 In the last lecture we discussed about fallacies of informal fallacies in particular red herring and strawman and then we also discussed something about fallacies arising out of weak induction. So inductive arguments can be weak when especially when the conclusion of course probably follows from the premises but premises are not strong enough to provide evidence to believe the conclusion to be true n. So these are they all come under the category of fallacies of weak induction. So under fallacies of weak induction we discussed one particular kind of fallacy which is some which is considered with a mistake in the argumentation especially when the arguer is citing some kind of unqualified otherity and then he poses some kind of conclusion then the arguer is said to have committed this particular kind of fallacy which is called as fallacy by appealing to unqualified other. And so one some of the examples which we discussed in the last class sometimes you know let us consider some more examples to establish this particular to understand this particular kind of fallacy. For example if you say this that all of us know that professor Amartya Sain is considered to be well known economist noble laureate etc. Suppose if he all of a sudden he starts talking about some different kind of topic you know let us see what is there in this example. Professor Amartya Sain universally respected economist and the author of argumentative Indian has said that destruction of tropical rainforest is one of the 10 most serious worldwide problems you know thus it must be the case that is indeed a very serious kind of problem. So the arguer here and we know that you know an economist will have expertise in some areas in all probably may be in economics partly be in mathematics may be because economics requires strong mathematics foundations in mathematics or may be some other areas which are slightly connected to economics in all of a sudden if you suppose somebody is referring to someone who is considered to be an economist and then trying to talk about something related to deforestation etc. and all he may not be having that particular kind of expertise in all then clearly we can say that so the arguer is said to have committed this mistake in the argumentation in a sense that is citing unqualified authority you know professor Sain might be having authority in some other areas such as economics welfare economics etc. So in this case the arguer is said to have committed kind of fallacy which arises due to citing unqualified authority. So there are some kind of questions we need to ask ourselves to judge when an authority is reliable unreliable etc. Suppose if you say that everything the president says is true and you all also say that the president says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction etc. Of course the president has authority and then in the case of Indian context if the prime minister says something then you know you will definitely say that usually will not talk whatever you want to talk and all but the well established kind of things usually talks and also the president of United States for example says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction therefore Iraq has mass weapons of mass destruction is most probably that you know you will usually believe that conclusion to be true given the premises are true and all the conclusion probably follows from the premises since the president of United States of America is saying that Iraq has weapons of mass addiction probably you might believe that it is true and all. So there are few questions which we need to ask ourselves to judge that whether a person is having a qualified whether person is considered to be having genuine authority a qualified authority or whether the arguer is citing some kind of unqualified authority. So these are the critical questions one need to ask oneself is the proposed person our source a genuine authority and all in the last example Professor Sain seems to be talking about some kind of deforestation etc. and all then we said that you know he does not seem to be having some kind of expertise in that particular kind of area had it been the case that he spoke about something related to economics or something like that definitely you know that seems to be some kind of genuine authority and the second question which will be asking ourselves is that did the authority make the attributed claim or not if the answer is yes again it is considered to be some kind of qualified authority if it is not it is coming under the category of unqualified authority. The third question is that are the authority and claim made whatever is made is relevant to the subject matter or not if you make some kind of irrelevant claims etc. and all then it is called as it is common it will come under the category of unqualified authority. So this is what is considered to be fallacy by citing some kind of unqualified authority. So it is not all the time you know it is easy to judge whether a person is having authority in that particular area or not because the person may be expertise may be having expertise in more than one particular kind of subject matter branch. So okay so we will move on to the next kind of fallacy so this kind of fallacy arises because of ignorance so it is called as appeal to ignorance kind of fallacy the structure of this argument is like this this statement whatever the statement which is trying to prove this statement has not been proven true and hence the conclusion is that the statement is false it is taken for granted that nobody could prove certain particular kind of thing you know for example if you say that nobody has proved the existence of God so that is why I mean God does not exist in other he may be that this statement may be reasonably believed to be false or the other hand suppose if that statement has not been proven false enough nobody