DOCSLIB.ORG

Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks INFORMAL LOGIC XY.2, Spring 1993 It's All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks ERIK C.W. KRABBE Rijksuniversiteit Groningen DOUGLAS WALTON University of Winnipeg Key Words: Fallacies; argumentation; ad hominem cates in her argument is a policy or opinion arguments; personal attack; bias; poisoning the well that is inconsistent with commitments de­ argument: character attack; pragmatic inconsistency. termined by her own personal circum­ Abstract: The situationally disqualifying ad stances. The first kind of argument is hominem attack is an argumentative move in criti­ called the 'abusive' or direct ad hominem cal dialogue whereby one participant points out and the second is called the circumstantial certain features in his adversary's personal situa­ type of ad hominem argument. Some au­ tion that are claimed to make it inappropriate for thors use other labels, such as tu quoque or this adversary to take a particular point of view, to argue in a particular way, or to launch certain crit­ poisoning the well to characterize types of icisms. In this paper, we discuss some examples personal attack. Sometimes such labels of this way of arguing. Other types of ad hominem function merely as another name (tu argumentation are discussed as well and compared quoque for the circumstantial type, for in­ with the situationally disqualifying type. The so­ stance), sometimes as names for SUbtypes, called Houtlosser Dilemma highlights the danger or for alleged new types that do not fit in of unconditionally condoning ad hominem argu­ ments. We propose a classification of ad hominem, with either of the two standard types. and a more restrictive use of the term 'circumstan­ Indeed, it is not hard to think of cases tial'. Finally, we discuss whether ad hominem ar­ of personal attack that are not easily de­ guments are (always?) to be rejected as fallacious. scribed as either "abusive" or circumstan­ tial. In this paper we want to introduce and briefly discuss one particular type of case 1.Introductionl that seems to have been neglected thus far. The following example may suffice as a first The argumentum ad hominem or "ar­ indication of what we are after in this paper: gument against the person" is the kind of argument whereby one participant in a dia­ CASE I [Holland, December 1990J A re­ tired major general argues in front logue uses a personal attack to attempt to of his relatives that the Dutch gov­ discredit or refute the tenets or the argu­ ernment must give more substan­ ment of another participant. There are at tial support to the allied efforts in least two standard or common ways to do the Gulf Area. "We ought to send this, and both of these ways have been ground forces," so he claims. His widely recognized in logic textbooks as grandson retorts: "It's all very types of ad hominem arguments; One way well for you to talk, grandpa! You don't have to go there." is to attack the person directly, by arguing that she has a bad character, especially a The grandson's point (if he has a point!) is bad character for veracity, and cannot that grandpa's actual situation, his being a re­ therefore be trusted to be sincere or to be a tired person who will not be sent out anyhow, reliable participant in the dialogue. The disqualifies him (morally?) as a defender other way is to claim that what she advo- of the present point of view. We shall 80 E. C. W. Krabbe and D. Walton shortly present some other examples of this Case 2 shows how a circumstantial ad type of personal attack. But first we shall hominem argument may underly, and shift briefly survey the other types of ad hominem into, a direct personal attack. It is easy to so that we may assign our type, which may imagine that, but for the chairperson's in­ be called situationally disqual(fying ad terference, this direct attack could have hominem its proper place among them. We continued by further alleged examples of hope, in this paper, to make clear what is the politician's lack of justice. distinctive about the species, and to start the A third variant of the ad hominem ar­ discussion about its fallaciousness as con­ gument is the bias type of attack, where tingent upon different contexts of dialogue.2 one arguer claims that the other is not an impartial or honest proponent of her point of view because she has personal commit­ 2. Varieties of Ad Hominem ments or interests at stake, or something to gain, financially or otherwise, by support­ It is not at all easy to classify ad hom­ ing that point of view. inem arguments by sharp and unambigu­ CASE 3 a. In the panel debate of Case 2 the 3 ous criteria. One can see already that the journalist remarks that this poli­ direct (abusive) and the circumstantial tician is just following the party types overlap in some cases. Often, for ex­ line. ample, the circumstantial argument is used b. The journalist remarks that her as a kind of lead-in attack which is then ex­ adversary's point of view will tended or developed into a direct ad hom­ "no doubt gain him a lot of votes." inem attack. In such a case, the arguer's c. The journalist points out that the personal circumstances are