This website actually showed very in-depth explanations of most of the content we learned. I noticed that this site listed fallacies we have not learned from our textbook such as Ad Hominem. I also noticed that it organized certain reasonings into an inductive and deductive category. In a previous blog, I mentioned I had trouble understand what exactly an inductive reasoning was. I think this website can give a better understanding of it because subcategories of arguments are actually listed under either inductive or deductive. This lets readers be aware on what type of reasoning they are actually using.
According to the website, causal argument is actually an inductive argument. I actually did not really think about that until I seen this website. Other than that, it also listed other arguments that we may use and identifies them as deductive arguments.
I also thought it was good that they added the Ad Hominem fallacy because it was not listed in the book (or I did not see it). I thought it was good they added that fallacy because some are not aware that the argument itself is actually a fallacy. It basically sums up that you should give anyone's argument a chance no matter what kind of person they are. For example, if a little kid is telling you something that seems unbelievable, you'll probably tell him or her that he or she is lying because little kids are seen as having small knowledge about the world. Although it seems believable, it is still a fallacy to assume that he or she is wrong all because of what the person is.
I thought the Ad Hominem fallacy was very similar to a fallacy we learned which was "mistaking a person or group." I am not sure if it's actually the same fallacy because it didn't state that it was Ad Hominem. It might be though. haha but maybe not
- Pink Bean
I found the Mission Critical website to be very interesting and useful. I agree with you that the content on this website was very in-depth. The fallacies that were not in the textbook were interesting to me as well. I agree that the website is able to explain more because of the sub-categories it has. I also found it interesting that a causal argument is actually an inductive argument. It was definitely a plus that Ad Hominem was included on this website. When I was reading the website I also felt that Ad Hominem was close to "mistaking a person or group." Overall, very clear and informative post.
ReplyDelete