 Welcome back, in the last lecture we discussed various kinds of informal fallacies, informal fallacies which arises out of fallacy of relevance, if the premises are not relevant to the conclusion then these kinds of fallacies arises, and informal fallacies can only be detected by analyzing the content of the argument. So whereas formal fallacies which we have studied earlier, so those fallacies which can be detected only by the form of the argumentation, so formal fallacies usually arises in the case of deductive arguments whereas informal fallacies might arise in the case of other kinds of arguments that we use in day to day discourse mostly inductive kind of arguments. So in the last class we studied different kinds of informal fallacies which come under the category of fallacies of relevance, and you should note that this is not a final kind of classification, this classification is only we are using it for our convenience to classify these fallacies into some kind of group, we are grouping it into some kind of thing you know. So under informal fallacies we are studying fallacies of relevance under which we studied different kinds of fallacies such as fallacies by appealing to force, fallacies by invoking pity in the mind of a reader or listener or fallacies such as ad hominem kind of fallacy, fallacy of accident and missing the point kind of fallacy etc. So today we will be studying two more fallacies which are under the category of fallacies of relevance, they are red herring and strawman arguments. So these two are extremely important kind of fallacies usually we find these kinds of fallacies in day to day argumentation etc. So in all the fallacies that we have discussed we have an arguer and we have a reader or listener or sometimes it may be an opponent or sometimes there is a different arguer and all. So an arguer presents some kind of today we will be discussing two important kind of fallacies they are red herring and strawman fallacy. So what is a red herring kind of fallacy? So in the red herring kind of fallacy here is an arguer A so here is your reader or listener R stands for reader, reader in a sense that you will be reading somebody's arguments and all or listener and you will be listening to somebody's arguments and all. So A the arguer draws off track the reader or listener and he poses some kind of conclusion and all. So this is what he wants to persuade the reader or listener to accept. So what he does here is he draws off track the reader or listener and he poses some kind of conclusion and all. So what he does here is he changes the subject matter of the argument maybe that subject matter might be of interest to the reader or listener. So he will show a lot of interest to that subject matter so A knows that reader or listener is interested in such kind of subject matter so A easily draws off track the reader or listener and poses some kind of conclusion and all. So he starts with some particular kind of thing but he changes the subject matter and his conclusions will be based on whatever he has changed it and all whatever the subject matter which he has changed it in the due course. So the one of the important things you should note is note here is this that the reader or listener may not be in a position to point out that you know A is drawing off track the argument and all. So reader or listener may not be in a position to notice it now so we A cleverly draws off track the reader or listener and then you will pose some kind of conclusion in that case it is called as red herring kind of argument. So in the red herring kind of arguments the structure of the arguments will be like this your premises will be something like something relevant to the topic at hand is described and then he changes the subject matter of that particular kind of thing and then in the conclusion what happens is a distracting but often unnoticed change of subject occurs that is the thing which he achieves in the premises and then different kind of conclusion follows it. Let us consider one simple example to see where the argue is trying to off track the reader or listener. So here is an example there is a good deal of talk these days about the need to eliminate pesticides from our fruits from our fruit and vegetables. So he is talking something relevant to the topic the topic at hand is the pesticides and all. So now he draws off track the reader or listener in this way now he goes on and talks about this particular kind of thing but many of these foods are essential to our health carrots are an excellent source of vitamin A. Bracoli is rich in iron oranges and grapes etc fruits are which are having high vitamin C and all he started with the subject matter pesticides that is eliminating pesticides and all then he changed the subject matter to the importance of vitamins in the diet etc and all. So this although it seems to be the case that he is talking about the fruits but he is talking about something else you know so he changed the subject matter from pesticides to there is a subtle change in the subject matter and all. So then so he has to the conclusion here is that somehow he wants to establish that we need to eliminate the pesticides from our fruits and vegetables and all but he is saying that you know that should not be the case and all. So by invoking some kind of importance of these fruits dietary consequences etc and all what kind of vitamins are present in that particular kind of fruit etc is focusing on some other topic and then he poses some kind of conclusion and all actually what the arguer is trying to show here is that we need not have to eliminate pesticides from fruits and vegetables and all. So why in what way what sense he is arguing he is arguing that all these things consist of vitamins etc and all so that is why we should not eliminate pesticides from our fruits and vegetables and all. So the subject matter has been changed from pesticides to the importance of vitamins in the fruits etc and all. So with that he poses some kind