has proved the non-existence of God and nobody could prove that God does not exist they could not even prove God exists and God does not exist also they could not prove now in this case the conclusion is that this statement is obviously true is nobody could prove that you know it does not it is not the case that God exists and all may probably might exist and all God actually exist so the structure of the argument is like this we can draw a diagram to see what goes on here so this is like this your premises will be like this so the premises will be this that nobody has proved nobody has proved that X is true the other way of stating the same thing is this that nobody has proved that X is false so then from this so this is what is we have some ignorance about this particular kind of thing at this moment the arguer knows that I mean nobody has proved that some X X can be anything is can be existence of God existence of electrons or maybe any other thing and all so other believes that nobody has proved that X is true and hence X is false suppose if you take into consideration this one nobody has proved that X is false and all because nobody could prove that X is false maybe it might be the case that it is true and all this is probably be the corresponding thing is this that from this you can show that X is true this is another kind of argument which we can use so if this is the case then it is called as appeal to ignorance kind of fallacy so let us consider a simple example to see how this fallacy arises and all so you must note that in all these fallacies that we have been discussing so far or maybe discussing later also they are all coming under the category of some kind of persuasive mechanisms and all so ultimately the arguer's intention is to mean persuade the reader or listener to accept his claims and all so let us consider one example for this appeal to ignorance kind of fallacy after centuries of trying no one has been able to prove that God exists ever tried miserably and they tried and failed miserably many scientific theories have come into existence but they could not establish that they could not prove that God exist is true so the attempt seems to be futile is useless etc so at this point I think you can safely conclude that there is no God nobody has proved that God is true and hence that that is the reason why it is false that God exists so if you conclude in this particular kind of sense then that means what happened here is you can't prove based on because there is no proof of which is existing in all that doesn't mean that a particular kind of sentence can be false it might be the case that someone else might prove it in future or something like that it may turn out to be true also so this is what is called as ignorance in the sense that you know at this moment you don't know that this is the case and all so based on that kind of thing you jump to a conclusion that X is false and all nobody could prove that X is true that means X is false nobody could prove that X is false means that X has X is true enough so nobody could prove that for example in the case of cro's example nobody could prove that cro is white in color so then you will infer that you know cro is black in color but you might find a cro in which you know somebody might prove that the next cro that he is going to see might be white in color also that makes the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises so in the same way in the course also you will find this particular kind of phenomena that unless until you are proved guilty then you are you will not be punished enough you will not consider to be guilty enough so unless until you are it is proved in the court that you did this particular kind of mistake you will not be made guilty enough it is just like in this case you can't prove you didn't steal that car so you must be guilty enough so in that case you know nobody could prove that he has stolen the car and all so that's why probably you may not be guilty enough so there are some of the things which come under the category of fallacy by appealing to ignorance in all something that is not proved might still be true or just as something that doesn't even disprove might also be false so that makes this argument fallacious so this is what is appeal to ignorance kind of fallacy there is obviously certain things which will not be knowing and all so that is what we are calling it as ignorance and all so the other interesting kind of fallacy which arises in all inductive generations which we spoke in the last lecture where you know whether we try to justify when we try to justify inductive generalization then we are referring to a principle of uniformity of nature and we are asked to justify a principle of uniformity of nature then again we are falling back an induction and hence leads to some kind of circularity and so all inductive generalizations if it is not used properly then it leads to some kind of generation which is called as hasty generalization so hasty generalization is exactly opposite of fallacy of accident that is the one which we have seen earlier so this is like this so let us compare fallacy of accident which is called as fallacy of relevance and the hasty generalization so this is what we have said fallacy of accident so this is what is fallacy of relevance this is what we have discussed in greater detail earlier so now just I am trying to compare this thing with hasty generalization now you have a general rule which is misapplied a general rule which is misapplied to some kind of specific situation then it leads to this particular kind of fallacy which is called as fallacy of accident and we said in the last lecture last few lectures that freedom of speech is considered to be constitutionally guaranteed right if this that is applied properly and all there is absolutely there is no problem and all for example if that