo. Cardiovascular events were 651 (14%) and 826 (17.8%) respectively. The relative risk was 651/826=.78, 95% CI .70-.86. The relative risk reduction (RRR) therefore is 100-78=22%. The RRR ranges from 100-70=30% to100-86=14%. (This is just an example of CI’s with a proportion rather than the mean). Therefore the 22% relative risk reduction afforded by Ramipril could be as little as 14% or as much as 30% fewer cardiovascular events. As Huff points out on page 58, sometimes there is much ado about practically nothing. There can be a statistical significance, but this may have no clinical or practical importance. Is a 14%-30% reduction clinically or practically significant? Well this depends on what is being measured. In the case of Old Gold cigarettes, having 14%-30% fewer harmful additives may not have any clinical or practical significance since it is unlikely to alter the harmful effects of smoking. In assessing this, it is the size of the effect that matters, not just statistical significance. So in assessing empirical evidence, look beyond just statistical significance and ask yourself is it clinically or practically significant? 5
Name as many fallacies of reasoning that you can identify in the Death Penalty article? (i.e. Ad Hominem) Review the pptx on Fallacies. FALLACIES A fallacy is a “trick” that is either a
A Case for the Death Penalty (1) Troy Davis, 42, died at 11:08 p.m. according to the Georgia Department of Corrections. (2) His death by lethal injection came 19 years after he was convicted by a jury of his peers for the brutal murder of off duty police officer Mark MacPhail. (3) Moments before his execution, Davis reportedly told the family of Mr. MacPail, “I’m not the one who personally killed your son, your father, your brother. I am innocent.” (4) Mr. Davis’ newfound reverence for life, stems in no small part, from the fact that he was about to lose his own. (5) Life is precious and the death penalty just reaffirms that fact. (6) I support the death penalty for cop killers and heinous crimes of murder. (7) The death penalty is a deterrent. (8) Without a doubt, Mr. Davis will never kill again. (9) We don’t have to like the death penalty in order to support it. (10) We must fight fire with fire. (11) If someone comes down with cancer, it may be necessary to take radical steps to cure the cancer: radical surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. (12) The disease in this case is injustice. (13) Should this cop killer be given clemency? (14) We may not like the death penalty, but it must be available for such heinous crimes; otherwise, we are giving criminals, like Mr. Davis, a license to kill. (15) The evidence is clear. (16) When executions went down, the number of murders went up. (17) Looking at the data from 1950-2002, the murder rate went from 4.6 per 100,000 population in 1951 to 10.2 per 100,000 population in 1980, as executions went to zero during the period the Supreme Court declared capital punishment unconstitutional. (18) Execution resumed in 1977. (19) As you can see, the murder rate once again declined (see chart below). (20) Opponents of the death penalty often make the argument that we might kill an innocent person. (21) Mark MacPail was an innocent person who was executed by Mr. Davis. (22) He received no appeals to the Supreme Court; no appeals for clemency. (23) Mr. Davis killed in cold blood. (24) It is fallacy to argue that the death penalty should be abolished because an innocent person might die. (25) Innocent persons are dying all the time; however, only the murderers have the chance to appeal their sentence. (26) In 2010, fifty-six police officers were killed in the line of duty in the US. (27) No doubt by someone who had murdered before. (28) Even life in prison does not guarantee that they will not kill again. (29) All too often, these individuals kill again in prison. (30) Life without parole does not always mean life without parole. (31) California is about to release teen murderers, including cop killers, who were sentenced to life without parole for their crimes. (32) When we lower the penalty for murder, it diminishes regard for the value of the victim’s life. (33) Support for the death penalty comes from a surprising group of people—Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Mill agreed that natural law properly authorizes the State to take life in order to administer justice. (34) Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin endorsed it. Abraham Lincoln authorized executions for deserters in wartime. (35) Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, believed that the death penalty was essential to the support of social order. (36) The United States Constitution condemns cruel and inhuman punishment, but does not condemn capital punishment. (37) Rick Perry stated that,” Texas has a very thoughtful, lengthy, and clear process, which ensures everyone a fair hearing, so there is no need to lose sleep over the possibility of executing an innocent person”. (38) The appeals process is indeed lengthy. (39) Mr. Davis had 19 years of appeals and the Supreme Court reaffirmed his guilt. (40) Finally justice has been served.