Fallacies of Argument: the Top Hits of Bad Reasoning 1

Informal Logic

Fallacies of Argument: The Top Hits of Bad Reasoning1

A fallacy is an argument that is incorrect, but that may appear to some in some contexts to be a correct argument.2

Ambiguity

Before we start to reason or argue in Language, we must try to make clear exactly what we are talking about. Errors in thinking are often created by confusions of language. Formal logic and mathematics try to avoid fuzzy meaning be replacing words with precisely defined symbols.

(A) Ambiguity of word (equivocation): use of double meanings of a word or an imprecision in its definition to blur or shift its meaning mid-sentence or mid speech: "He claims to be a conservative, yet he spends lavishly." Charged words such as "freedom" or "rights" often slyly shift their definitions in speeches that mean to persuade, so that, having accepted the original meaning, an unwary listener may be led, through equivocation, to accept conclusions based on a rather different definition of the word.

(B) Ambiguity of sentence structure: confusion in argument created by unclear sentence structure, such as results from dangling or misplaced modifiers: the cab driver said, "It's not the job I like, but the people I run into."

(C) Confusion created by inappropriate language (jargon): use of technical terms or in-group language in an inappropriate context to confuse the issue and possibly to dazzle or stun the audience into acceptance.

CATEGORY 1: FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE:

This category of fallacies deals with those errors in thinking created by bringing in ideas or emotions which are not relevant to the argument.

1. ad hominem: (argument against the man) shifting from argument based on reason to an attack on the arguer: "You can't believe him; he's been in prison."

2. ad verecundiam: (appeal to authority) accepting an argument not on its own merit but because of the status of the person putting it forward. Acceptance of authority is particularly dubious if the status of the person has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. "Vitamin C must be a cure for colds, because Dr. Newton says so, and he is a highly regarded physicist."

Both of the fallacies above share a tactic: arguing for the acceptance or rejection of a statement not on the basis of the argument but on the basis of the source, the speaker.

1 adapted from Eilen Dombrowski. 2 Carney, James D. and Richard K. Scheer. Fundamentals of Logic. 3rd Edition. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1980. 3. ad populam: (argument to the people, or appeal to the gallery) attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude -- a favorite device of advertising and propaganda. It can involve slanted language, glamorous association, or mass appeal: "1000 housewives can't be wrong." "Cindy Crawford wears Seko." "This is exactly the kind of behavior that threatens the small town community that is so sacred to our country."

4. ad baculum: (appeal to force) arguing that a statement is true because the opponent will be harmed if he or she does not assent to it: "I wouldn't advise you to disagree with Johnson in tomorrow's meeting. He is on the Promotions Committee, which decides next week on your application." It might also be an appeal to fear: "If you don't buy our product, your competitor will get ahead of you and cut you out of the market."

5. ad misericordiam: (appeal to pity) arguing for the truth of a statement because someone would suffer if it were false -- use of emotional grounds for persuasion. "I must have been driving under the speed limit, otherwise I'll lose my license if I'm convicted again."

6. special pleading: accepting a general principal, but making oneself or one's own group an exception. "Everyone should pay income tax honestly, but I really need the money." "A lineup is a fair way of getting lunch, but I have to go to the front because....."

7. ignoring the question/red herring: getting off the topic, distracting the attention from the argument. Diversionary tactics are often used by people who find the direction of discussion rather uncomfortable. "I don't know why they stopped me, the guy ahead of me was speeding too!"

8. argument ad invidiam = appeal to prejudice 9. argument ad crumeram = appeal to greed

Note: a. Argue rationally; avoid emotional pulls and political rhetoric. b. Be careful of emotive language, ambiguity, etc. that can "flavor" an argument.

CATEGORY 2: FALLACIES OF LOGIC

This category of fallacies groups together errors of thinking based on failure of clear reasoning -- failure to reason from evidence in inductive reasoning, and failure to follow a logical pattern in deductive reasoning.

1. Problem with the premise (the premises of an argument are the assumptions with which we start. We do have to start somewhere, but we need to recognize what we are assuming.)

(A) missing premise: the assumption is not stated, but lies behind the statement made. e.g. "This dress must be good, because it was very expensive." We may agree or disagree with the premise, but only by calling it to conscious awareness can we examine it. • Begging the Question: a more common name for this fallacy. The first premise is often not stated and is taken as a given. This can misdirect the argument directly to the conclusion without instead of focusing on the premises. "This senseless language requirement should be abolished." First, we must establish that the language requirement is senseless, and only then argue that on such grounds it should be abolished.

Note: a. ensure that you are developing your point by providing supporting evidence. b. provide enough evidence for adequate support. (B) false premise: The premise (regardless of whether it is missing or clearly expressed) is false. If we start with false information, we are scarcely likely to reach sound conclusions. "He must be pretty rich, because he goes to ACS." The unstated premise that all people who go to ACS are rich.

(C) complex question: failure to separate the premise form the conclusion based on it, so that neither "yes" or "no" is appropriate. In agreeing or disagreeing, we are implicitly accepting a premise that we may want to reject. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Closely related to these above are #2 and #3 below. Something has gone wrong with the movement from the premise to the conclusion in a deductive argument.