is applied to a specific situation in which a religious leader speech has invoked some kind of rewards and all so then this general rule that is freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right is misapplied to this particular kind of specific situation and that leads to this fallacy of relevance why I am talking about this fallacy of relevance in this in the context of hasty generalization it is simply because of this that hasty generation is converse of this fallacy of relevance that means here it is the other way round that is a specific case is misapplied and then you will infer some kind of generalized general rule so a specific case not representative representative of whole population whole group or population or a class or something and then is not misapplied and generalized so a specific case not representative of the whole population a sample or a group based on that you generalize it and then form some kind of generalization that is usually called as a general rule then that is called as a hasty generalization in day to day discourse we will be using this particular kind of generalizations all the time usually we call with a different name that is sweeping generations so what are these sweeping sweeping generations and all in some cases it is a case that does not mean that it works in all the cases and all so what is a hasty generation hasty generation is an inductive argument obviously you know you will be moving from particular to generals that means you will be making some kind of inductive generation so in which one makes fallacious inference from relatively small number of cases to a generation about a class of instances in all you take very small group into consideration and then you start generalizing it and say that it is representative of the whole group or class and all for example if you say that one or two students in the entire class a class of hundred students one starts cheating and all in the examination and all so there does not mean that in a entire class is considered to be cheating in that particular kind of course so from two students cheating in the examination that does not mean that entire class is bad and all if you make that particular kind of generalization what we are trying to do is a specific case that means one or two students are creating problem in the course cheating not representative of the whole population and all 98 percent are honest and they are good enough you know so from that you generalize and say that form a generalized rule and say that entire batch of PHA 142 they are all cheaters etc and all then that particular kind of person who is making this argument is set to a committed this fallacy which is called as he has made sweeping generalizations and it is called as hasty generalization so when it occurs it occurs when there is a reasonable likelihood that the sample is not representative of the whole group to just two students are one student has committed this mistake in all it is not representative of the whole class in all so such a likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small it is one or two members exceptions or it is not even sometimes it is not even randomly selected in all for example in a bag of rotten bag of tomatoes just you found one rotten tomato and all just by seeing one rotten tomato that does not mean that it is entire basket of tomatoes is bad and all or you do not choose any tomatoes from that particular kind of bag so it is not representative of the at least some sample at least you know you have to be collected in random at least 10 5 6 at least whatever you have collected from that particular kind of bag they are all turned out to be rotten then you can infer that probably all the tomatoes in that bag are rotten once in all here the sample is if the sample is not selected randomly or if it is too small then it is obviously called as a kind of weak inductive kind of argument in all so to make a case that this particular kind of fallacy has been committed what one needs to do is this that the number of instances in the premises do not warrant the inference to the general class of which those instances are a member that the what one needs to show that number of instances in the premises do not warrant the inferences to the general class in which those instances are a member in all so one needs to be able to show that this kind of for generalization does not follow and all. So one particular kind of specific case and then you generalize to a general rule then you are said to have committed this is kind of mistake in the argumentation which is called as hasty generalizations. So let us consider some examples to establish this point and all where we are trying to make some kind of sweeping generalizations. Suppose if you say that most of the four cars are bad and all. So from that if you infer that I once owned a four car and it was utter junk and all. So suppose if you infer this particular kind of thing it so happened that you got a defective kind of car and from that you cannot infer that all four cars are bad and all here the conclusion is that all four cars are worst bad and all why it is the case is giving this kind of reasoning and all I once owned a four car and all the time it created problem and then there was some engine starting of engine all kinds of problems etc and all. Ultimately it so happened that you know out of your bad fortune or something like that you got a defective car which could not be repaired etc and all and so upon that it was it turned out to be a worst kind of experience for you. So from that you know you cannot generalize and say that all four cars are waste etc and all bad or worst and all. In the same way in the second example if the argument is arguing in this sense divorce is rampant in America, Mary someone is saying I heard that 40% is communicating to Mary in saying this particular kind