Critical Thinking Discussion
1. Finding Fallacies 2.For this discussion, you will need to identify fallacies in a real life situation. 1) Identify two informal fallacies. It can be from a newspaper, radio talk show, cable news channel, or even from a conversation with a friend. You should not have to look very hard to find them. You cannot use the same fallacy twice. You must find two different fallacies. And you cannot use appeal to pity, emotion, or the person. These are too easy and common. You will have to find some other ones. 2) Write out a discussion post that is at least 250 words. First, tell us what is the name of the fallacy you identified, give us a general definition of the fallacy, and where you found it. Second, share with us the example that you found. Third, tell us why it is a fallacy. You are not required to do a response post for this discussion. Here are some ideas to help you get started. ● Locate the letters to the editor section of a newspaper or magazine and select a letter containing what you believe is a logical fallacy. Critically evaluate the author’s argument, and share with us the fallacy. ● Find a newspaper editorial or an op-ed piece that you believe commits a logical fallacy. Critically evaluate the author’s argument, and share with us the fallacy.● Listen to a talk radio show or a TV pundit on cable news. Evaluate the argument given, and share with us the fallacy.● Describe a scene in a movie in which a character gives an argument that is a logical fallacy. Which fallacy is it? 2. Conspiracy Theories For this discussion, you will need to do the following. 1) Read chapter 8 of Concise Guide to Critical Thinking, paying close attention to the criteria of adequacy (pages 157-166). 2) Select a paranormal claim or conspiracy theory that interests you from this website. Here is the link: http://skepdic.com/tifraud.html (Links to an external site.) 3) Apply the criteria of adequacy to the paranormal claim or conspiracy theory that you selected. This means that you are going to attempt to offer a more rational explanation to the claim. The goal is for you to come up with a more logical explanation for the event than the one proposed by the paranormal claim or conspiracy theory. Make sure you apply each part of the criteria of adequacy (testability, simplicity, scope, fruitfulness, and conservatism) to the claim you selected.