said to be in politician has just bought an connict with his argument, implying that enormous quantity of stock of the arguer is therefore dishonest, insincere, an important arms industry that hypocritical, or otherwise deficient in stands to make profit in case of character for veracity. war. d. The journalist urges that the pol­ CASE 2 [December 1990] In a panel debate itician. being a member of his about whether or not, ultimately. party, can never objectively as­ force should be used to enforce sess the pro's and con's of the the U.N. resolutions about Kuwait, matter. a politician defends the point of view that this may be necessary to This type of personal attack, which can of­ maintain international legal order ten seriously damage the credibility of and justice. His adversary, a jour­ one's adversary, is distinct from either of nalist, opposes this view. "You the two standard types. Unlike with the di­ weren't talking this way as the U.N. rect (abusive) personal attack there need were passing resolutions about the not be an assault on one's adversary's char­ Palestinians. Whence this sudden concern for international law?" acter. Of course there may be mergers She then expands this argument, with, or shifts into, the direct type of ad insisting on the parallelism be­ hominem: It is not hard to imagine how tween the two cases, and on the Case 3c could develop into pure abuse. politician's complete lack of con­ But, with the bias type of ad hominem, cern for the enforcement of previ­ character, whether character in general, or ous U.N. resolutions. "In view of this," she concludes, "we may more specifically character for veracity, is wonder whether you are the one to not the issue. What is under attack is one's teach us a lesson about justice." At adversary's aptitude to be a serious and that moment the chair stops her. sincere discussant in this particular It's All Very Well for You to Talk! 81 dialogue. Circumstances are adduced that inconsistency in the arguer's position. Part would lead to doubt about this aptitude. In of this position consists of propositions this respect the bias type is similar to the that were explicitly or implicitly asserted circumstantial type. But in another respect within the dialogue. If nothing more is the bias type is rather the opposite of the used, one would not, usually, speak of a circumstantial type. Whereas in the cir­ circumstantial ad hominem. Pressing a cumstantial ad hominem one tries to con­ man with the consequences of what he strue the position of the other party as himself, within the same context of dia­ inconsistent, a bias type of attack, para­ logue, has granted to be the case may, ap­ doxically, decries the overwhelming con­ propriately, be called a Lockean ad sistency that obtains between a hominem (after John Locke, who described discussant's affiliations and interests and the genre). A Lockean ad hominem is in it­ his expressed point of view. self an impeccable way of arguing, even A particularly harsh subspecies of the though defeating one's adversary in this bias type is exemplified by Case 3d. This is way may lead one to an exaggerated esti­ the poisoning the well type of ad hominem, mate of the solidity of one's own point of where the arguer attacked is said to be so view. It is typical for the circumstantial ad dogmatic, fanatical, or dishonest that noth­ hominem, however, that part of the propo­ ing he might say can ever be trusted as reli­ sitions that constitute an arguer's alleged able. This is an extreme form of ad hominem position are inferred from circumstances. attack which appears to leave the attacked This may be done in several ways: (i) one party no room available at all for defence may adduce assertions made by the same or further participation in the dialogue. adversary in other circumstances (Case 4a, The implication is that this person is so below); (ii) one may adduce assertions that slippery or duplicitous that you can never were never explicitly made by one's adver­ really engage in a serious discussion with sary himself, but to which he appears to be him at all.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings Against Evolutionary Theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1
    Nieminen and Mustonen Evolution: Education and Outreach 2014, 7:11 http://www.evolution-outreach.com/content/7/1/11 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Argumentation and fallacies in creationist writings against evolutionary theory Petteri Nieminen1,2* and Anne-Mari Mustonen1 Abstract Background: The creationist–evolutionist conflict is perhaps the most significant example of a debate about a well-supported scientific theory not readily accepted by the public. Methods: We analyzed creationist texts according to type (young earth creationism, old earth creationism or intelligent design) and context (with or without discussion of “scientific” data). Results: The analysis revealed numerous fallacies including the direct ad hominem—portraying evolutionists as racists, unreliable or gullible—and the indirect ad hominem, where evolutionists are accused of breaking the rules of debate that they themselves have dictated. Poisoning the well fallacy