The explanation of how the false appearance can arise is in the similarity of words or expressions with different meanings, and the smallness of differences in meaning between some expressions SR 7 a23—b Aristotle discusses thirteen ways in which refutations can be sophistical and divides them into two groups. The first group, introduced in Chapter 4 of On Sophistical Refutations , includes those Aristotle considers dependent on language in dictione , and the second group, introduced in Chapter 5, includes those characterized as not being dependent on language extra dictionem.
Chapter 6 reviews all the fallacies from the view point of failed refutations, and Chapter 7 explains how the appearance of correctness is made possible for each fallacy. Chapters 19—30 advise answerers on how to avoid being taken in by sophistical refutations. The fallacies dependent on language are equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent and form of expression. Of these the first two have survived pretty much as Aristotle thought of them.
The one has to do with semantical ambiguity, the other with syntactical ambiguity. However, the way that Aristotle thought of the combination and division fallacies differs significantly from modern treatments of composition and division. For division, Aristotle gives the example of the number 5: it is 2 and 3. But 2 is even and 3 is odd, so 5 is even and odd. Finally, the fallacy that Aristotle calls form of expression exploits the kind of ambiguity made possible by what we have come to call category mistakes, in this case, fitting words to the wrong categories.
Category confusion was, for Aristotle, the key cause of metaphysical mistakes. There are seven kinds of sophistical refutation that can occur in the category of refutations not dependent on language: accident, secundum quid , consequent, non-cause, begging the question, ignoratio elenchi and many questions. It turns on his distinction between two kinds of predication, unique properties and accidents Top. What belongs to a thing are its unique properties which are counterpredicable Smith , 60 , i.
However, attributes that are accidents are not counterpredicates and to treat them as such is false reasoning, and can lead to paradoxical results; for example, if it is a property of triangles that they are equal to two right angles, and a triangle is accidentally a first principle, it does not follow that all first principles have two right angles see Schreiber , ch.
Aristotle considers the fallacy of consequent to be a special case of the fallacy of accident, observing that consequence is not convertible, i. This fallacy is sometimes claimed as being an early statement of the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. The fallacy of secundum quid comes about from failing to appreciate the distinction between using words absolutely and using them with qualification. It is because the difference between using words absolutely and with qualification can be minute that this fallacy is possible, thinks Aristotle.
Begging the question is explained as asking for the answer the proposition which one is supposed to prove, in order to avoid having to make a proof of it. Some subtlety is needed to bring about this fallacy such as a clever use of synonymy or an intermixing of particular and universal propositions Top. VIII, If the fallacy succeeds the result is that there will be no deduction: begging the question and non-cause are directly prohibited by the second and third conditions respectively of being a deduction SR 6 b The fallacy of non-cause occurs in contexts of ad impossibile arguments when one of the assumed premises is superfluous for deducing the conclusion.
The superfluous premise will then not be a factor in deducing the conclusion and it will be a mistake to infer that it is false since it is a non-cause of the impossibility. This is not the same fallacy mentioned by Aristotle in the Rhetoric II 24 which is more akin to a fallacy of empirical causation and is better called false cause see Woods and Hansen Thus with a single answer to two questions one has two premises for a refutation , and one of them may turn out to be idle, thus invalidating the deduction it becomes a non-cause fallacy.
Also possible is that extra-linguistic part-whole mistakes may happen when, for example, given that something is partly good and partly not-good, the double question is asked whether it is all good or all not-good?
Either answer will lead to a contradiction see Schreiber , — Despite its name, this fallacy consists in the ensuing deduction, not in the question which merely triggers the fallacy. Seen this way, ignoratio elenchi is unlike all the other fallacies in that it is not an argument that fails to meet one of the criteria of a good deduction, but a genuine deduction that turns out to be irrelevant to the point at issue.
Each of the other twelve fallacies is analysed as failing to meet one of the conditions in this definition of refutation SR 6. Aristotle seems to favour this second reading, but it leaves the problem of explaining how refutations that miss their mark can seem like successful refutations. A possible explanation is that a failure to contradict a given thesis can be made explicit by adding the negation of the thesis as a last step of the deduction, thereby insuring the contradiction of the thesis, but only at the cost by the last step of introducing one of the other twelve fallacies in the deduction.
To really understand them a much longer engagement with the original text and the secondary sources is necessary. This approach to the fallacies is continued in contemporary research by some argumentation theorists, most notably Douglas Walton who also follows Aristotle in recognizing a number of different kinds of dialogues in which argumentation can occur; Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst who combine dialectical and pragmatic insights with an ideal model of a critical discussion; and Jaakko Hintikka who analyses the Aristotelian fallacies as mistakes in question-dialogues Hintikka ; Bachman Francis Bacon deserves a brief mention in the history of fallacy theory, not because he made any direct contribution to our knowledge of the fallacies but because of his attention to prejudice and bias in scientific investigation, and the effect they could have on our beliefs.