of conclusions whatever he wants to convince the reader or listener and all in that case the arguer A is said to have committed the fallacy which is called as red herring fallacy. This red herring fallacy as I mean got his name in a sense that usually some kind of hunting dogs they are usually trained to follow some kind of scent. So whenever I mean they will if they if it is a good hunting dog and all it will be able to able to chase the scent and then so it will not be after I can also it will be able to chase the scent in particular in sense etc. So this red herring has come from that particular kind of idea and all. So here the reader in general after acts the reader or listener and poses some kind of conclusion and all and hence he seems to be committing this particular kind of fallacy. Another kind of fallacy which you commonly see is this that is called as a strawman argument. In the strawman argument you have an arguer and you have an opponent and then what the arguer does is the arguer attacks the misrepresentation of the opponent's view and all. So the idea here is to describe something that sounds like you know opponent's view but it is easier to knock down and then to refute and all. So usually these strawman arguments will have this particular kind of structure premise will be like this that a misrepresentation of the view is usually false he shows that it is false and all and the conclusion is that actually that view is false and all. So in this case what happens is this thing instead of a drawing of track the reader or listener instead of reader or listener you have an opponent may be your enemy or may be something else whom you do not like and all. So what he does here is instead of changing the subject matter subtly and all minimally etc and all here what he does is he distorts the original argument and all. So he knows that opponents arguments cannot be suppose if it takes opponents argument actual argument into consideration there is no way in which he can conclude he can come up with some kind of misrepresentation and then he cannot show that the opponents arguments are false and all or unsolved. So what he does is he distorts the opponents argument and then he poses some kind of conclusion in that process a is said to be committing this strawman kind of fallacy. So how this name has come into existence so this is what is the actual man let us say actual person or something like that and then this is what is strawman etc which he is trying to construct. So actual man person will be having some actual arguments which the argue knows it is very difficult to attack and all so this is the actual argument presented by his opponent and all but what he does is corresponding to the actual man he constructs a straw and then this strawman or straw person is corresponding to some kind of straw kind of argument these are not actual arguments and all. So now what he does here is he knocks down the strawman it destroys the strawman in a sense that he is destroying strawman's argument and all. So that means he is attacking the arguments of a strawman rather than the actual person actual person he knows that he cannot attack those arguments and all. So what he does is he distorts the argument by constructing some kind of straw person and attaches some kind of straw arguments to him and then he knocks down this straw person and he thinks that actually he has attacked the actual argument and all but what he has done argue has done is he distorted the argument and then he has given some kind of misrepresentation of what the actual misrepresentation of an actual argument or the actual arguer might be arguing something else here in this case opponent and all. So he knocks down the straw and thinks that he has knocked down the argument of an actual person but actually that is not the case so he knocked down the strawman and the knocked down only the misrepresentation of what we see in the actual argument of an opponent and all. So if that happens then this is called as some kind of strawman kind of argument and all actually he is knocking down the strawman rather than the actual person corresponding to actual person is corresponding to the actual argument strawman is having strawman argument straw argument you can say. So the structure of this argument has this particular kind of thing a misrepresentation of the view he shows that you know already distorted the argument and all and then he has come up with some kind of misrepresentation of an argument so he could come up with some kind of misrepresentation of opponents argument then he can clearly show that that is false and all but actually the arguer is not the arguer in question is not presenting this particular kind of argument you know it is the opponent who has misrepresented the view of an actual argument or actual argue whatever actual arguer is trying to say. So since he distorted the argument and then he showed that it is a misrepresentation it is it is constituting to be a misrepresentation obviously you can show that if you distort the argument and misrepresent it and then that view may be turned out to be false and all so strawman consist of making your own position appear strong by making the opposing opponents position appear weaker than actually it is so an opponent has presented some kind of argument in all so that may be very strong enough and all in which the arguer is not able to attack him so what he does now he misrepresents his original argument and all and then he distorts the argument and he comes up with a different kind of argument which is called as misrepresentation of an actual argument. So the intention of an arguer is that he wants to make the opponents position weaker and all he can only do it by distorting the argument you have to note here that the arguer is not trying to change the subject matter of an argument like in the case of red herring he is not drawing off track the arguer or leader or listener and all where he change the subject matter very subtly and all