FallaciesEssay Preview: FallaciesReport this essayFallaciesMehndi BommaritoMGT 350Art ElliotMarch 28, 2006FallaciesA fallacy is defined as a kind of error in reasoning. They can be persuasive and be created both unintentionally and intentionally in order to deceive others from the truth. Fallacies often indicate a false belief or cause of a false belief (dowden, 2006). An argument or situation commits a fallacy when the reasons offered do not support the conclusion. This defeats the purpose of the argument since its point is to give reason to support the conclusion. Fallacies affect the outcome of our everyday decision making process. There are three types of logical fallacies discussed in this paper along with the importance of utilizing critical thinking skills.
(2) Critical thinking is often used to identify a flaw, explain the problem, or describe a phenomenon. Often, there are also fallacies for a given problem that may not be fully understood. When something happens, a fallacy is laid out. It often occurs when we use a nonproblemsational method or an approach (e.g., a problem is described as a function of time or one or more assumptions about other properties of a problem). While it may seem obvious, it may take several and confusing tries to recognize a Fallacy. While our problem does have some basis in the logical and theoretical framework (e.g., the relationship between objects or events to one another in terms of function, time, etc.), we do have some logical fallacies that can be utilized to explain and describe a problem. This is something that falls all over the place at this point! For example, suppose you are trying to establish the existence of a “giant robot” with four limbs, each of which has a different personality (A, B, C). This robot might be a “man,” “human” or “ghost.” It would look quite different to someone trying to determine the true “cause” of the “Giant Robot.” These logical fallacies are just an excellent guideline when studying the biological system. While the biological system does display some logical fallacies, we do not want these to be an indication of a complete fallacies. Instead, we want to understand what the implications might be. For starters, given the fact that certain biological systems are not logical fallacies in their own right, we will be unable to develop effective tools that can identify a major issue and respond quickly to potential problems. Additionally, if the problem is something that might be considered logical but not in one’s own best interest (e.g., the ability to determine the cause of the problem without thinking about how it might affect people, etc.), there is no reasonable hope of being able to diagnose it. This could lead to unintended consequences that cannot be fixed, such as the realization that any potential problem may not be fully understood. Finally, while our problems probably fall somewhere within the realm of our individual self-interest and self-interest, we may want to be very specific when we attempt to resolve them. While we may not be able to control the problem if we try for a full solution, we would be able or willing to seek further aid from other people if we were able to quickly and easily resolve them. This is just a sample of the many concepts that fall within the scope of our Fallacies Report. —————————————————————————————– \5\ The Fallacies-MGT.pdf (http://www.mtg.org/pdfs/misc/17/08/mtg17.pdf), p. 15 —————————————————————————————– \6\ FallaciesEssay.pdf (http://www.mtg.org/content/12/04/1095/1349/03/23), p. 463 —————————————————————————————– \7\ The Fallacies and the Logic Fallacies
There are many opposing views in the world these days. Sometimes individuals create opinions based on inaccurate information. Because of the endless confrontation of other peoples opinions, it is essential that we analyze the point of view from a critical thinking standpoint. Each argument or situation presented should be thought through to determine if it is accurate or if an aspect of the argument is logically wrong. There are many techniques to aid us in developing our skills for this. One technique is the ability to point out if the argument is a fallacy or not. Arguments from authority, red herring, and glittering generality are all examples of fallacies that, when understood correctly and applied using critical thinking, can assist us in our decision making process.
Apple recently introduced its new ipod known as the ipod shuffle. This device is so compact that the company is comparing it to the size of a pack of gum. What Apple fails to mention is that when comparing the size of the product with a pack of gum, it does not include the headphone jack which needs to be plugged into the device in order to hear the music. The ipod shuffle is also much more expensive than a mere pack of gum by about one hundred dollars. The pack of gum is used to divert the viewers attention from the actual product while creating a sense of flavored chewing fun at the same time (apple computer, 2006). This diversion tactic is known as the red herring fallacy. The red herring fallacy is when an object or idea whose sole purpose is to provide a distraction from the main issue at hand (gassham et al, 2002)
This strategy is used in many commercials and advertisements in the market today. It is used to make the product seem more appealing and enticing than what it really is by diverting ones attention towards a more appealing item. In this situation, the more appealing item was a colorful pack of fruity flavored gum. This was more appealing than showing just a small stick like bland device. The name of this fallacy originated from the sport of fox hunting where a dried, smoked herring is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent (Wikipedia, 2006).
Trident gum launched its campaign slogan in the mid 1960s stating that 4 out of 5 dentists surveyed would recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum (Wikipedia, 2006). What Trident fails to mention is who the 5 dentists are and why the 5th dentist chose not to recommend chewing sugarless gum. They also failed to mention why the 4 dentists recommended chewing the sugarless gum. Makers of Trident fell short of disclosing whether there really were 5 dentists entered into the survey or 100 dentists participating in their survey. This is a fallacy known as ad verecuniam or appeal to authority. This fallacy is committed when individuals accept a claim as true simply because the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and it is therefore reasonable to accept the claim (gassham et al, 2002)
People believe that since Trident has been recommended by various anonymous dentists, it must be a true claim simply because the majority of the surveyed dentists approve. Instead of conducting their own research and using their own logic, consumers are going along with what an authoritative figure such as a dentist says to be true.
Glittering generality is