Global Climate Change Argument
Fallon Mullen
The Global Climate Change argument video that we viewed is highly complex and interesting and highlights the use of logic to decipher a conclusion from an argument that is heated and reoccurring. As I watched the video I felt that the argument fit the form of Modus Tollens and Modus Ponens.
Modus Ponens:
If we act, then the world won’t end
We acted
So, the world won’t end.
Modus Tollens:
If we act, then the world won’t end
The world is not going to end
So, we don’t need to act.
One may read that and get the impression that it is not a valid argument but it is actually a valid argument in logic; no matter what side you may choose to support in the Global Climate Change argument. If the form …show more content…
One of the fallacies I found was slippery slope. Slippery slope is a fallacy that asserts some event such as the world ending must inevitably follow from lack of action by government. Greg Craven, the logician in the video states that there will be “sea level rising, entire coastal countries disappearing, hundreds of millions of people displaced crowding their neighbors and causing warfare over scarce resources, entire forests burn, massive droughts, catastrophic floods, famines, disease epidemic and hurricanes.” He says all of these things will result in the world ending. Now maybe that is true and I understand he is depicting the worst but I feel it suits the slippery slope fallacy. Another fallacy I believe was committed is appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy that lacks opposing evidence to the conclusion being argued. Now, I agree that his conclusion is inescapable but Greg Craven says that column A is “the only responsible choice and the only defensible choice” which I feel could be an appeal to ignorance lacking contrary opinion and portraying his conclusion as the end all be all decision. The third fallacy I felt was present was post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is a logical fallacy that states if a certain event has happened that followed another event they must be associated. Greg Craven speaks of the scenario in which we act but the Global Climate Change crisis winds up being false, he says, “Lets say we wind up with massive layoffs caused by Draconian regulation which sparks a recession which spirals into a global depression.” I feel this may include post hoc ergo propter hoc because it has the connotation that spending the money with no real global climate change crisis would certainly result in economic
Fallon Mullen
The Global Climate Change argument video that we viewed is highly complex and interesting and highlights the use of logic to decipher a conclusion from an argument that is heated and reoccurring. As I watched the video I felt that the argument fit the form of Modus Tollens and Modus Ponens.
Modus Ponens:
If we act, then the world won’t end
We acted
So, the world won’t end.
Modus Tollens:
If we act, then the world won’t end
The world is not going to end
So, we don’t need to act.
One may read that and get the impression that it is not a valid argument but it is actually a valid argument in logic; no matter what side you may choose to support in the Global Climate Change argument. If the form …show more content…
One of the fallacies I found was slippery slope. Slippery slope is a fallacy that asserts some event such as the world ending must inevitably follow from lack of action by government. Greg Craven, the logician in the video states that there will be “sea level rising, entire coastal countries disappearing, hundreds of millions of people displaced crowding their neighbors and causing warfare over scarce resources, entire forests burn, massive droughts, catastrophic floods, famines, disease epidemic and hurricanes.” He says all of these things will result in the world ending. Now maybe that is true and I understand he is depicting the worst but I feel it suits the slippery slope fallacy. Another fallacy I believe was committed is appeal to ignorance, which is a fallacy that lacks opposing evidence to the conclusion being argued. Now, I agree that his conclusion is inescapable but Greg Craven says that column A is “the only responsible choice and the only defensible choice” which I feel could be an appeal to ignorance lacking contrary opinion and portraying his conclusion as the end all be all decision. The third fallacy I felt was present was post hoc ergo propter hoc, which is a logical fallacy that states if a certain event has happened that followed another event they must be associated. Greg Craven speaks of the scenario in which we act but the Global Climate Change crisis winds up being false, he says, “Lets say we wind up with massive layoffs caused by Draconian regulation which sparks a recession which spirals into a global depression.” I feel this may include post hoc ergo propter hoc because it has the connotation that spending the money with no real global climate change crisis would certainly result in economic