which know the reader or leader may not a reader or listener may not be able to identify that particular kind of change in the subject matter but here arguer clearly distorts the argument of an opponent and all so if that happens whatever I explained here if the arguer distorts the argument of an opponent and puts his position in such a way that his arguments are very weak then obviously can attack an opponent's argument and all if that is a case then a is said to have committed this particular kind of fallacy which is called as straw man fells. So some examples might help us in understanding this concept in a better way so an arguer is arguing in this way Mr. Goldberg whatever is considered in this argument is usually considered an opponent of an arguer so he is arguing the arguer is arguing like this Mr. Goldberg has argued against prayer in the public schools so that is what is the actual thing which Goldberg is trying to say maybe he has argued for against the public schools to maintain some secularism all kinds of things maybe it might be a very strong argument etc. Now it is very difficult to find flaws with that particular kind of argument so now the arguer is saying here now Goldberg is opponent for this arguer and all so now the arguer is goes on and says that Mr. Goldberg advocates atheism is position in which he do not believe the existence of God but atheism is what they used to have in Russia in the past atheism leads to the suppression of all religions and the replacement of God by an omnipotent state so he is distorting the actual argument actual argument is the argument against the prayer in the public schools for some reason he might have provided these kinds of reasons and all one can be an atheist but still he can argue for against atheist and still he can argue against the prayer and all since he if he has some secular values etc and all he can still argue for argument against the prayer and all in the public schools so he goes on and says that is it what we want for this country etc and all I hardly think so clearly Mr. Goldberg's argument is nonsense so ultimately he wants to show that Goldberg's argument is nonsense but if it takes Goldberg's actual arguments into consideration he may not be able to do that particular kind of now he is distorted the argument and then he is bringing in all the irrelevant factors such as atheism is an atheist and what happened in Russia all these things and then atheism leads to suppression of all religions etc and all it need not be the case or replacement of God by some kind of omnipotent state as Marx was pointing out all these things may not be relevant to what actually Goldberg is trying to argue so here what happened was is that Goldberg who is considered to be an opponent of an arguer he has put his position in such a way that the arguments look very weak and so he distorted the argument and then he destroyed the distorted argument and all so ultimately his intention is to show that Goldberg's argument is nonsense if it takes the actual argument he cannot say that particular kind of thing so he changes he distorts the argument according to his convenience and then he shows that whatever follows from the distorted argument he will show that that is obviously false you know he constructs in a very nice way in a clever way you know in which you know obviously it will look like a weak argument and all that is what it does distorts the argument and then he poses a conclusion based on the distorted argument and all so in that case the arguer is seems to have persuaded the reader or listener and then he poses this particular kind of conclusion then the opponent should be in a position to say that your the arguer has distorted the argument you know so one should be clever enough to identify whether the arguers the arguers intention is he trying to destroy this to distort the argument or is trying to change the subject matter as in the case of red herring fallacy so there are other examples which we take into consideration suppose if an arguer is arguing in this way for example we desperately somebody argues like this we desperately need a nationalized health care program that looks well and good and all so those who oppose it think that there are many people who seems to be opposing at that moment for example so now he is attacking the opponents whosoever is opposing this particular kind of nationalized health care program so now those who oppose it think that private sector will take care of the need of the poor but this has not been the case in the past and will not be obviously will not be in the future etc and all that may not be directly relevant to the need for an nationalized health care program again it seems to be distorting the argument and then he is talking about something else so if we if an arguer distorts the argument of an opponent then the arguer is said to have committed this particular kind of fallacy which is called as fallacies fallacies of relevance and that is called as straw man kind of fallacy so in simple terms so what what actually is doing is actual person is corresponding to some kind of actual arguments straw person construct another straw man which is a imaginary kind of thing which is which he thinks that easily you can knock down the straw straw person and all and then he attributes some kind of argument to the straw person and then he knocks down the straw and then he thinks that is actually destroyed the original argument original argument stands as it is but what he has knocked down is the straw person and corresponding the distorted kind of argument and all from that some kind of conclusion follows from there so this is what is considered to be straw man kind of argument sometimes these arguments may also be very persuasive and sometimes they may not be any fallacy involved in these particular kind of examples suppose if one argues that emissive is the view that nothing should be believed in unless until it can be directly observed so now one can see here taste