GST212 Lecture 8 | Dr. Ajibola Surakat | OOU

[Music]

Good morning

students. My name is Dr.

Ajibola Maru

Surakat from the department of

philosophy on labor

university. I am

here to continue with our topic

on I'm here to continue with our topics

on

JST 212 philosophy, logic and human

existence. Today we shall be looking at

former and informal

fallacies. That's our topic for today.

former and informal

fallacies. Now what is

fallacy? At least people have been

talking about fallacy. Fallacy. What is

actually what is

fallacy? Fallacy can be regarded as an

error in

reasoning. An error in

reasoning. And without taking a close

look at

it, palaceious argument may seems to be

convincing and sad. If you don't give it

a critical look, palacious statements or

arguments will look convincing and

sand. Remember we did sand arguments,

valid, invalid, signed and unsigned

arguments. So when an argument is signed

it means that that such an argument has

the following

characteristics. One the premises are

true. Two the conclusion is true. And

three it is valid. So there are some

facious

arguments that without taking a critical

look at

it you may not know that they are

facious because they are confusing and

looks very sad.

So that is why we want to examine some

facious argument or statement in this

topic.

Now for the purpose of this

topic we are going to

classify

fallacies into two broad areas and that

is formal and informal fallacies. So

fallacies going to be looked at from two

broad areas formal and informal

fallacies. Now what is former

fallacies? A formal fallacy can be

filled as an error in

reasoning which is based solely on the

form the

structure rather than the content of the

argument. It is based on the form or the

structure of the argument rather than

the content of the argument. So there

are two things an argument may be

facious

structurally and the content of an

argument

may equally be

fashious may be valious.

So now when we talk of formal fallacy in

this formal fallacy it is the structure

or the form of that argument that is

fashious and not the

content. So this means

that it is established

structure that is faulty. It is the

established structure that is faulty.

The established structure is faulty.

So but another way of putting

it is that a formal fallacy is committed

when some formal

rules or logic are either ignored or

violated. When the rules are either

ignored or

violated. Now remember when we were

treating

uh when we are

treating uh types of

arguments and under types of deductive

argument we said that there are some

that are formulated according to the

rules of

inference. So any fallacy that are

formulated according to the rules of

inference are formal fallacies. So under

formal fallacies we are going to look at

just two or three of some of the facious

arguments. So where we have most work to

do is on informal fallacies but briefly

I will take you through some of the uh

rules that are formulated according to

the laws of inference that are fashious.

So now we are going to look at three of

such argument. We are going to look at

three of such argument. Now number

one we are going to look at fallacy of

affirming the

consequence. Fallacy of affirming the

consequence. That's number one. Number

two we are going to look at fallacy of

denying the anticedent.

Remember when we treated conditional

statement we said conditional statement

has anticident and

consequence. So we are going to look at

the structure of those argument now and

see how they are

fellacious. So we are going to see how

they are facious. And the three number

three is fallacy of four

tax fallacy of four tax. So these three

are what we're going to consider under

former

fallacies. Under former fallacies these

are what we are going to

consider. Now fallacy of affirming the

consequence.

Now, now there is a rule of

inference. There's a rule of inference

known as modules

ponent. Mod's ponent a rule of

inference. This rule of inference is

known as modus ponent.

So the structure of modus

ponent ponent that is p o n e n a ns

modus m o d u s. So modus ponent. So the

structure of modus ponent ponent is the

accepted

structure is the accepted structure of

of one of the difference.

Now mod's opponent by structure we take

that let me use a simple

example let me use a simple example if

it

rains then the ground is

wet now that is my number one premise if

it rains then the ground is

wet my number two premise will now be it

rains it rains

And my conclusion will be therefore the

ground is wet. Now that is the normal

structure of modules bonets. That's the

normal structure. So but however there

may be a structure like this fallacy of

affirming the consequent. Now what we

are saying here is that instead of

affirming the anticedident as your

second premise, you are affirming the

consequence as your second premise which

is wrong. So under fallacy of affirming

the consequence what it means is that

you have run contrary to the rule of

modules

pony. So under modance the structure is

like I said this if it rains then the

ground is wet or let me say if it rains

then the ground will be

wet. B that is premise premise two it

rains you are confirming you are

affirming that it rains then what

follows be your conclusion that the

ground is

wet. So that is

modules. So now if we now run contrary

to that mod's pony it means that we have

parated the rule guiding modules ponent.

So if we now say if it rains then the

ground will be wet. They now say the

ground is wet therefore it rains. Now

when you look at it it is logically

convincing as well. It is logically

convincing. When you look at the

structure, if it rains, then the ground

will be wet. My premise two, it rains. I

mean, my promise two, the ground is wet.

Therefore, it rains. But structurally,

it is strong because one, the ground may

be wet without

rain. So once you affirm once you affirm

your consequence as your second premise,

it does not guarantee the conclusion.

But it is logically

persuasive. It is logically persuasive.

So that is what we call fallacy of

affirming the consequence. So meaning

that it runs contrary to the rule of

modules

ponent is drawn contraries to the rules

of modus ponent. So let me just define

it. So fallacy of affirming the

consequence. This fallacy

occurs or is committed when the rule of