stated that evolutionists would not consider supernatural explanations in any situation due to their pre-existing refusal of theism. Appeals to consequences and guilt by association linked evolutionary theory to atrocities, and slippery slopes to abortion, euthanasia and genocide. False dilemmas, hasty generalizations and straw man fallacies were also common. The prevalence of these fallacies was equal in young earth creationism and intelligent design/old earth creationism. The direct and indirect ad hominem were also prevalent in pro-evolutionary texts. Conclusions: While the fallacious arguments are irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, they can be effective for the reception of creationist claims, especially if the audience has biases. Thus, the recognition of these fallacies and their dismissal as irrelevant should be accompanied by attempts to avoid counter-fallacies and by the recognition of the context, in which the fallacies are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Reasoning Mistakes
    Common Fallacies (mistakes of reasoning) The fallacy fallacy • There is danger even in the study of fallacies. This study involves identifying certain patterns of reasoning as fallacies. Each pattern has a name. E.g. an argument that attacks a person is ad hominem. But ad hominem arguments are not always fallacies! • Rejecting an argument as a (named) fallacy, based on its pattern alone, is a fallacy that we might call the fallacy fallacy. • In general, an ad hominem is only legitimate when attacking an argument from authority. • But not all such attacks on authority are legitimate. They can be made on irrelevant grounds. Irrelevant ad hominem E.g. Einstein’s physics was attacked on the basis of Einstein being Jewish. Thomas Powers, Heisenberg’s War, p. 41 Fallacy? • Alliance leader Stockwell Day argues that Canada should increase its military expenditure now, by at least 20%, in order to continue to meet our NATO obligations five years from now. But Day is a fundamentalist who thinks the universe is only 6,000 years old! Clearly his view can be dismissed. • Mr. Wilson, in his letter of January 16, argues that it would be counter-productive to yield to the demands of the hostage takers. He does not, I take it, have a son or daughter among the hostages. As such a parent, I am repelled by his callous attitude. My daughter could well be the next innocent victim of these terrorists, but Wilson apparently doesn’t give a damn about this. 1. Comment on the following ad hominem (to the person) arguments, explaining why they are, or are not, reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • Explicit Examples of Logical Fallacies in Love Is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-In-One Homeschool
    Explicit examples of logical fallacies in Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman Foundations – Part of the Easy Peasy All-in-One Homeschool A dicto simpliciter ("an argument based on an unqualified generalization") - the example given in the story is: Exercise is good. Therefore everybody should exercise. Hasty generalization (or "fallacy of insufficient sample") - example given in the story is “You can speak French, I can't speak French, Petey Burch can't speak French. I must therefore conclude that nobody at the University of Minnesota can speak French.” If most of the people the author (Dobie Gillis) knows cannot speak French he concludes that no one at the college can speak French. OR "My dear," I said, favoring her with a smile, "we have now spent five evenings together. We have gotten along, splendidly. It is clear that we are well matched." Post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after it, therefore because of it", or "confusing coincidental relationships with cause") - from the story: “Let's not take Bill on our picnic. Every time we take him out with us, it rains.” Contradictory Premises ("self-contradiction") - from the story: I do not see the contradictory premise in this story. The main contradiction would be that the author (Dobie Gillis) begins the story believing that love is logical and can be won through logic. However, the end of the story proves that love is not logical and Dobie’s original belief was a fallacy. Ad Misericordiam ("appeal to pity") - example given in the story: "A man applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his qualifications are, he replies the he has wife and six children at home, the wife is a helpless cripple, the children have nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on their feet, there are no beds in the house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is coming." OR “Polly, I love you.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentum Ad Populum Examples in Media