metal touch protons electrons quarks etc and all you can see the effects of these things so while imprecise pretend to be advocates of science their views in fact rule out most of the advanced physical science of our times most of the advanced physical science of our times involves the presence of electrons protons etc and all which we can only see the effects of these things but you cannot directly see the things in all so that seems to be a good and well crafted kind of argument for this particular kind of view so so now what is the difference between the straw man and red herring kind of fallacy both are fallacies of relevance so the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion because in the one case in the case of red herring the arguer changes the subject matter whereas in the case of straw man the arguer distorts the argument there is a difference between change of subject matter and totally distorting the argument so in the case of straw man the first thing which we need to note is that arguer distorts the opponent's argument so how he does it he constructs a straw man and he knocks down the straw man straw person and say that actually knock down the original argument which is attached to the original arguers argument in the case of red herring the arguer either changes the topic or subject matter so he knows that the reader or listener is interested or passionate about some kind of subject matter and all he knows when to change the subject matter of an argument so he slightly changes the subject matter and then he poses conclusion based on the changed kind of subject matter and all so in that case it is called as red herring so in the case of straw man opponents position is mischaracterized or misrepresented in such a way that it is easier to represent and dismiss if he has represented if he has correctly represented him it is very difficult to argue against his position and all so he knows that he has to misrepresent his position somewhere other so he constructs straw man and correspond to that straw argument and all which is which he imagines to be the actual argument but actually that is not the case. So in the case of red herring a distraction is introduced into the discourse in order to lead an opponent or audience away from the issue at hand so it clearly knows when to introduce this distraction and all in that case in arguer may not be in a position to notice the change in the subject matter and all so it cleverly does it when to change it when went to change the subject matter etc and all the arguer is smart enough to know the particular kind of thing so a distraction is introduced into the discourse in order to lead an opponent or an audience away from the issue at hand that is what happens in the case of red herring third one in the straw man and arguer attributes a position to someone that actually did not take into consideration is not having that particular kind of view is not responsible for that particular kind of argument and all but you know he misrepresents him and then he attributes some kind of position which is actually not accepted by that actual arguers arguments which you will not find it in the actual arguer's argument. So in the case of red herring usually what happens is ignoring the actual subject matter and all so he draws off track from the original topic and then he moves to some other topic which is closely relevant to the initial topic and all so ignore ignorance is what is considered to be important here so in the case of straw man fourth point is that it always involves two arguers so that is for distorting an argument you need to have an your opponent and all an arguer an opponent and then you will be distorting your opponents position and all so that means at least two arguers are important in the case of straw man but in the case of red herring one arguer who is arguing particular kind of thing is sufficient enough he is drawing off track reader or listener who may not be involved in the particular kind of argument and all so it may not be directly involved in that particular kind of thing so one arguer is enough for this particular kind of fallacy in the case of red herring. So another for example you find it in the textbooks for example you are the reader or listener you are not directly engaged in the argument and all but in the case of straw man two people are actually involved in the argument one is usually the arguer who wants to misrepresent his opponents position another one is opponent he is also another kind of argue just in the case of ad hominem arguments also two arguers are important because ad hominem arguments are always directed towards another arguer and all so it is in response to what others argue and then even will be responding to a two's argument okay this is one of the important differences between straw man and red herring although it looks like that change of subject matter is same as distorting the argument but actually that is not the case so the fifth one is this that in the straw man it tries to justify the rejection of a position by an attack on different and usually a weaker kind of position and all so actual person has an actual argument which is strong argument for example then he changes are misrepresent it in such a way that that will look very weak kind of argument or it changes it distorts argument and all he looks like you know premises may be weak enough to support the conclusion and all then he totally distorted the argument and all and then he shows that the conclusion is false in all conclusion does not follow from the premises so fallacies one of the important definitions of fallacies is that one does not follow from something non sequitur that is the one the phrase that we have used earlier so in the case of red herring fallacy what happens is that it tries to justify the conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand because you know is change the subject matter of the sentence subject matter of the argument and all so that is totally