of. I heard that 40% of the marriage is ending in divorce within three years so I have decided not to marry you because the odds are against you and all also against us means that you know you might belong to this particular kind of 40% of the category and then there is every chance that you know will get separated after three years and all based on the statistical data that they have. It does not make any sense to talk about this particular kind of arguments and all I mean the person who is making this argument is making some kind of sweeping generations or it is called as hasty generation. Suppose in the third example suppose if a concerned citizen says that this man is an alcoholic so then liquor should be banned. Suppose you have seen one drunkard who is behaving in a very bad way bad manner etc destroying the property all kinds of things then you say that you know all the liquor should be banned and maybe sometimes you might use it in a proper sense and all but just because of one particular case which has happened does not mean that it should completely ban the liquor. So like this frustrated Ford owner might say that my car broke today force that is why you know I wanted to reach a particular place but he could not reach because his car broke down today so ultimately out of first station he is saying that force are worthless pieces of garbage etc and goes on so and so he says then the argue is said to have committed this particular kind of mistake in the argumentation which is called as he said to be making sweeping generations is just because of one specific case you cannot move and say that for all the other things which is which represents a particular kind of sample this particular kind of thing follows so these are some of the examples of sweeping generation which is called as hasty generations and all. So again you have to note that premises are not sufficient enough to provide evidence to believe the conclusion to be true probably true in that particular kind of case and hence them it makes that argument a weak argument. So the next kind of fallacy which we commonly see in day to day discourse also is that it is a false cause fallacy. So what is a false cause fallacy is another kind of fallacies of weak induction so what happens here is that one will be illistimately assuming that one possible cause of a phenomena is a cause although reasons are lacking for excluding the other possible causes there will be several causes etc and all for the same event and so in phenomena if you do not consider the other possible causes which are very important then you must be ignoring some of the things and so false cause fallacy might arise in different ways especially when we confuse temporal succession with the causal consequence that is when we take one event to be cause of another simply because one event happened before the other if that is the case then this false cause fallacy arises it so happened that you know for example every time you came out of your house and you could witness cat passing through and then something happened you fell down from your cycle by skill or somebody has in shouted at you in the office or something some bad thing might have happened in so that happened every time cat passed through enough that does not mean that car cat passing through is a cause for your miseries etc and all it has nothing to do with that particular kind of thing you know sometimes when we mistakenly take one event to be the cause of another that is when we have said that the one event is the cause of the other and we might be simply wrong about that particular kind of thing you know that may not be cause of that particular thing at all there may be some other important causes for that particular kind of thing so we have said that arguments from cause to affect our inductive arguments they can become weak in the sense that when we confuse temporal succession with causal sequence there leads to a problem and in the same way one event to be the cause of another one when we have said that one event is the cause of another one but we might be simply wrong in so false cause fallacy might also occur when many causes are operative but one of them is illegitimately assumed to be the sole cause and maybe very important causes which might be existing for explaining the effect and all but you ruled out the most you take into consideration a particular kind of cause which may not be directly relevant to the effect and all in that case also this false cause find out fallacy arises so let us consider some examples to establish this particular kind of thing you know so before that let me draw a diagram for this false cause fallacy so this is like so false cause fallacy simply arises because of this you have premises mainly arguments from cause to effect will come under this particular kind of arguments they are all inductive argument they are weak arguments in a sense that here are premises and of course you have conclusion usually it will be some kind of causes and this will be an effect in all sometimes you move from effects to causes also is also another kind of inductive kind of argument so now it depends upon the movement from premises to conclusion depends upon non-existent non-existent and minor causal sometimes that may not exist in all any relation causal relationship between the cause and effect that you are trying to say minor causal connection so it depends upon either it is a non-existence causal kind of relation or it may be some kind of minor causal connection so if that is the case then this false cause kind of fallacy arises so let us consider some examples to establish our point since I came into office two years ago he joined a new job two years ago the rate of violent crime has decreased significantly so that is what one police officer is trying to say let us say so it is clear that longer present longer present sentences