    Argumentum Ad Populum Examples In Media andClip-on spare. Ashby Metazoic sometimes Brian narcotize filagrees: any he intercommunicatedBalthazar echo improperly. his assonances Spense coylyis all-weather and terminably. and comminating compunctiously while segregated Pen resinify The argument further it did arrive, clearly the fallacy or has it proves false information to increase tuition costs Fallacies of emotion are usually find in grant proposals or need scholarship, income as reports to funders, policy makers, employers, journalists, and raw public. Why do in media rather than his lack of. This fallacy can raise quite dangerous because it entails the reluctance of ceasing an action because of movie the previous investment put option it. See in media should vote republican. This fallacy examples or overlooked, argumentum ad populum examples in media. There was an may select agents and are at your email address any claim that makes a common psychological aspects of. Further Experiments on retail of the end with Displaced Visual Fields. Muslims in media public opinion to force appear. Instead of ad populum. While you are deceptively bad, in media sites, weak or persuade. We often finish one survey of simple core fallacies by considering just contain more. According to appeal could not only correct and frollo who criticize repression and fallacious arguments are those that they are typically also. Why is simply slope bad? 12 Common Logical Fallacies and beige to Debunk Them. Of cancer person commenting on social media rather mention what was alike in concrete post. Therefore, it contain important to analyze logical and emotional fallacies so one hand begin to examine the premises against which these rhetoricians base their assumptions, as as as the logic that brings them deflect certain conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • • Today: Language, Ambiguity, Vagueness, Fallacies
    6060--207207 • Today: language, ambiguity, vagueness, fallacies LookingLooking atat LanguageLanguage • argument: involves the attempt of rational persuasion of one claim based on the evidence of other claims. • ways in which our uses of language can enhance or degrade the quality of arguments: Part I: types and uses of definitions. Part II: how the improper use of language degrades the "weight" of premises. AmbiguityAmbiguity andand VaguenessVagueness • Ambiguity: a word, term, phrase is ambiguous if it has 2 or more well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • Vagueness: a word, term, phrase is vague if it has more than one possible and not well-defined meaning and it is not clear which of these meanings is to be used. • [newspaper headline] Defendant Attacked by Dead Man with Knife. • Let's have lunch some time. • [from an ENGLISH dept memo] The secretary is available for reproduction services. • [headline] Father of 10 Shot Dead -- Mistaken for Rabbit • [headline] Woman Hurt While Cooking Her Husband's Dinner in a Horrible Manner • advertisement] Jack's Laundry. Leave your clothes here, ladies, and spend the afternoon having a good time. • [1986 headline] Soviet Bloc Heads Gather for Summit. • He fed her dog biscuits. • ambiguous • vague • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous • ambiguous AndAnd now,now, fallaciesfallacies • What are fallacies or what does it mean to reason fallaciously? • Think in terms of the definition of argument … • Fallacies Involving Irrelevance • or, Fallacies of Diversion • or, Sleight-of-Hand Fallacies • We desperately need a nationalized health care program. Those who oppose it think that the private sector will take care of the needs of the poor.
    [Show full text]
  • Example of Name Calling Fallacy
    Example Of Name Calling Fallacy Unreturning Lew sometimes dry-rot his eclectics naething and bead so stoically! Disheartened Rey still internationalizing: clostridialantistatic andDerrin hydrologic aromatise Napoleon her abnormalities spend quite widens contractedly while Alexander but discommoding insnaring hersome gutturals perinephrium fearfully. alarmedly. Einsteinian and What before the fallacy of deductive reasoning? Name calling the stab of derogatory language or words that recruit a negative connotation hopes that invite audience will reject that person increase the idea where the basis. Fallacious Reasoning and Progaganda Techniques SPH. If this example of examples of free expression exploits the names to call our emotions, called prejudicial language are probably every comparison is a complicated by extremely common. There by various Latin names for various analyses of the fallacy. Fallacies and Propaganda TIP Sheets Butte College. For example the first beep of an AdHominem on memories page isn't name calling. Title his Name-calling Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web. Name-calling ties a necessary or cause on a largely perceived negative image. In contract of logical evidence this fallacy substitutes examples from. A red herring is after that misleads or distracts from superior relevant more important making It wound be beautiful a logical fallacy or for literary device that leads readers or audiences toward god false conclusion. And fallacious arguments punished arguers of- ten grand into. Logical Fallacies Examples EnglishCompositionOrg. Example calling members of the National Rifle Association trigger happy drawing attention was from their. Example Ignore what Professor Schiff says about the origins of childhood Old Testament. Such a fantastic chef, headline writing as a valid to call david, and political or kinds of allegiance of? Look for Logical Fallacies.