different and all from that he poses some kind of conclusion actually could have done it from the actual subject matter and all then it would not have created problem here it cleverly change the subject matter it draws after act the reader or listener and then he is posing some kind of conclusion and all so that led to this red herring kind of fallacy is some of the important differences between strawmen and red herring and then so usually in the case of a red herring argument argue or ignores opponents argument if there is any such kind of conclusion which is present in this argument and certainly subtly change the subject matter it will not change the subject matter completely and all it changes very subtly and all in the case of strawmen it distorts an opponent's argument and concludes by knocking down the distorted argument so it presents some kind of distorted argument he knocks down the distorted argument it is just like knocking down the stop rather than the actual so this is what happens in the case of strawmen argument so there are some examples which we can take into consideration a little bit later but so these examples will consider it a little bit later for example so far we have studied about various kinds of fallacies let us consider it is some three examples and all and we will see what kind of fallacy it is it is somewhat some fallacy of relevance of fallacy may be a formal fallacy etc. Let us consider the first example all the really hot new thinkers are using principles from socio biology so now it is a new wave in ethics so we should accept the principles of socio biology so this fallacy seems to be like you know fallacy by appealing to people it is also called as band wagon kind of argument 99 people does something and then you do not want to be singled out from that particular kind of thing and you also start believing that particular kind of thing since it is a popular new wave in ethics there does not mean that you should accept the principles of socio biology even if 99 people accept it but still you can critically examine it and then you can consider some of the weak points of it and then you get you cannot have to accept the principles of socio biology so this is appeal to people kind of fallacy so it is like you know 99 people jump in a flung into the well that does not mean that you should also jump into the well and all now consider the second argument professor Kapoor this paper merits at least be this is what the student is arguing with a professor I stayed up all night working on it and if I do not get B and I will put on academic probation and my grades will suffer and so on and so forth will happen my entire family is dependent on me I am coming from the poor family all these things you know is tries to say so ultimately the conclusion is that this paper merits at least that means I should get at least B so getting B is dependent on so many other factors in all it is not what the argue is trying to do here is he invokes evokes pity in the mind of professor Kapoor and then he is posing this particular kind of conclusion the conclusion is that you should get B so this is clearly an argument from pity third one smoking cigarettes can harm one's health so it is best to avoid smoking assuming one wants to be healthy so it seems that there does not seem to be any particular kind of fallacy because smoking causes harm to one's health and all there seems to be no fallacy in this particular kind of argument there is no mistake in this argument so these examples will consider little bit later now we will move on to inductive arguments inductive arguments can also be fallacious so what are the inductive arguments when inductive arguments are fallacious and it is called as fallacies of weak induction so far we have studied fallacies of relevance where the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion in most of the cases in this case what happens here is premises are not sufficient enough to provide evidence to believe the conclusion to be true they are usually considered as weak arguments weak arguments are automatically considered to be fallacious kind of arguments so all inductive arguments can be fallacious so inductive arguments are defined as arguments that are intended to be usually strong or weak enough but inductive argument cannot can never be valid or invalid if you use this concepts validity and invalidity or if you attribute validity and invalidity to inductive arguments there is a mistake which will be the mistake we can only talk about strength of the inductive argument so these are some of the examples which we have already discussed in greater detail a deductive argument is like this all crows are black so there is a crow on the top of the charmina then it has to be black and all crows are black it is a kind of generalization without any exception if you believe that particular kind of thing to be true then if you find some other kind of crow on the top of the charmina then it has to be black it cannot be white provided you take into consideration all crows are black is absolutely true and all there is no exception for that particular kind of thing but actually in day to day discourse that is not the case a better best thing to represent this argument is most of the crows are black so inductive argument is this that in all crows that we have observed so far are black it is based on your observations etc and then based on your observations you move you are moving beyond whatever you observe and you are predicting that probably all crows are black you know in color so the conclusion always goes beyond what is stated in the premises conclusion need not have to follow necessarily from the premises and then there is always some kind of new information and these arguments are all defeasable kind of arguments that means addition of new information lead to the withdrawal of your conclusions that you have derived earlier so these are some of the inductive arguments basically you will find inductive generalizations