Question

What is the difference between a fallacy of relevance a policy of weak induction and a policy of ambiguity? Provide an example for each

Answer 1

Fallacies that are valid but have questionable debates in terms of their truth status, fallacies whose debates are relevant and probably true but are weak by inductive standards used to establish reliable beliefs, and where the debates may not be false but are presumptive in some way. The presenter is convincing the listener that it already accepts the debates, it should also accept the conclusion as well.An argument can fail in a variety of ways.

The questionable debate plays the natural fear and uncertainty generated by living in a complicated world. Slippery Slope offers a chain of possible events in one of its debates, but cites no evidence for such controversial debates. This inconsistency of fallacy, in which either the debate are inconsistent with each other, or the conclusion is inconsistent with the debate. Questionable Dilemma simplifies our choices to a black-and-white situation in its debate, but a little reflection reveals that our choices are more complicated than offered by this debate. Straw Person also appeals to have uncomplicated choices by offering a simplified, but distorted and exaggerated description of an opponent's position.

The fallacies of weak induction take advantage of the fact that many of our beliefs are generalizations from particular experiences, take advantage of the fact that human beings have a tendency to be logically lazy. That is, we want quick beliefs and do not have the patience to submit to the inductive rigor of establishing them as reliable beliefs. Making a conditional claim of If x, then y, then if is qualification, and then conveniently forgetting the if later on, so that the qualification has discreetly disappeared. To site an example to this If God chooses to manifest himself in the visions reportedly taking place at city such & such, then we should be grateful for receiving them. Given the current state of the world, and Let us then give thanks for these authentic visions. Most people believe that God [the Christian god] exists. Therefore God must exist. Millions people can't be wrong.

Fallacies of presumption have debates that may be true but are presented in a unfair way. Begging the Question assumes the conclusion, so it offers no evidence for the conclusion and only argues in a circle.

The speaker is trying to have it both ways to give weight and consideration to his statement, without having that conclusion abide by the usual standards of being relevant and plausible But if the speaker really is just saying whatever, not offering it for rational consideration and not willing to have it discussed, then we can treat it as he was just whistling or humming.

Some people have raised to think that it is always impolite to disagree with others. In order to remain what they think is polite, these unfortunates have rendered themselves powerless to defend themselves and others, and even powerless to plan and dream for the future. This state of affairs has led to some consequences when people try to live both politely and with integrity. One of these is the subjectivist fallacy. According to this fallacy, one can maintain and say, God exists is true, and still it is not true for others. In other words, God, Christian god is intended, both does exist and does not exist.

And this is utterly unnecessary. We can politely say to each other, well, I don't share your belief. But perhaps one day, we'll be able to come to an agreement. Indeed, reflective, considerate disagreement is a sign of respect.