Note 2

Question 1

logical ways

Answer 1

deduction
induction
abduction
Argument from Analogy
Reductio ad Absurdum
Testimony

Question 2

deduction

Answer 2

(tümden gelim)

Question 3

induction

Answer 3

(tümevarım)

Question 4

abduction

Answer 4

explanatory reasoning in justifying hypotheses. Inference to the best
explanation

Question 5

Argument from Analogy

Answer 5

A special type of inductive argument, where perceived
similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has not been
observed yet.

Question 6

Reductio ad Absurdum

Answer 6

Making use of counter
examples in order not to
accept but refute claims.
showing that the
interlocutor’s view leads
toabsurditythus calling
for reconsideration.

Question 7

Testimony

Answer 7

Asking experts

Question 8

Causal Reasoning

Answer 8

A form of inductive argument
in which one event is claimed
to be the results of the
occurrence of another event.

Question 9

Empirical Generalization:

Answer 9

A form of inductive argument in which a general
statement is made about an entire group (the target
population) based on observing some members of the
group (the sample population

Question 10

validity

Answer 10

Validity is not about the content but the structure of the argument.

Question 11

premises

Answer 11

they do not
have to make sense for the argument to be valid. Thus an argument can be VALID but UNSOUND

Question 12

Soundness

Answer 12

when a valid argument has true premises

Question 13

rethoric

Answer 13

involves personal
appeals such as; personal charm,jokes or playing off people’sfears

Question 14

The principle of parsimony (Occam’s razor)

Answer 14

tells us that the simplest, most
elegant __explanation is usually the one closest to the truth.

Question 15

TAUTOLOGY

Answer 15

Saying ofthe same thing twice over in different words,
generally considered to be a fault ofstyle such inferences
do notsay anything new, does not add up to knowledge

Question 16

SLIPPERY SLOPE

Answer 16

These aremostlyrelatedto setting rules, letting things happen.the dominoeffect. we allow A and you said Z is going to be happen so that we should never allow A

Question 17

ATTACKING ASTRAW MAN

Answer 17

The fake opponent.Attacking an unreal opponent with easily refutable
arguments and objections. This unreal form of opponent is
called a “straw man,” it provides the extra advantage of not
fighting back. Mostly includes unfair ridicule therefore it can
be offensive. It isrelated to the principle of charity (or charitable
interpretation) which requires interpreting a speaker’s
statementsin the mostrational way possible and, in the case
of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible
interpretation.

Only anectodal,isolated,personaltestimonies and ideas; no argument

Question 18

AD HOMINEM FALLACY

Answer 18

Attacking the person notthe argument. Harping on the appearance, reputation,
manners, intelligence, friends
The case of geology (earthquake) professor with a pony tail,mostsexist views

Question 19

DIVERTING THE ARGUMENT to IRRELEVANT ISSUES

Answer 19

Whataboutism “Where were you when X, Y, Z happened?” questions might be
examples of it if it is followed by “… so you should not be talking about this”

DISTRACTION (“red herring”) (diverting the argument to unrelated issues) Itmight be
a tactic for wearing people out with unrelated content, or emotionally loaded
concepts (15 temmuzda bu millet şöyle yaptı bu konteynırları mı kaldıramayacak?)

Question 20

GENERALIZATIONS from INCONCLUSIVE DATA

Answer 20

Hasty (aceleci) Generalizations / Jumping into Conclusions

Question 21

Cherry Picking

Answer 21

avoid only focusing on data that supports your hypothesis while ignoring data that contradicts it

Question 22

Science is so cumbersome and not certain

Answer 22

Personalopinion (mere assertion). The factthat you accept a position (or
your neighbor got well with an unproven drug) is not sufficient for
anyone else to believe or use it.

Question 23

• Too good to be true cases can be reduced to the simplest explanation

Answer 23

Women love rich man so Tinder Swindler women are
golddiggers. A more
sophisticated
interpretation: Most of
these women might be
trapped to victim
mentality according to
which a prince charming
(with a white horse, jet in
this case) will appear to
rescue her if she puts up
with previous painful
situations. Nevertheless previous pain is not related to future
reward. This is not patience.

Question 24

Nevertheless, sometimes the issue should not be made unnecessarily complex

Answer 24

Every child has one (birth) mother
Ayşe is a child
Therefore, she has one mother

Mothering can not be confined to giving
birth. Even nature can be considered motherto all
of us.
If the claim aims illustrate deduction. This response is
fallacious.

Question 25

SUNK COST FALLACY

Answer 25

Our tendency to continue with an endeavor we've invested money, effort, or time into— even if the current costs outweigh the benefits. Since we do NOT like loosing. Our perception is distorted when it comes to loosing.

Question 26

DICHOTOMOUS REASONING (ALL-OR-NOTHING THINKING)

Answer 26

focus on the negative

Question 27

GAMBLER’S FALLACY

Answer 27

When tossing a coin odds are always the same. Even if it comes tails 5 times in a row for the sixth time the odds are still 1 to 2. Even the luckiest guess about the outcome is not knowing.

Question 28

APPEAL TO POPULARITY

Answer 28

Everybodythinksso

Question 29

APPEAL TOEMOTIONS

Answer 29

Teenager’s should not be driving cars. Licence should not be given before 20. It is terrifing. Explanation: No reference to any proof, just emotions. It can be defened but not like this

Question 30

APPEALTONOVELTY / INNOVATIONFALLACY

Answer 30

Assuming that a proposal, idea, work, or trend is better or more accurate than what came before, solely because it is newer or more recent. Since people try to be open-mined with regard to technology it is assumed that "high tech« > "low tech."

Question 31

DUBIOUS AUTHORITY

Answer 31

When expertise does notmatch the subject but the person uses personal title or charisma Old medicine’s assumptions (four humors) were false though it worked in some cases. For today using past (scientific) authority is fallicious.

Question 32

Culturalistic & Naturalistic Fallacies / Nature Nurture Debate

Answer 32

Autonomy of the Patient vs Cultural Sensitivity (Constant delibaretion and conversation is needed, do NOT assume neither culture or nature determines anything in absolute sense

Question 33

Causal Fallacies I - Misidentification ofthe cause

Answer 33

In causalsituations, we are not always certain about whatis causing what—in other words, what isthe cause and whatisthe effect?

Question 34

causal Fallacies II - Questionable Cause

Answer 34

a causal relationship for which no real evidence exists. Superstitious beliefs, such as bad luck resulting from breaking mirrors,

Question 35

Causal Fallacies III - Post hoc ergo propter hoc:

Answer 35

The translation of this Latin phrase is “After it, therefore because of it,” and it refers to those situations in which, because two things occur close together in time, we assume that one caused the other.

Question 36

Semmelweis Reflex

Answer 36

Groupthink: where consensus overrides consideration of alternatives. Whereas being well established can just be an agreement on a false belief. It can be considered a combination of Authority and Confirmation Bias