we recommended seems to be working in all so they somehow recommended that person who is committed to some kind of crime in all they were sentenced for a long time in all 10 15 years etc. now so they were under the impression that it started working in all longer present sentences that they offer to the prisoners it worked in all so that need not be the sole cause for this particular kind of reduction in the violent crimes in all it might have been reduced by some other causes might be there in all it is not solely due to the long term sentences in all so this is not the only cause in all so it happens because that it depends upon non-existent and may be sometimes the minor causal connection etc this might be imposing long term sentences may be some kind of non-existence cause or may be a minor causal connection to the fact that you know rate of violent crime has decreased significantly in another instance for example example to the best professional cricketers receive big salaries these days you know everyone knows that they receive big salaries so therefore in order to guarantee that Ravi will become one of the best professional cricketer we should give him big salary you will start giving big salary you might you might spend it peacefully and then you may not have become a cricketer as if you forget about the cricketer you may not professional cricketer but you may not become a even cricketer also you might become an actor with that particular kind of money if you pay that much salary so this is a false cause and all so that is why it is called as false cause analogy and all so Ravi becoming one of the best professional cricketer has nothing to do with paying big salaries and all so you should not be paid any big salary in this particular kind of case okay so if suppose if you say this particular kind of thing the scores of standardized tests have been dropping for several decades what accounts for this now you are trying to understand the causal factors for this particular kind of thing well the argument is arguing in this way during these last few years the average time the students spends watching TV playing games in the computer per day has increased so the cause is obvious students are distracted too much by watching too much TV DC plus ways whatever they download from that particular kind of thing when they need to be reading instead instead of reading they are distracted to downloading some of the movies etc they are distracted from that particular kind of thing but they might be some students you know might be downloading lots of movies and all these things but it they perform well in the exam and all but this is not the only cause for their for the dropping of the performance of scores in the standard tests and there will be several other causes which we need to take into consideration but the arguer here is trying to present some particular kind of causes a minor causal connections between the problem of standardized tests scores of standardized tests which is falling to the distractions that the students come across so there may be several other reasons are causes for the reduction or dropping of performance in the standardized tests and all it is not solely due to watching TV or DC plus pairs etc and all although they might be some of the causes for this particular kind of thing reduction but there may be several other things which we need to take into consideration okay in this case there are many other possible causal factors which needs to be considered for example in the first example that we have said that long term sentences etc and all will prevent the crime rate etc and all in that particular kind of case we can ask several other questions like have economic conditions have been improved or more jobs available have the demographics of the area changed so that the population of engman statistically the group most likely to commit violent crimes etc these are responsible for it or is smaller relative there is enough patrolling in the nights all these things are relevant causes for this particular kind of thing this is the one which we are trying to say yes since I came to the office two years ago the rate of violent crime has decreased significantly so it is clear that long prison sentences we recommended are working so that may not be the sole cause and all but there might be several other things there are other things like these things police patrolling in the nights they might be a sufficient cause for that particular thing or have the demographics of the area changed so that the population of the engman statistically the group most likely to commit violent crimes all these things are important factors to causal factors to be considered rather than imposing long term sentences now in the same way in the third example which we have discussed earlier the increase in time spending in watching movies playing computer games is likely contributed to the drop of scores that no doubt that is the case or may be if their performance in the end summit some exam but insufficient evidence is provided for the conclusion that the time spent watching TV and discipline species the sole cause and all there is no sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true so this is not the sole causes and all there may be several other causes which might be operating okay this is what is false cause kind of fallacy now we will move on to another kind of fallacy which is very interesting which is called as slippery slope kind of fallacy all of us might be aware of this slippery slope is the one which we used to play in our childhood somebody who is dropping from above ultimately you will reach down or without any much effort involved so this is one special variety of false cause fallacy and is also called as slippery slope kind of fallacy so this fallacy occurs when the argue assumes that a chain reaction will occur but