The Dangers of Fallacious Thinking

Syllogism is a basic tool of logic. It is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion that go from the general to the specific.

All men are mortal. major premise Socrates is a man. minor premise Therefore, Socrates is mortal. conclusion

Soundness: To be sound, an argument must satisfy two conditions.  First, the argument must be valid. For an argument to be valid, the premises must lend absolute support to the conclusion. If this is so, then if the premises are true, the conclusion will also be true. The syllogism above is valid; the conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Invalid argument: All squares are rectangles. major premise The piece of paper is a rectangle. minor premise Therefore, the piece of paper is also a square. conclusion

 Second, all premises must be true. Remember: a syllogism may be valid without being true.

Untrue argument: All people who do not know the commandments are witches. major premise From The Crucible Goody Osburn does not know the commandments. minor premise Therefore, Goody Osburn is a witch. conclusion

Determine whether the following syllogisms are valid and if they’re true.

Examples: Alaska is a tropical state. A lilac is a flower. All tropical states have warm beaches. A lilac is purple. Therefore, Alaska has warm beaches. Therefore, all flowers are purple.

All welders are skilled. Some pit bulls are dangerous Kim is a welder. Johnny’s dog is a pit bull Therefore, Kim is skilled. Johnny’s dog is dangerous

Assignment: Make TWO of your own syllogisms that are examples of fallacies (either invalid or untrue) in the modern world, and write them in syllogistic form (major premise, minor premise, conclusion). Then explain the problem with the syllogism and the harmful effect that can come from the spread of it. EX: High-fat foods are responsible for the obesity epidemic in America. McDonalds produces high-fat foods. McDonalds is responsible for obesity in America. The syllogism is valid but unsound because although the second premise is true, the first is incomplete. It’s really the overconsumption of high-fat foods in America that is the problem, and McDonalds (at least arguably) is not responsible for that; individuals are, or perhaps the economic structure of our society is, responsible for that. The problem with operating under this false conclusion is that when the blame is wrongly shifted to a single institution like McDonalds, the true problems aren’t addressed. Americans, especially low- income Americans, need to be better educated on dietary health and have more options available at their income level—and then McDonalds goes out of business anyway. Some additional Common Logical Fallacies

Equivocation To equivocate is to change the meaning of a word in the course of an argument or to use an ambiguous word in two different senses (whether deliberately or unintentionally) as in the following:

Science has discovered many laws of nature. This is proof that there is a God, for a law implies the existence of a lawgiver, and God is the great Lawgiver of the universe.

Observe the confused and careless use of the word “law”: first it is used with the scientific meaning of uniform behavior in nature; then it is used prescriptively to refer to regulations enforceable by a higher authority.

Evading the Issue (This fallacy takes several forms.)

Distraction Raising extraneous considerations, such as emotions or sentiments can turn the course of an argument away from the main issues. Thus in making a case for the democratic form of government, the arguer may eulogize George Washington and the other founding fathers, extolling their personal courage and foresight. Such distractions may divert readers’ attention and make them forget the real issues.

Ad hominem Another way to evade the issue is to direct the argument against the character of the person making the case rather than the case itself. This fallacy is common and sinister (“You cannot trust Smith’s reform bill because he has had questionable rightist leanings…and there is his divorce…and that suspicious suicide attempt…”).

Name-calling Still another evasive smear tactic (and verbal trick) is calling an opposing view by a “bad name,” thereby suggesting that is in reality bad. Thus an attempt to improve welfare legislation may be labeled “starry-eyed idealism” or “sheer romanticism,” that will turn our government into a “welfare state.”

Appeal to Pity When General Douglas MacArthur, pleading his case before the American people, cited the old refrain “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away,” he was resorting to the popular and often successful ruse of making himself pitiful in order to win sympathy. Obviously, this focusing on “poor old me” is another way of evading substantive issues.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority To cite a Nobel Prize-winning chemist as an authority on civil rights legislation is to misunderstand the meaning of the word “authority.” An authority’s opinion is meaningful only when it concerns his or her special field of competence; otherwise the so-called authority is simply an ordinary citizen like the rest of us – neither wiser nor more foolish.

False Analogy The fact that two things are alike in some respect does not necessarily mean they are alike in others. Mental processes and bodily processes, for example, are comparable but not identical; therefore the following analogy represents a deceptive argument in favor of censorship: “We don’t allow poisonous substances to be put into our foods, so why should we permit books to be published that will poison the minds of our citizens?” Do you see the dangerously authoritarian generalization that underlies this argument? We cannot trust analogy alone to prove a point. It is useful only as a supplement to factual evidence mounted in support of a proposition.

Non Sequitur When a conclusion does not follow from its premises, there has obviously been a serious slip in the deductive reasoning process. All artists are creative. Jackson is an artist. Jackson should be subsidized. We can make this broken line of reasoning conform to a logical pattern by thinking it through carefully. We should say, if the conclusion we want to render valid is as follows, this: All creative artists deserve to be subsidized. Jackson is a creative artist. Jackson should be subsidized.