for example if you say I have lots of friends most of them think that I would make great president of Jim Khanna IITK so most of the IITK students probably agree with it so it need not be the case that most of the IITK students would not probably agree with this particular kind of thing you know just because you have lots of friends does not mean that he will be elected as some kind of Jim Khanna president in all or everyone wants him to be some kind of president of Jim Khanna of IITK or suppose you know we make this kind of inductive generations all the time suppose if a mess worker in the hostel stole may by skill in all so I will come to some kind of sweeping generation I will say that all mess workers are thieves you know so it is a kind of some kind of sweeping generalization in all so when the generations are not used in a proper sense if you use some kind of sweeping generation then that is considered to be a mistake in the argumentation in all so when we talk about slippery inductive generalizations then we will discuss all these things in greater detail inductive generations can be also be fallacious in all so some questions we need to ask for this particular kind of thing that is all the premises are acceptable is the sample too small is a sample bias prejudice in all prejudices biases are there in the argument or the results affected by other sources of bias all these things we need to ask to come up with some kind of good inductive generalization otherwise it will lead to some kind of fallacy so why this I am talking more about this inductive generalizations here is a this is an argument presented by a famous philosopher Hume David Hume his argument is called as Hume's skeptical argument believing this justification of inductive generalization so under what basis an inductive generalization can be justified an inductive generalization can be like this for example if you say metal one starts expanding upon heating metal two starts upon expands upon heating and then you will generalize it and say that all metals expands upon heating you know so this is this source has some kind of inductive generalization and then gradually you will elevate it to some kind of lost statement you know so now under what conditions these kind of inductive generalizations can be justified so Hume has presented some kind of skeptical argument he says that it cannot be justified either by means of principles of logic or by means of induction itself or by experience you know so he says that our inductive generalization seems to rest on the assumption that unobserved cases will follow from the patterns that we discovered in so far from the observed cases in all so from the observed cases unobserved kind of things follows in all most of the crows that you observed so far are black in color the next row that you are going to see which is not there in the premises in all so that is unobserved kind of thing so we are predicting that the next row that you are going to see is also going to be black enough so from you are moving from observed to unobserved kind of cases in all so that is our inductive generalization seem to presuppose that nature operates uniformly and all so what is a guarantee that this will lead to the next one and all the next row is also going to be black and all 99% of the cases tells us that that is going to be black and all usually predictor gut feeling says that the next bird that you are going to see is also going to be black in color so how do we know that that is going to be the case in all in the next place also that is going to be true then we are relying on the principle of uniformity of nature inverse doesn't behave in a random way and all it behaves in the in a uniform way etc and all so because of that obviously the next bird that you are going to see is also turn out to be black in so the way things are observed to behave here and now are accurate indicators of how things behave anywhere and at any time but what right can we assume that the nature is uniform how do we know that universe is governed by this principle of uniformity of nature so he goes on and says that because this claim itself assets a contingent matter of fact it could only be established by inductive reasoning so the idea here is very simple that is under what basis you can say that sun rises in the east tomorrow and all so it arose in the east all the time that you every time you got up from the bed you saw that sun rises in the east under what basis you can justify that the unobserved case that is about tomorrow's thing under what conditions it is is going to arise in the east only so you are saying that since universe behaves in a certain way and then it behaved in a certain order orderly way yesterday may be day for yesterday etc and all universe also behaves in the same way may be day after tomorrow also or may be tomorrow also so under what basis you can justify this particular kind of inductive generalizations and all you are relying on principle of uniformity of nature what is principle of uniformity of nature again it is some kind of form of inductive induction and all so that means induction is justified by induction itself like sun always rises in the east or all metals expands upon heating etc then we are relying on principle of uniformity of nature universe always behaves in a certain way and we don't have any exceptions etc and all and we assume that universe also behaves in the same way may be tomorrow or may be day after tomorrow also it behaves in the same way etc and all that makes this uniformity of nature and all so Hume says that if induction inductive generalizations are justified by principle of uniformity of nature which itself is some kind of induction then it leads to some kind of circularity you know so principle of uniformity of nature that is the claim that itself asserts some contingent matter of fact it could only be established by some kind of inductive reasoning you know so that means principle of uniformity of nature worked