Accepting the Unproblematic

Absence of Practical Doubt
All the grounds for doubting C that are available to P at t are such that if P were to accept them as legitimate, similar or analogous doubts could be raised with "equal justice" for virtually all other claims.
C is an unproblematic claim if both:
1. C passes the absence of practical doubt test, i.e. doubts about C are wild, and analogous doubts would undermine most claims.
2. C is a claim of one of the following five types:
  
  OB: Observational claims or beliefs concern what one does or did more or less directly observe or experience, for example see, hear, touch, feel.
  
  PF: Particular factual claims are those made by appropriate experts such as scientists, encylopedias, textbooks, newspapers, atlases, and TV newscasts.
  
  INT: Intuitive claims are simple claims of which one can be assured by merely reflecting on the matter a bit (and without relying on having learned it by observation or in the past or from some other source).
  
  SM: General claims of science and mathematics are those made by appropriate experts such as scientists, textbooks, or encylopedias.
  
  CS: C is a general claim of common sense for P just in case P has confirming evidence for C, no disconfirming evidence against C, and there is general agreement that the generalization C is correct among knowledgeable and intelligent people P has met.
Appropriate initiation and transmission

Appropriate initiation is presumable: Transmission is entirely by one's own memory from observation or expert source, or it is accompanied by such an originating source, or one can presume that an equally good originating source is readily available.

Appropriate transmission is presumable: One can presume that the transmission is by an expert transmitting source, or that the claim is recently acquired, memorable, or corroborated for each transmitting link.

Reliability Grades

Claim Type	"A" Grade	"B" Grade	"C" Grade
OB	Completely corroborated identity or directly given and central	Any type of candidate whose reliability grade isn't "A" or "C"	Any type of claim where specific reasons bring about one or more of the following:
OB			(1)	Circumstance of using an involved faculty has significant chance of error.
PF	Completely corroborated identity or directly given by scientific source		(2)	An involved faculty or source has a record of unreliability.
PF			(3)	A transmission is undermined by direct access to (something as good as) the original source.
INT	Devoid of all uncertainty and central		(4)	Testifier may well have a motive that would cast doubt on the impartiality of the testimony.
SM	Directly given by scientific source		(5)	Presumed expertise of an expert is dubious for an alleged claim of "expert" testimony.
CS	None		(6)	Presumption of appropriate initiation or transmission is dubious

Candidates for Unproblematic Acceptance

Claim type	Content	Access	Reliability Grade "A"
OB	What was observed	Direct: Observer at the time of observation.	Completely corroborated identity or directly given and central
OB	What was observed	Transmitted: Appropriate initiation and transmission of a direct observation is presumable.
PF	Uncontroversial particular fact	Direct: Made available by an expert source at the time of accepting the claim.	Completely corroborated identity or directly given by scientific source
PF	Uncontroversial particular fact	Transmitted: Appropriate initiation and transmission of direct expert testimony is presumable.
INT	Reflection alone shows it must be true	"Content" easily ascertained at the time of accepting the claim.	Devoid of all uncertainty and central
SM	General laws of science and mathematics	Direct: Made available by an expert source at the time of accepting the claim.	Directly given by scientific source
SM	General laws of science and mathematics	Transmitted: Appropriate initiation and transmission of direct expert testimony is presumable.	Directly given by scientific source
CS	Personally confirmed, generally acknowledged, undisconfirmed generalization of common sense	With the help of memory, "content" is ascertained at the time of accepting the claim.	None

Fallacies

Inferential Fallacies

Affirming the Consequent

(p É q) & q ® p

Composition

C is true of the parts of W ® C is true of W

Confusing the two 'or's

(p Ú q) & p ® -q

Denying the Antecedent

(p É q) & -p ® -q

Division

C is true of the whole W ® C is true of the parts of W

False Cause

C (frequently) occurs with E ® C causes (or is causally related to) E

Ignorance

No (decisive) reason against C ® C is true

Ignoring Antecedent Probabilities

Pr(e/h) is high & Pr(e/-h) is low ® Pr(h/e) is high

Modal Fallacy with ¨ = necessarily

¨(p É q) ® p É ¨q

Modal/Deontic Fallacy with à = possibly, permissible to

àp & àq ® à(p & q)

Use/Mention

‘(...)’ & ‘(...)°’ the same except for parenthetical additions
...‘X’...®...X...°
...X...®...‘X’...°

Presuppositional Fallacies

Accident

A generalization G ® an application of G to an instance I; NOT {the circumstances allow G to be applicable to I}.

Black and White

R ® C; NOT {S and T exhaust all the relevant possibilities}.

False Appeal to Authority (or Appeal to False Authority)

Alleged authority P claims C is true ® C is true; NOT {P has expertise in the area relevant for C}.

Gambler's Fallacy

Prior outcome X ® [in,de]creased probability of Y; NOT {X and Y are statistically independent}.

Hasty Generalization

G is true of instances I ® G is true in all (most or many) cases; NOT {I is a fair sample}.

Ignoring De Re Uses

The conveyed intent of ‘X is Y’ is true in world W ® the object that in W has the property associated with the meaning of ‘X’ is Y in W; NOT {the use of ‘X’ is a de dicto use in ‘X is Y’}.

Ignoring Intensional Contexts

Extension of ‘X’ = Extension of ‘Y’ & ...X... ® ...Y...; NOT {‘...¾¾¾...’ is an extensional context}.

Fallacies of Relevance

Ad Hominem

Person P has feature F Þ rejection of P's view or position V.

Ad Populum

So many people accept P Þ P is true.

Appeal to the Imagination

C is suggested or stated in the story S Þ C.

Emotional Appeal

An appeal to an emotion E Þ C is true or correct.

Irrelevant Conclusion

C° Þ C: C° is argued and C isn't. ‘C if C°’ is implausible when made explicit, and C and C° have a superficial similarity.

Fallacies of Substance

Accent

R1,...Rn/C
(a) E can mean different things when accented as E1 and as E2,
(b) the argument is valid only if E means the same thing throughout, and
(c) the premises are, or may well be, plausible only if one occurrence of E is accented as E1 and another as E2.

Amphibole

R1,...Rn/C
(a) E is grammatically ambiguous between E1 and E2,
(b) the premises are good reasons for C only when E is disambiguated as E1, and
(c) a premise R containing E may be plausible only if E is disambiguated as E2 (because R is based on someone's statement).

Begging the Question

R1,...Rn/C; In the context of the argument
(a) a premise R amounts to the denial of a conflicting view C° and
(b) no more reasons have been given for accepting R than for accepting C°.

Complex Question

Any answer to question Q/C commits one to claim C, which is potentially controversial in the context.

Equivocation

R1,...Rn/C
(a) E is semantically ambiguous between E1 and E2,
(b) the argument is valid only if E is used univocally, and
(c) the premises are, or may well be, plausible only if E is used univocally.

Illicit Redefinition

R1,...Rn/C
Same as equivocation except E is semantically ambiguous between its standard sense E1 and the new sense E2 that is explicitly or implicitly attached to E.

From Critical Thinking by Francis Watanabe Dauer; Barnes & Noble/Oxford University Press 1989/1996 ISBN 0-76070-137-7