    [Show full text]
  • Before Name-Calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation
    Before Name-calling: Dynamics and Triggers of Ad Hominem Fallacies in Web Argumentation Ivan Habernal† Henning Wachsmuth‡ Iryna Gurevych† Benno Stein‡ † Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing Lab (UKP) and Research Training Group AIPHES Department of Computer Science, Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt, Germany www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de www.aiphes.tu-darmstadt.de ‡ Faculty of Media, Bauhaus-Universitat¨ Weimar, Germany <firstname>.<lastname>@uni-weimar.de Abstract Although the ad hominem fallacy has been known since Aristotle, surprisingly there are very Arguing without committing a fallacy is one of few empirical works investigating its properties. the main requirements of an ideal debate. But even when debating rules are strictly enforced While Sahlane(2012) analyzed ad hominem and and fallacious arguments punished, arguers of- other fallacies in several hundred newspaper edi- ten lapse into attacking the opponent by an torials, others usually only rely on few examples, ad hominem argument. As existing research as observed by de Wijze(2002). As Macagno lacks solid empirical investigation of the ty- (2013) concludes, ad hominem arguments should pology of ad hominem arguments as well as be considered as multifaceted and complex strate- their potential causes, this paper fills this gap gies, involving not a simple argument, but sev- by (1) performing several large-scale annota- eral combined tactics. However, such research, to tion studies, (2) experimenting with various neural architectures and validating our work- the best of our knowledge, does not exist. Very ing hypotheses, such as controversy or reason- little is known not only about the feasibility of ableness, and (3) providing linguistic insights ad hominem theories in practical applications (the into triggers of ad hominem using explainable NLP perspective) but also about the dynamics and neural network architectures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ad Hominem Fallacy
    Critical Thinking – Handout 3 – The Ad Hominem Fallacy Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long bow; the force of it depends on the strength of the hand that draws it. Argument is like an arrow from a cross-bow, which is equal force though shot by a child. –Samuel Johnson, A Life At this point, we have several fundamental critical thinking skills (CTSs) at our disposal: CTS #1: the ability to identify passages of text and determine whether or not they are arguments, CTS #2: the ability to determine whether an argument is valid/invalid and strong/weak by using the imagination test. CTS #3: the ability to specify the exact conclusion of the argument. CTS#4: the ability to identify which premises (reasons) are relevant and which are irrelevant to a specific conclusion. CTS#5: the ability to determine how different premises relate to each other in their support of the conclusion (diagramming). The next set of CTSs will focus more on the evaluation of different arguments. CTS#6: the ability to identify different fallacies as they occur in everyday arguments and distinguish these fallacies from similar-looking but non-fallacious arguments. 1. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS & AD HOMINEM FALLACIES A fallacy is an error in reasoning. We say that someone’s reasoning or argument is “fallacious” when they argue incorrectly from the premises to the conclusion. A large portion of critical thinking has to do with the description, investigation, and taxonomy of different fallacies. One important kind of fallacy is the ad hominem1 fallacy. To get clear on what an ad hominem fallacy is, we first need to define what an “ad hominem statement” and “ad hominem argument” is: An ad hominem statement is any (positive, negative, or neutral) statement made about an individual.