yesterday principle of uniformity of nature work day for yesterday etc is going to work tomorrow and all the time it works and all that is a kind of inductive argument but because all inductive reasoning presupposes that the principle of nature is uniform that means any inductive justification of this principle would always seem to be circular because we want to just if you are asked to justify inductive generalizations like all metals expands upon heating or sun always rises in the east etc and all you are falling back on principle of uniformity of nature which itself is nothing but a kind of inductive kind of argument so induction is justified by induction so it leads to some kind of circularity so it seems then that we all have no ultimate justification for inductive reasoning at all so that is what is the skeptical argument of fume even till today there was no appropriate solution for this particular kind of argument how to justify induction but we heavily rely on induction in natural sciences in particular that whenever a scientist is coming up with some kind of law statement what you will be making is simply some kind of inductive generalization and inductive generalizations based on some principle of uniformity of nature etc you always takes it for granted that principle universe behaves in a certain way in order etc and all suppose what happens if the universe does not behave in the same in the same order that we are trying to expect and all so then the principle of uniformity of nature may turn out to be false and then and inductive generalization rested on principle of uniformity of nature can be questioned and all so this is the skeptical argument presented by whom and then ultimately concluded that inductive generalizations cannot be justified and all if it is justified it has to be based on either deduction which cannot be the case because inductive arguments cannot be justified by by invoking some kind of deduction and all in the case of deduction it is obvious that conclusion necessarily follows from the premises but clearly in this case inductive generalizations is always be the case that conclusion goes beyond what is stated in the premises so induction cannot be justified by deduction that is ruled out but whether and under what condition induction can be justified and all so then you are saying that principle of uniformity of nature that is making you to believe that sun always rises in the east is going to be true today tomorrow or may be day after tomorrow also or may be all the time that you observe sun after getting up from your bed so induction what is the principle of uniformity of nature that is again induction only induction cannot be justified by induction so in either cases there seems to be a problem so that is why you pose some kind of skeptical kind of conclusion means that means doubtful kind of conclusion that you know induction cannot be inductive generalizations cannot be justified so we look into this aspect may be greater detail later but so this is a reference in which you know you will find this particular kind of argument David Hume a treatise of human nature second edition Oxford University Press in 146 page you might find a skeptical kind of argument so forget about this negative aspect of inductive kind of arguments and all but inductive arguments are useful for us and their inductive generalizations are important in coming up with some kind of law statements etc and all scientists require this inductive generalizations and all so then you know once you propose law statements they can elevate it to some kind of formal theory and etc and all so I have said in the beginning that even inductive arguments can also be fallacious and all when all the weak inductive arguments are obviously fallacious arguments in a sense that premises will not be sufficient enough for they are not providing adequate support to believe the conclusion to be true and all so all the inductive arguments which we spoke about in the basic concepts they lead to this particular kind of fallacies so these are some of the important fallacies of weak induction number one appeal to unqualified authority the Latin name of that one is argumentum ad vericundium and second one appeal to ignorance because you know all these arguments come under the category of inductive arguments if the premises are not providing sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true then it leads to the weak argument all weak arguments are fallacious arguments and then hasty generalization false cause slippery slope weak analogy all this comes under they are all weak these are inductive arguments if they are weak enough then they are called as fallacies of weak induction fallacies of weak induction arises especially when your premises are not able to provide sufficient evidence to believe your conclusion to be true in that case then it leads to fallacies of weak induction let us consider one example one the first one that is fallacy of weak induction arises because of appealing to unqualified otherity so this arises in this particular way the diagram for this one is like this so what happens here is that argue or cite some kind of unqualified authority and then he poses some kind of conclusion so this is what happens here so you have an argue a so what he does is he cites some kind of authority unqualified authority so a u means unqualified qualified and then he poses a conclusion that means his conclusion is based on falling back on some kind of unqualified authority if it is based on qualified authority and all then there doesn't seem to be mistake in the argumentation so it is not considered as fallacy of weak induction because strong argument so definitely it is not a fallacy of weak induction so now the question that comes to us is what constitutes a qualified authority and what constitutes an unqualified authority and all there are some fields in which it is very difficult to say that a person has any authority and all one is religion politics ethics etc