there is insufficient evidence that one or more events in the chain will cause the other one so the diagram for this particular kind of argument is like this so with the diagram we can explain slippery slope kind of fallacy so usually we say that this can be treated as some kind of slippery slope somebody who is there here without any effort obviously it will come down like this usually it will be the actual slippery slope will be somewhat like this so but whatever it is is the case so now so this is what is considered to be the first innocent step so the other the argue argues that this if you make this first innocent step and all then it triggers another important reaction as a reaction to this it leads to this one and then again it obviously leads to this etc and all ultimately at the end it is going to be some kind of disaster so a single innocent step leads to some kind of complete disaster so the idea here is the argue presents in such a way that he says that you know if suppose if you make this particular kind of step this leads to the next worst step and all and this leads to automatically the next worst step there is no way to come up and all so you will be falling all the way towards the disaster and all so here in this case one is causing another one another one is causing another one this is a causal chain and all one causes another etc and all ultimately the end result is some kind of disaster and all so if that is the case then it is called as a slippery slope kind of fallacy and all so this fallacy occur when the argue assumes that a chain reaction will occur chain reaction in a sense that for example this is the first step A B C D this this triggers B B triggers C and C triggers D in every case you know there is no way in which you can come up and all so you will be moving towards the disaster only so this is the next worst step the next worst step is this the next worst one is this ultimately the end result is complete disaster but the problem here is is that this first innocent step may not lead to this particular kind of disaster and all the chain reaction might not actually take place and all but the argue represents in such a way that if you take this one it leads this actually this may not be the case and all and if you take this one this leads to this this and all ultimately it leads to disaster and all so these are some of the examples for this particular kind of argument so one example could be like this they are very interesting and exciting examples and all but actually you know this disaster may not happen in these examples and all that we are talking about so somebody is arguing in this way never buy a lottery ticket now that is the first innocent particular kind of step and all if you buy that particular lottery ticket and all so now the argue is arguing in this way that triggers another one people who buy lottery tickets so on find that they want to gamble on horses so next they develop a strong urge to go to some kind of Las Vegas to bet their life savings in the casinos etc and all betting was common there in all these kinds of games etc so now the addiction to gambling gradually ruins the family life and eventually they die homeless and lonely and all so the first step here is that buying a lottery ticket and all that makes that need not have to lead to this particular kind of thing that they want to gamble on horses and all so this because buying the lottery ticket doesn't imply that in a unit they might they get money in the lottery etc and all doesn't mean that you know you will make bets on horses etc and all and then making bets leads to some other thing like you is not happy with that particular kind of money and then you will move go on and move on to Las Vegas and bet their life savings in the casinos etc all these things may not one may not lead to the other one and all the first innocent step is that buying a lottery ticket and all that is nothing to do with ultimately the end step is that they die homeless lonely and all that may not trigger that particular kind of thing and all so this might stop here itself this may not trigger the other one itself but the argue presents in such a way that as if it is the case that this triggers this and as a chain reaction this leads to this and this leads to this since it is slippery slow now it all slips towards the disaster only there is no way in which you can recover and then come up and all because it is slippery so you will only fall and you will be falling only all the way down the line another simple example which convinces us convinces us is this particular kind of example it so happened that in our particular person told a joke in the party and all so out of his surprise it flopped and all he thought that everyone will laugh at him laugh it is joke and all but it so happened that it it flopped and all nobody laughed and then nobody showed any reaction and all so that is what has happened and all so now he is starting contemplating and all what went on wrong etc and all now he is falling into some kind of slippery slope and all so now he says this particular kind of thing so everyone were everyone thought everyone they thought that I was a loser because you know he presented a joke but nobody laughed at him he thought he was a fool or something like that so something so I will never be invited again in fact if word gets out I would not be invited anywhere now he is into some kind of slippery slope now I am sure that they are all talking about my stupid joke so I have completely ruined my chances for a decent social life and there is nothing left for me now but years of loneliness and misery how I wish so ultimately is under the impression that I wish I would never told that particular kind of joke it appears that they know just telling jokes leads to misery loneliness and all kinds of things and all it appears as if that you know the argue