    [Show full text]
  • MORE PSEUDOREASONING OR FALLACIES AD HOMINEM in All Ad
    CHAPTER 6: MORE PSEUDOREASONING OR FALLACIES AD HOMINEM In all ad hominem fallacies we attack the speaker rather than the claim. Personal Attack We commit the fallacy of PERSONAL ATTACK AD HOMINEM when we try to discredit a claim by personally attacking the speaker. Jack said that bilingual education has been a failure, but what does he know? He’s totally clueless. Circumstantial Ad Hominem We commit the fallacy of CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM when we try to discredit a claim by attacking the speaker based upon their circumstances. My brother says you always should give a 20% tip, but he works in the food industry Pseudorefutation We commit the fallacy of PSEUDOREFUTATION when we attack the credibility of a speaker by accusing them of having been inconsistent in some way. Maria said that NPR is a success, but I don’t believe it because she used to be against it. Poisoning the well We commit the fallacy of poisoning the well when we say something to discredit somebody before they have even made a claim. For example, Karen Horney isn’t nuts. Really. GENETIC FALLACY Someone commits the GENETIC fallacy when they challenge a claim based on its history or source (where the source isn’t an individual, in which case it would be ad hominem). The FDA says that blue food coloring is safe too eat but I don’t trust anything the FDA says. FALSE DILEMMA We commit the fallacy of FALSE DILEMMA when we wrongly see a situation as having only two alternatives, when it has more.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama State University Department of Languages and Literatures
    ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES COURSE SYLLABUS PHILOSOPHY 201 LOGICAL REASONING (PHL 201) (Revised 10/20/04 – Dr. Daniel Keller.) I. Faculty Listing: PHL 201: Logical Reasoning (3 credit hours) II. Description: To satisfactorily complete the course, a student must earn a grade of “C.” The course is designed to help students assess information and arguments and to improve their ability to reason in a clear and logical way. The course concentrates specifically on helping students learn some of the various uses of languages, understand how different kinds of inferences are drawn, and learn to recognize fallacies of ambiguity, presumption, and relevance. III. Purpose: Many students do not reason soundly and do not distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. Hence, the aim of this course is to give students experience in learning to recognize and evaluate arguments; it also aims at teaching them to construct arguments that are reasonable and defensible. It is designed as a basic course to improve the reasoning skills of students. After completing this course successfully, students should show improvements in reading comprehension, writing, and test- taking skills. IV. Course Objectives: 1. Comprehend concepts 1-9 on the attached list. a) Define each concept b) Identify the meaning of each concept as it applies to logic. 2. Comprehend how these concepts function in logical reasoning. a) Given examples from the text of each concept, correctly identify the concept. b) Given new examples of each concept, correctly identify the concept. 3. Comprehend concepts 10-16 on the attached list. a) Define the concepts b) Identify the meaning of the concept as it applies to logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 Article 4 Winter 1993 Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation Kevin W. Saunders University of Oklahoma Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin W. Saunders, Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, 44 S. C. L. Rev. 343 (1993). This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Saunders: Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation INFORMAL FALLACIES IN LEGAL ARGUMENTATION KEVIN W. SAUNDERS" I. INTRODUCTION ............................ 344 II. VARIETIES OF INFORMAL FALLACIES ............... 345 A. Argumentum ad Hominem .... ............ B. Argumentum ad Misericordiam . ............ C. Argumentum ad Populum ..... ............ D. Argumentum ad Vericundiam .. ............ E. Ignoratio Elenchi .......... ............ F. Petitio Principii ........... ............ G. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ... ............ H. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ... ............ L Argumentum ad Terrorem .... ............ J. Argumentum ad Antiquitam ... ............ K. Accident and Hasty Generalization ........... L. Composition ............. ............ M. Division ............... ° . o ..° ° . N. Complex Question ......... ............° ° 0. Tu Quoque .............. ............° ° P. Ambiguity .............. ............ 1. Equivocation .........
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies of Relevance1
    1 Phil 2302 Logic Dr. Naugle Fallacies of Relevance1 "Good reasons must, of force, give place to better." —Shakespeare "There is a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons, and reasons that sound good." —Burton Hillis "It would be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when a man used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it." —Arthur Schopenhauer Introduction: There are many ways to bring irrelevant matters into an argument and the study below will examine many of them. These fallacies (pathological arguments!) demonstrate the lengths to which people will go to win an argument, even if they cannot prove their point! Fallacies of relevance share a common characteristic in that the arguments in which they occur have premises that are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet, the premises seem to be relevant psychologically, so that the conclusion seems to follow from the premises. The actual connection between premises and conclusion is emotional, not logical. To identify a fallacy of relevance, you must be able to distinguish between genuine evidence and various unrelated forms of appeal. FALLACIES THAT ATTACK I. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum ="argument toward the club or stick") "Who overcomes by force has overcome but half his foe." Milton. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is like hitting below the intellect." Oscar Wilde 1 NB: This material is taken from several logic texts authored by N.
    [Show full text]