all these values etc and all somebody who is studying about values it is very difficult to become an expertise in this particular kind of area and all so somebody is arguing something related to political kind of thing and all it is very difficult to have authority on this particular kind of subjects so we can question the authority of a person especially when he is talking when he is making some claims about values judgments etc and all so what is considered as appeal to unqualified authority this argument looks like this it is an argument in which the conclusion is based on the judgment of someone who is not actually the an authority on the issue at hand so it refers to unqualified authority and he poses some kind of conclusion or it is an argument which is based on the judgment of a genuine authority on the issue at hand but concerns an issue about which there is no disagreement among experts in the field and all then also it is called as an unqualified authority and all the problem here is that although he refers to some kind of genuine authority and all but the problem here is that there is a disagreement among experts in the field and all so then that is also considered to be some kind of unqualified authority so these are some of the examples which we take into consideration but we did not answer what constitutes a qualified authority what constitutes an unqualified authority and all for example a person who has expertise expertise in politics etc he may not be able to you may not be having expertise in medicine or what kind of drugs one should take etc and all or a person may be having other routine one or more fields as well a person who is good in mathematics will may be good in physics as well so he has different kinds of expertise in all may be more than one field and on the same way for example a mathematician all of a sudden starts claiming that everyone should take some drug prescribes some kind of drug etc and all then you know we will usually question his expertise so when somebody poses some kind of a conclusion based on even though he is a great mathematician and all but still you know we will be doubtful about his particular kind of arguments and all because he is not having expertise in the medicine now. So let us consider a simple example and then we will end this lecture so Tom Jones a respected actor who plays the brilliant cardiologist let us say Dr. John Smith in the film emergency recommend some kind of drug in improving the overall health of the heart so therefore it would be wise to take this particular kind of drug you know I might be a fan of Tom Jones or etc and all and I admire him a lot etc and all he acted brilliantly as a cardiologist etc and all but does not mean that if he starts prescribing some kind of drug then you start believing taking his statements seriously that means you should use it would be wise to take drug X then if you conclude that it would be wise to take drug X then and the argue or is citing some kind of unqualified authority unqualified authority in a sense that is differing to an actor who is not having any expertise in the medicine and is posing this particular kind of conclusion that it would be wise to take drug X and so in this lecture what we have seen is we have discussed fallacies of informal fallacies especially fallacies of in informal fallacies in the sense that fallacies of relevance under which we discussed straw man and red herring arguments we discussed in detail the distinction between the red herring fallacy and straw man's argument on the one hand we have change of subject matter is the one which you see in the case of straw man argument where the arguer draws off track the reader or listener and in the case of straw man the argue distorts the argument and misrepresent the original position of an argument and he poses some conclusion he shows that the arguer's argument is weak enough because misrepresentation out of misrepresentation he concludes something and which shows that the argument arguer's argument are weak enough then we moved on to inductive generalizations and then we discussed about whether these inductive generalizations can be justified etc and then we have presented Hume's skeptical argument and then we showed that inductive generalizations cannot be justified either by deduction or by induction and all. If you justify it based on deduction then inductive arguments cannot be justified by deduction and inductive arguments are justified by induction then it leads to some kind of circularity. So despite having these problems with the inductive generalizations we moved on to some of the mistakes that we commonly make with respect to inductive arguments and all. So when we make mistakes with respect to inductive arguments they are called as fallacies of weak induction. So one particular kind of fallacy we discussed that is fallacy by appealing to unqualified authority. So when an arguer is citing an unqualified authority who is not having expertise in that particular area and then he poses some particular kind of conclusion and we are said to have committed this fallacy of unqualified authority. So in the next lecture we will be covering some other interesting and exciting kind of fallacies which come under the category of fallacies of weak induction. So they are fallacies which arises out of cause and effect or it may be kind of slippery slope and some other very interesting kind of fallacies which we will discuss it in the next lecture. In all these fallacies one of the most important thing you should notice is that premises are not able to there now we are an arguer especially the premises are not enough to provide sufficient evidence to believe the conclusion to be true then these kinds of fallacies arises in all. So the arguments are weak so that is why they are called as weak induction. So in the next class we will continue with slippery slope and some other very interesting kind of fallacies weak analogy etc. We will study in greater detail in the next class.