is presenting in such a way that one triggers another one etc and all leads to some kind of disaster and all this causal connection is questionable doubtful the first innocent step that he is going to take that is joke at the party doesn't should not imply that years of loneliness misery etc and all that is what is to be considered as a total disaster so there is no causal kind of chain which is which seems to be the case existing in this case so this is called as another kind of false cause fallacy but it comes under the category of slippery slope fallacy another interesting fallacy which we come across in the case of inductive argument is that we said that inductive arguments based on analogy or inductive arguments if the analogy is good enough then we say that it is a strong argument it is a weak analogy then it is a weak inductive argument so we use analogies to enrich our language and enlighten us with some kind of understanding when successful it becomes appropriate and all in the analogy is made successful then obviously the argument will be appropriate so when we make comparisons that seems appropriate but it is not then obviously we end up with some kind of weak analogy or a false analogy so this is the example which establishes this particular kind of problem so the diagram for this particular kind of thing is like this so in arguments based on analogy you have premises that is a structure of any argument and all you have premises and you have a conclusion and the arrow says that it depends upon that means conclusion depends upon in adequate analogy if analogy is appropriate then it is considered to be good argument and all otherwise it is called as it is it comes into the category of weak argument so when we make combinations that seems to be appropriate but it is not we think that it is appropriate but actually it is not then we end up with weak analogy or a false analogy so one example could be like this if a car break downs on the freeway a highway a passing mechanic is not obliged to render emergency road service you know so when all of a sudden if a car breaks down and all and then there is a service center somewhere else then is not obliged to offer any kind of offer any emergency road service and all you need not have to come and help you out but for a similar reasons if a person suffers from a heart attack on the street a passing physician is not obligated to render emergency medical assistance here we are comparing breaking of car with in heart attack person on the street and all this seems to be some kind of analogy and all in these kinds of things so on the one hand you know if a car breaks down in the passing mechanic need not have to be obliged to render any emergency service and all you can say I do not do anything and all so today is holiday then you come tomorrow and all but a doctor cannot do this particular kind of thing and all the time 24 by 7 he needs to offer his services and all this field itself is medicine field is self is like this that he has to offer a support to his patients 24 by 7 whenever is one is in need so you cannot this analogy is weak enough so that is why this is a kind of fallacious argument. So some other examples are this is the example for this particular kind of thing appeal to ignorance and all is somewhat different from weak analogy so in the weak analogy the problem here is that you pose some kind of conclusions but the conclusion depends upon some kind of inadequate analogy if the analogy is not strong enough then it is called as a weak inductive kind of argument. So some other examples which we can consider and so far we have studied different kinds of fallacies of weak induction now let us consider some more problems and see whether what kind of fallacy it is now this example says that after centuries of trying known as being able to prove that reincarnation occurs so at this point I think we can safely conclude that reincarnation does not occur so that is that come under the category of fallacy of ignorance now something is not false means it is true something is not true means it is false and all so this kind of thing you will come under the category of fallacy of ignorance. Some other examples like this thing is professor blogs the well-known astronomer has done extensive research on distant galaxies he points out the points out that human bodies are composed of atoms which were once part of distance stars so two blocks this some scientist this gives human life a sense of drama and significance equal to that of inherent in the world's greatest mythologies and theologies thus logs corrects the common error of supposing that materialism reduces to the drama and significance of human life and it seems to be some kind of some kind of analogy which is present in this one seems to be some kind of weak analogy kind of argument there are several examples in the test book concise introduction to logic by Patrick Hurley and one this once we solve this exercise and all we will make our this all these things will become quite clear to us another example could be day all day always follows night that is a succession and all temporal succession all and you know the T1 a T1 days the one and T2 you see night and all this is temporal succession all this temporal succession is treated as causal kind of connection then you are said to be making this false cause kind of fallacy the two are perfectly correlated therefore you know what you are saying is night causes day that is a case then it is called as a false cause kind of fallacy suppose if you say folk dancing is bad because it leads to some other kind of dancing which is western kind of thing ballroom dancing which in turn leads to some kind of modern dancing and then you are arguing that modern dancing leads to promise QT which causes total breakdown in the moral fabric of a country and hence a lapse into some kind of primitive