2. argument in a circle: using a conclusion material that has already been assumed in one of the premises: A: "You've got to do what I say because I'm in charge." B: "How do I know that you're in charge?" A: "Because everyone's got to do what I say."

3. non sequitur: (It does not follow) assuming that a statement follows from the one before, even though they may not be related. "I can't understand why I do so badly in Math; after all, I bought the most expensive textbook on the bookstore shelf." "I saw Michael Jackson dancing in one of his videos. It's no wonder he's so popular!"

Although we can never have certainty in an empirical inductive conclusion, we still want sufficient evidence (whatever that is) before we consider a belief justified. The next two fallacies are based on accepting inadequate evidence.

4. ad ignorantum (argument from ignorance, arguing from absence of evidence) arguing that a statement is true because there is no evidence which shows it to be true. Absence of evidence is used as the basis for the conclusion. E.g. UFO's It is also when an argument is based on facts which can't be disclosed. "I can't show you the plans, but I can say for certain that the KGB are planning to assassinate Margaret Thatcher."

5. hasty generalization: sloppy inductive reasoning, generalizing from unrepresentative or insufficient cases: "All Dutch are loud and obnoxious." "All Norwegians are enemies of the environment." Note: a. Avoid extreme words (everyone, always, never, all, etc.) and use qualifying words (sometimes, often, many, etc.). b. Ensure your major premise in a deductive argument will be accepted by your audience. c. Don't reach a conclusion too hastily when employing inductive logic.

6. argument of the beard (How many hairs make a beard") arguing that a distinction cannot be made because there is no clear dividing line between the extremes; obscuring real differences by emphasis on the differences only of degree: "There is no difference between a child and an adult because there in no one moment in a person's life at which time he ceases to be a child and becomes an adult," (Dieter's delight: "One more little piece won't make any difference.") 7. oversimplification is a generic term for ignoring alternatives and complexities and thus implying that the question can be settled more easily than is the case. A black or white argument, one form, ignores differences of degree, and presents only the extremes as alternatives ("He is either a hero or a villain.") A False Dilemma is when the argument is applied to alternative courses of action. "Either we must take up arms against our oppressor or we must say farewell to all the liberties which we hold dear." Might not there be alternatives? Note: a. Always check to see if a third or fourth alternative is available. b. Use qualifying words.

8. truth is in the middle: assuming that an average or a compromise is necessarily the solution to alternatives. If I see two £5 notes on the floor and ask myself whether it would be reasonable to steal them, does it make any sense to conclude that it would be all right to take one?

9. false cause: it can be difficult to make a causal connection between events. In seeking the causes of a war, how many do we take into account, and which ones do we emphasize? How do we separate them from each other? How far back in history do we go tracing the causes for the causes? Can we eliminate false hypotheses by setting up a control, as in a lab experiment? Do we assume the causal connection will hold in the future? We search for explanations, but makes lots of mistakes on the way. non causa pro causa (not the cause, for the cause): mistaking what is not the cause of a particular effect for its real cause. "Oh, she didn't help you with math? I thought that was why you got a good mark this time." POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC: (after this, therefore because of this): assuming that because one event followed another, it must have been the result of the other. "The economy improved after M. Thatcher entered office. Therefore, Thatcher's economic policies worked." "After the black cat crossed my path, I broke my leg." Note: a. Ensure that what follows is because and not just chance. b. Examine the possibility of more than one cause to an effect.

10. false analogy: using a likeness to something else as the basis for argument. Any two things have some point of similarity; it cannot be concluded that they therefore are alike in other regards. "The mind is like a knife, cutting through difficult problems. But just as cutting dulls a knife, so too much education dulls the mind." Note: a. Ensure that the two things being compared are comparable in most respects. b. Consider carefully other contributing factors that will qualify the comparison.

11. argument ex concesso: dragging a concession out of your reader. E.g. Do you believe in free speech? You do? Then you have to allow me to shout "fire!" in a crowded cinema. Identify the following fallacies:

1. You can't listen to Veronica, she's just another bra burning bubble-head.

2. The amount of gum found on the carpets is a sign of the lawlessness of the students.

3. Mr. Seehusen wouldn't make a good principal because he doesn't care about the environment.

4. At this school, you either are in the IB or you struggle with simple concepts.

5. Legalization of abortion will lead to the murder of the old and physically and mentally handicapped.

6. If Kate Moss uses this shampoo, I am sure it will make my hair look good also.

7. The candidate was poor as a child, so he will certainly be sympathetic to the poor if he's selected.

8. You see, the priests were right. After we threw those economists into the volcano, it quit erupting.

9. Core requirements should be eliminated in the IB. After all, students are paying for their education, so they should be able to earn a diploma by choosing the courses they want.

10. The meteorologist was wrong in predicting the amount of rain for May. Obviously the meteorologist is unreliable.

11. Everyone in ACS will obviously vote conservative.

12. Socialized medicine in England has led to some abuse in the welfare system. If socialized medicine is introduced into America, we will also suffer from such abuse.

13. We shouldn't spank our child because Dr. Ruth said so.

14. If God exists, then how can you explain all the bad things that happen?

15. The Turks are taking our jobs and lowering the property value of our homes.

16. If we cheat of each other, then your grade will increase also.