Commonplace Book – Pages 131-132
Now the flames they followed Joan of Arc
as she came riding through the dark;
no moon to keep her armor bright,
no man to get her through this smoky night.
She said, “I’m tired of the war,
I want the kind of work I had before,
a wedding dress or something white,
to wear upon my swollen appetite.”
“Well I’m glad to hear you talk this way,
you know I’ve watched you riding every day
and something in me yearns to win
such a cold and lonesome heroine.”
“And who are you?” she sternly spoke
to the one beneath the smoke.
“Why, I’m fire,” he replied.
“And I love your solitude, I love your pride.”
“Then fire, make your body cold,
I’m going to give you mine to hold,”
Saying this she climbed inside
to be his one, to be his only bride.
And deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and high above the wedding guests
he hung the ashes of her wedding dress.
It was deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and then she clearly understood
if he was fire, oh then she must be wood.
I saw her wince, I saw her cry,
I saw the glory in her eye.
Myself I long for love and light,
but must it come so cruel, and oh so bright?
Commonplace Book – Pages 130-131
Loaded Words: It is not inherently fallacious, however it is often a logical boobytrap, which may cause an unwarranted evaluation. The fallacy is committed either when an arguer attempts to use loaded words in place of an argument, or when an arguer makes an evaluation based on the colorful language, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
Fallacy of Modal Logic: Modal logic studies logical relations involving modalities, which are ways in which propositions can be true or false. Modal fallacies are formal fallacies in which modality plays a role in the fallaciousness of a type of argument.
Modal Scope Fallacy: Modalities, like other logical concepts such as negation, have scope, that is, they logically influence a part of any sentence in which they occur. The modal scope occurs when this ampiboly is exploited.
Poisoning the Well: To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive strike against an opponent. It can be abusive or circumstantial. It is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy.
Probabilistic Fallacy: One which concludes that something has some probability based upon information about probabilities given in its premise. Such an argument is invalid when the inference from the premise to the conclusion violates the laws of probability. Probabilistic fallacies are formal ones because they involve reasoning which violates the formal rules of probability theory.
Propositional Logic: A system which deals with the logical relations that hold between propositions taken as a whole, and those compound propositions which are constructed from simpler one with truth – functional connectives. Since a validating argument form is one in which it is impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion false, then the fallacy is one with a true premise and a false conclusion.
Quantificational Logic Fallacy: An extension of propositional logic which examines the logical properties of some of the internal grammatical structure of simple, non-compound propositions. To show that a quantificational argument is non-validating, it suffices to find an instance of that form with true premise and a false conclusion.
Question-Begging Analogy: An analogical argument begs the question when the strength of the analogy depends upon some controversial point at issue.
Commonplace Book – 129-130
Genetic Fallacy: It is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It’s fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past – rather than on its present – merits or demerits, unless it’s past in some way effects its present value.
The Hitler Card: ‘Argumentum ad Nazium‘ Playing the Hitler Card demonizes opponents in debate by associating them with evil, and almost always derails the discussion. Also when people become convinced by guilt by association arguments that their political opponents are not just mistaken, but are as evil as Nazis, reasoned debate can give way to violence.
The Hot Hand Fallacy: Whenever a gambler thinks he is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ he will increase or decrease his wagers, but fail to appreciate statistical independence. So, a gambler’s odds of winning/losing a current bet is not affected by whether the gambler has won/lost previous bets.
Irrelevant Thesis: ‘Ignoratio Elenchi‘ One argument which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an implicit topic, yet its easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
Illicit Major: Any form of categorical syllogism in which the major term is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the major premise.
Illicit Minor: Any form of categorical syllogism in which the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the minor premise.
Illicit Negative / Affirmative: Any form of categorical syllogism with a negative conclusion and affirmative premises. It violates the rule that any validating form of categorical syllogism with both premises affirmative has an affirmative conclusion.
Illicit Process: Any form of categorical syllogism in which a term is distributed in the conclusion and in undistributed in the premise. It violates the rule that in a validating form of categorical syllogism, in which the term must be distributed in both.
Illicit Quantifier Shift: Refers to the two quantifiers at the beginning of the premise and conclusion of arguments of this form, like “every” and “some.” “Shift” refers to the fact that the fact of the difference between the premise and conclusion of this form of argument consists in a shift in the order of the quantifiers.
Illicit Substitution of Identicals: ‘Masked Man Fallacy’ A validating form of argument so long as the context in which it occurs is extensional, or referentially transparent. Basically, one is misled into thinking that substitution is valid in all contexts.
Improper Transportation: Occurs when the antecedent and consequent of the conclusion of a transposition the antecedent and consequent of the conditional premise are switched and negated. In an improper transposition, the antecedent and consequent are negated, but not switched.