savagery in all it looks like that you know one leads to another kind of problem one triggers another one and another triggers another one etc. and all it need not be the case that folk dance is the one which triggers the last step that is usually considered as some kind of disaster lapse into primitive savagery and all that need not have to take place in the first innocent step does not lead to this particular kind of thing it is also some kind of false cause fallacy which we studied in greater detail that is slippery slow fallacy so far we have studied in detail about fallacies of relevance and fallacies of weak induction there are three important fallacies which come under the category of presumption fallacies of presumption so these are some of the important things which which are which we commonly see in day-to-day argumentation here what will happen here is premises presume what they purport to prove and so conclusion is the one which the one which we need to establish but that is also already presumed and all in the premises so it results when an arguer makes some kind of unwarranted assumption usually such assumption is illicit illicit mate and unjustified there are three such kind of fallacies which we will be talking about there one is begging question fallacy complex question fallacy and false dilemma fallacy we will consider one particular kind of fallacy and then we will end this lecture so this is one of the frequently found kind of fallacy which goes like this an argue an argument begs the question when it assumes the point to be proved that is begging the question is also known as arguing in some kind of circles one example could be like this suppose somebody is arguing like this God exists because Bible says so on by Villa Geithar Quran says but how do I know that God that Bible says is true because girl it is God's word and God's word etc. So now here what is the guarantee that God's word is true and all again you will fall back and say that God exists because Bible says so and it the argument goes on in circles etc. and all in each step it begs some kind of question and all premises presuppose that God already exists in all based on that you are trying to argue then that's why it begs the question and all so this is called as begging question kind of fallacy. So the conclusion although valid sound at it begs some kind of question and all so from the standpoint of convincing others and from the standpoint of discovering truth the argument that begs the question is deeply flawed and all because it begs question at each and every stage and all. So let us consider another example with this you will end this lecture God does not exist suppose if you ask why then he is giving this reasons because natural selection is true and according to the natural selection all species come into being by purely blind natural forces and how do you know that natural selection is true well it is the best scientific theory and all because of this best scientific theory obviously it has to be true and all. So you are falling back on you are making arguing in some kind of circles and you are saying that scientific theories of course by definition exclude any supernatural claims and assumption that's why you know God does not exist and all one proof we have seen is God exist and all because Bible says so but here you are proving that God does not exist based on natural selection so you are falling back and natural selection and what on what basis you are saying the natural selection is true again you are saying that the best scientific theories are true and what basis your best scientific theories are true again you will say that natural selection is true and etc and so and so on. So in this lecture what we have done is this we have considered various fallacies of induction fallacies of weak induction and then we have seen that in all these cases the premises are not sufficient enough to provide adequate evidence to believe the conclusion to be true and hence it leads to weak induction and all all arguments based on weak induction are obviously fallacious and all there are some other fallacies all these fallacies are you should note that they are all persuasive mechanisms every fallacy an arguer has some intention that is to persuade the arguer or reasoner or listener and all. So in all this fallacies are some kind of persuasive mechanisms they are all important in day to day life when somebody makes this commits this particular kind of fallacy at least as a reader or listener who is following the arguments from the debates one should be able to identify the flaws in the argumentation and all. So identifying and detecting the fallacies is another important step which will which is very important in all. So in all this fallacy in this module in this part here first we started with the formal fallacies and then we moved on to informal fallacies where informal fallacies can only be detected by analyzing the content and in that we classified fallacies of relevance and then we talked about fallacies of fallacies of weak induction and then there are some fallacies which arise out of ambiguity in the language or it might arise due to some kind of presumptions and all. So begging question complex question fallacy etc these are the things which will commonly come across in day to day discourse they all come under the category of fallacies of presumption and all. So with this will end this lecture and then we will move on to formal logic from tomorrow onwards in the next lecture we will be talking about some of the important features of syllogistic logics and these are the logics which have dominated for more than 2000 years this definitely something is most important to study these particular kinds of logics which helps us in understanding some of the important concepts of modern logic. So then we will move on to propositional and predicate logic.