Fallacies

"Great Debates in Philosophy" by Professor Seungbae Park.

 

1.Ad Hominem
An attack on the author of an argument instead of on the argument

 

2.Straw Man
It occurs when we criticize our opponent's position after distorting, exaggerating, stretching or misunderstanding it.

 

3.The appeal to Ignorance
ex) There is no evidence that God does not exist.
Therefore, God exists.

4. Bagging the Question(A Circular Argument)
Q: How can she afford that nice car?
A: Because she is rich
Q: Why is she rich
A: Because she can afford that nice car

5. Slippery Slope
We have a chain of events: a,b,c---z. If a is allowed, b should be allowed too. If b is allowed, c should be allowed too, and ultimately z. However, z is a disatrous event. For that reason, a should not be allowed.

How should we respond to the fallacy of the slippery slope?
My(professor Park) response to it is that we are justified in drawing an arbitrary line along the continuum as long as there are clearly problematic and unproblematic cases, and insofar as we are better off with the arbitrary line.

It would be nice if events are not in a continuum, but they are. They will be with us forever just like our shadows. Hence, we should learn to live with them. If we are too afraid of them too much, then we cannot even enact a low at all, and we should flout all the existing laws.
Thus, if we do not want to live in a lawless society, we should not let the fallacy of the slippery slope run around and undermine our social system.