FALLACIES (Adapted from Sahakian and Sahakian’s Ideas of the Great Philosophers) Linguistic Fallacies Fallacy of Emotive Language: Often words used in arguments either lack definite meaning or have as their sole purpose the arousal of unreasoned feeling; when an argument depends upon the stimulation of emotions rather than conveying logical information, the error committed is known as the fallacy of emotive language. For example, in the United States, the purpose of labeling someone a Communist is not usually to convey the thought that he believes in the "common ownership of the means of production," but to insult him, to cast a derogatory aspersion upon him, to refer to him with contempt. Fallacy of Ambiguity: Occasionally, a person takes refuge in language: that is, he hides behind words which lack precise meaning or words whose definition is unknown to one or to both parties in discussion. The fallacy of ambiguity refers to the use of terms which are ill-defined, vague in meaning, signifying a variety of ideas, none of which can be made clear or precise either by definition of the words or by the context. Some logicians regard all linguistic fallacies as aspects of the error of ambiguity. During the legal miasma of Bill Clinton’s impeachment, the defense relied heavily on the fact that "sexual relations" had multiple meanings, making Clinton’s testimony both true and false; since the term was appropriately vague, this scenario is an example of the fallacy of ambiguity. Fallacy of Equivocation: The use of a term in more than one sense, while the impression is given that it is being used to express only one and the same meaning throughout an argument, is known as the fallacy of equivocation. A word used in more than one sense should be interpreted as if it were actually two or more words; the fallacy results from the incorrect assumption that the word is used throughout a given discussion to convey a single connotation. The misused word in the example below is "radioactive": "It is dangerous for people to touch that which is radioactive. The word used here is ‘radioactive.’ Therefore, people should not touch the word used here." Fallacy of Amphibology: The use of a statement which permits of two interpretations is known as the fallacy of amphibology. Amphibology differs from equivocation in two important respects: (1) amphibology pertains to the entire argument, whereas equivocation is limited to single terms; (2) the entire argument is susceptible to a two-fold interpretation due to its structure, not to any misuse on the part of the debater. As in the following examples, amphibologies are often attributable to the use of misplaced modifiers: "Wanted to sell: A highchair for a baby with long legs." (In this classified advertisement, which has long legs, the baby or the chair?) "Clean and decent boxing every night except Sunday." (According to this sign at a boxing arena, what happens on Sundays—no boxing at all, or dirty and indecent boxing?) Fallacy of Composition: The false assumption that a statement about an integral part of something necessarily holds true for the composite whole is known as the fallacy of composition. This error refers to statements about things considered as parts of a whole, not to statements about things considered as separate entities. The fallacy consists of reasoning incorrectly from facts about members of a class to conclusion about the entire class. Note these examples of the fallacy of composition: "A Hollywood film production composed exclusively of top stars would be a better show than one composed of a few star actors." (The error lies in neglecting to note the need for a good supporting cast who have not attained stardom. It also ignores the other elements that go into a film.) "An orchestra of the world’s finest soloists would be the best band in the world." (An orchestra is a team of musicians, each lending proper support to the whole, not a mere assembly of individual prima donnas, each playing solos independently of the group efforts.) Fallacy of Division: The converse of the fallacy of composition is division, erroneous reasoning that what holds true of a composite whole necessarily is true for each component part considered separately. Here are some examples of this fallacy: "The New York Yankees were the world’s champion baseball team last year; therefore, they must have the world’s best second baseman." (The second baseman may have been their weakest link; they may have become champions despite this weakness.) "California grows the world’s best grapes; therefore, the Californian grape which I am about to eat must be one of the best in the world." (It may be a poor specimen or rotten grape.) Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction: The removal of a statement from its context, thereby changing the meaning of an argument, is known as the fallacy of vicious abstraction. Many statements may easily and critically be altered simply by dropping the context; such removal distorts the meaning. Below are some examples of this fallacy. In My Cousin Vinny, an innocent young man is arrested for shooting a clerk; part of the evidence used against him is his dumbfounded repetition of the phrase "I shot the clerk" during his interrogation. Without the context of his disbelief, the phrase becomes a confession. "St. Paul said, ‘Money is the root of all evil.’" ("The love of money is the root of all evil.") "Ralph Waldo Emerson said: ‘Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.’" ("Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.") Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence Fallacy of Irrelevance: To prove or disprove the wrong point is to commit the fallacy of irrelevance, often referred to as irrelevant conclusion or ignoratio elenchi. The fallacy of irrelevance can be most deceptive, for the presentation may seem very cogent, obscuring the fact that a question different from the one under consideration is being discussed. This error is made by attempting to prove something that has not even been denied or by attacking something that has not been asserted. In another form of this fallacy, the individual assumes that he has proved his own point by disproving those of his opponent. In a murder trial, for example, the prosecutor is guilty of the fallacy of irrelevance if, instead of proving the defendant guilty of murder, he proves him to be guilty of other crimes. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (The Appeal to Ignorance): The fallacy of the appeal to ignorance takes several forms. In one form, it is assumed that what might possibly be true is actually true. In a second form, it is assumed that a given thesis is correct merely because no one can prove it incorrect. In a third form, it is assumed that an opponent’s entire argument can be destroyed merely by disproving a nonessential part of the argument. The following are examples of the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance: "Psychic phenomena are facts since no one can disprove them." "Flying saucers do exist, for no one really knows for sure that they don’t." Argumentum ad Misericordiam (The Appeal to Pity): Instead of defending an argument on its merits, this fallacy evades the pertinent issues and makes a purely emotional appeal. Too often a person who is unable to cite relevant facts in support of his claims may resort to a plea for sympathy. (An attorney may be tempted to do this when he defends his client before a jury.) Nevertheless, some logicians insist that, in certain instances, the argumentum ad misericordiam is a legitimate argument. The fallacy of the appeal to pity is illustrated in the following statements: "Teacher, please change my grade from C to B; if you do not, then I shall miss being on the honor roll, and consequently fail to attain the scholarship assistance which I desperately need." Argumentum ad Verecundiam (The Appeal to Prestige): The appeal to respect or prestige (instead of to pertinent data) is known as argumentum ad verecundiam. This fallacy equates prestige with evidence. The attempt is made to gain support for an idea or proposal by associating it with highly respected individuals or hallowed institutions. Notice the dubious appeal in the following argument: "We should accept this study because its author attended Yale." Argumentum ad Baculum (The Appeal to Force): An appeal to force (whether the coercion be overt or disguised) as a substitute for pertinent logic is known as argumentum ad baculum (argument by means of a club), the idea being that a club held over an opponent’s head will force him to accept a new point of view. The fallacy is evident in the following statement: "If you value your health, you had better donate your milk money to the Charitable Bullies’ Fund." In another example, when a girl tells her mother, "Mom, I don’t believe in altruism," her mother replies, "You had better, sweetie, or I won’t give you a present for your birthday." Argumentum ad Hominem (The Appeal to Personal Ridicule): The fallacy of shifting an argument from the point being discussed to the personality of the opponent is known as argumentum ad hominem, also known as "the straw man." Instead of dealing with an opponent’s thesis on its merits, the fallacious argument attacks his reputation and moral character, or refers to his low intelligence, inferior social position, lack of education, or similar personal shortcomings. The fallacy is illustrated by such statements as: "Don’t stoop to debate with him. He’s nothing but an ignorant savage." "I don’t care what the proof indicates. Would you accept evidence presented by this low contemptible heathen?" Argumentum ad Populum (The Appeal to the Masses): Arguments which depart from the question under discussion by making an appeal to the feelings and prejudices of the multitude are known as ad populum fallacies. These arguments often take the affirmative form of a zealous appeal to patriotism, or they may consist of negative appeals to superiority feelings and racial or other prejudices. Hitler’s Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists used these fallacies as a basic technique of their propaganda, coupling the appeal with promises of wealth and power for faithful adherents. Likewise, in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, a football player presents a speech on history to his high school and, rather than making a good point, simply shouts "San Dimas High School Football rules!" The masses in the auditorium cheer. Miscellaneous Material Fallacies Fallacy of Accident (or Dicto Simpliciter): This fallacy attempts to apply a general rule to special cases which are exceptions to the rule, that is, to make universal statements about matters to which the rule does not always apply. It is an error to ignore the fact that most rules permit exceptions. Furthermore, a rule may be valid only if certain conditions prevail, and different conditions may make the rule inapplicable to specific cases. This fallacy is illustrated by statements such as the following: "Theft is a crime. Since the Spartan nation permitted stealing, it must have consisted entirely of criminals." (Theft is a crime only in those nations in which it is prohibited by law; wherever not prohibited, it is of course legally permissible, as in ancient Sparta. True, nations generally regard theft as criminal, but to apply this common view to an exception, as in the case of Sparta, is to commit the fallacy of accident.) Converse Fallacy of Accident: This fallacy, also called the fallacy of selected instances or the fallacy of hasty generalization, consists of an attempt to establish a generalization by the simple enumeration of instances without obtaining a representative number of particular instances. In other words, a conclusion is derived before all the particular instances have been taken into consideration. Examples of this fallacy follow: "All geniuses are odd people. I know, because the first five geniuses I interviewed were strangely peculiar." (The error lies in failing to obtain a fair or representative sampling of geniuses.) "Professors are absentminded." (Obviously, this trait displayed by a few professors must not be attributed to the entire profession.) False Cause (Post Hoc): The fallacy of false cause, or post hoc, consists of reasoning from mere sequence to consequence, that is, from what merely happened in sequence to the assumption of a causal connection. The basic error is that of inferring a causal relationship without sufficient grounds; for this reason the fallacy is often referred to as that of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this and therefore in consequence of this), an expression which itself explains the nature of the error. Note the following example: "Twice in succession John raised his hand, and lightning flashed; therefore, the raising of John’s hand causes lightning." Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow): Also known as Fallacy of the Consequent, a non sequitur consists of an acceptance of a conclusion which does not follow logically from given premises or from any antecedent statements. A non sequitur argument always exhibits this lack of logical connection. The difference between the post hoc and the non sequitur fallacies is that, whereas the post hoc fallacy is due to lack of a causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of a logical connection. A non sequitur argument should also be distinguished from an irrelevant inference, in which the statement being made pertains to a question other than the one up for discussion. In a non sequitur argument, the statements may all be relevant, but the relationships posited are logically disconnected. Examples: "Trees are green; therefore human beings enjoy spinach." "If it takes a man twenty minutes to walk a mile, women should be able to live longer than men." Compound Questions: This fallacy is also known as the fallacy of multiple questions, or of poisoning the wells. The error consists of combining several questions in such a manner as to preclude all opposing arguments, thus placing one’s opponent in a self-incriminating position. We can be misled into assuming that a simple, single question implies that prior questions have been raised and correctly answered as a basis for the question under consideration. Note the implied assumptions in the following questions: "Why did you torture this innocent child?" "Have you stopped beating your wife?" "How do you account for your stupidity?" "Why am I always right, while you are always wrong?" "Why did you cheat on your best friend?" (Some unethical attorneys have been known to use such misleading queries deliberately to trap a witness in a courtroom trial into making contradictory statements or to confuse him during the cross-examination.) Petitio Principii (Begging the Question): Perhaps no other fallacy has so many different names as petitio principii, which consists of several forms, such as reasoning in a circle, failing to prove the initial thesis propounded, and using the original thesis as proof of itself. Common terms for this fallacy are circular reasoning, circle in the proof, and arguing in a circle. Reasoning becomes completely circular, so that the initial question is begged. "Gentlemen prefer blondes." "How do you know he’s a gentleman?" "I know because he prefers blondes." Tu Quoque (You Do It Yourself): Often an individual who is being criticized will defend his actions by accusing his critic of doing the same things himself. If the conditions are identical, this tu quoque argument can be used as an effective defense, but it is fallacious if the two situations being compared are not identical or if the actions of both parties are considered indefensible. This fallacy is shown in discussions such as the following: "If a heart specialist can lie to his patient, then I have the right to lie to my teacher." (The difference in motive is wrongly ignored.) "Son, it is your bedtime. Go to bed." "But, dad, you are staying up. I should get to, too." (The fact that the boy requires more sleep than his father does has been disregarded.) Fallacy of Misplaced Authority: The discussion of authority as a source or criterion of truth suggested that any expert’s opinion merits confidence and respect if it relates to his special field of competence. It is an error (the fallacy of misplaced authority) to cite an authority in matters foreign to his field of specialization. His opinion in matters beyond the scope of his area of acknowledged competence need to be accorded no greater respect or attention than that of any other observer. The scientific opinions of Newton or of an Einstein inspire confidence, but their political, religious, or artistic opinions must be judged on their merits in the same way as those of ordinary citizens. Likewise, when a basketball player endorses motor oil on television, it is a case of misplaced authority since the player has no specialized knowledge about cars. False Analogy: Arguments which resemble each other in logical reasoning are said to be analogous. If one argument is accepted as valid, then the others involving the same line of reasoning are also accepted. But any major differences between propositions may destroy the analogy and invalidate the conclusions. "Maids and butlers should make better politicians than lawyers and judges because government is merely good housekeeping." (The analogy is false because there are major differences between the administration of government affairs and the management of a household.) Insufficient Evidence: The fallacy known as insufficient evidence refers to the acceptance of inadequate data as a basis for a conclusion. For example, in a trial for murder, the judge may remind the jury that evidence proving that the murder weapon belonged to the defendant does not in itself prove that he used it to commit the crime. Contrary to Fact Conditional Error: This fallacy alters historical facts and then draws conclusions from them. But conclusions derived from false premises cannot be accepted as valid. Logical conclusions cannot be drawn from unhistorical suppositions, but only from data accepted as historically true. The fallacy is illustrated in statements such as the following: "If the South had won the Civil War, then slavery would abound in the North today." (Actually, no one can tell what might have happened; the historical facts would have determined the outcome.) Contradictory Premises: Self-Contradictions are necessarily false; consequently, when an argument contains premises which contradict each other, no conclusion is possible. Any conclusion would involve the fallacy of contradictory premises, a self-contradiction. When contradictory premises are present in an argument, one premise cancels out the other. It is possible for one or the other of the two premises to be true, but not for both to be simultaneously true. For example, "If God is all-powerful, can he make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?" "What would happened if an irresistible force met an immovable object?"  © All material found on www.gregwright.info is copyright protected by Greg Wright and may not be reproduced or used in any way without his express, written permission. Thank you.