He spoke of false idols , aphorisms 40—44 as having the same relation to the interpretation of nature that fallacies have to logic. The idol of the tribe is human nature which distorts our view of the natural world it is a false mirror. The idol of the cave is the peculiarity of each individual man, our different abilities and education that affect how we interpret nature.
These three idols all fall into the category of explanations of why we may misperceive the world. The view of The New Organon is that just as logic is the cure for fallacies, so will the true method of induction be a cure for the false idols. III, xix. The division is not exclusive, with some of the sophisms fitting both classes. Several kinds of causal errors are considered under the broad heading, non causa pro causa and they are illustrated with reference to scientific explanations that have assigned false causes for empirical phenomena.
III, xix 3. Begging the questions is included and illustrated, interestingly, with examples drawn from Aristotelian science. Two new sophisms are included: one is imperfect enumeration, the error of overlooking an alternative, the other is a faulty incomplete induction, what we might call hasty generalization. Although the discussions here are brief, they mark the entry of inductive fallacies into the pool of present day recognized fallacies.
III, xix 1. The other Aristotelian fallacies included are accident, combination and division, secundum quid and ambiguity. The sophisms of everyday life and ordinary discourse are eight in number and two of them, the sophisms of authority and manner, should be noticed. In these sophisms, external marks of speakers contribute to the persuasiveness of their arguments. Although authority is not to be doubted in church doctrines, in matters that God has left to the discernment of humans we can be led away from the truth by being too deferential.
Here we find one of the earliest statements of the modern appeal to false authority: people are often persuaded by certain qualities that are irrelevant to the truth of the issue being discussed. Thus there are a number of people who unquestioningly believe those who are the oldest and most experienced, even in matters that depend neither on age nor experience, but only on mental insight Bk.
III, xx 6. To age and experience Arnauld and Nicole add noble birth as an unwarranted source of deference in matters intellectual Bk.
III, xx 8. The authors seem to have the rhetorical flourishes of royal courtiers especially in mind. It is John Locke who is credited with intentionally creating a class of ad -arguments, and inadvertently giving birth to the class of ad -fallacies.
Two of the ad arguments have developed beyond how Locke originally conceived them. His characterization of the ad verecundiam is considered the locus classicus of appeal-to-authority arguments. It seems unlikely, however, that Locke thought we should never rely on the expertise and superior knowledge of others when engaged in knowledge-gathering and argumentation.
This leads us to consider what kind of authority Locke might have had in mind. The argumentum ad hominem , as Locke defined it, has subsequently developed into three different fallacies. To argue that way is not a fallacy but an acceptable mode of argumentation.
Henry Johnstone thought it captured the essential character of philosophical argumentation. Recent scholarship suggests that these post-Lockean kinds of ad hominem arguments are sometimes used fairly, and sometimes fallaciously; but none of them is what Locke described as the argumentum ad hominem.
Modern versions of this kind of argument take it as a fallacy to infer a proposition to be true because there is no evidence against it see Krabbe, Reasoning by syllogisms, he maintained, was neither necessary nor useful for knowledge.
Was Locke the first to discuss these kinds of arguments? Subsequently more ad -arguments were added to the four that Locke identified see Watts, and Copi, below. Isaac Watts in his Logick; or, The Right Use of Reason , furthered the ad -argument tradition by adding three more arguments: argumentum ad fidem appeal to faith , argumentum ad passiones appeal to passion , and argumentum ad populum a public appeal to passions.
Like Locke, Watts does not consider these arguments as fallacies but as kinds of arguments. III, 3 i 4. Another sophism included by Watts is imperfect enumeration or false induction, the mistake of generalizing on insufficient evidence. His interest was in political argumentation, particularly in exposing the different means used by parliamentarians and law makers to defeat or delay reform legislation.
Hence, it was not philosophy or science that interested him, but political debate. Fallacies he took to be arguments or topics that would through the use of deception produce erroneous beliefs in people , 3. These tactics he or his editor divided into four classes: fallacies of authority, danger, delay and confusion. Bentham was aware of the developing ad -fallacies tradition since each of the thirty or so fallacies he described is also labelled as belonging either to the kind ad verecundiam appeal to shame or modesty , ad odium appeal to hate or contempt , ad metum appeal to fear or threats , ad quietem appeal to rest or inaction , ad judicium , and ad socordiam appeal to postponement or delay.
It discusses authority at length, identifying four conditions for reliable appeals to authority and maintaining that the failure of any one of them cancels the strength of the appeal.
This characterization fits well with the way we have come to think of the ad hominem fallacy as a view disparaged by putting forth a negative characterization of its supporter or his circumstances. Bentham places the fallacies in the immediate context of debate, identifying ways in which arguers frustrate the eventual resolution of disagreements by using insinuations of danger, delaying tactics, appeals to questionable authorities and, generally, confusing issues.
Modern argumentation theorists who hold that any impediment to the successful completion of dialogical discussions is a fallacy, may find that their most immediate precursor was Bentham see Grootendorst Whately was instrumental in the revival of interest in logic at the beginning of the nineteenth century and, being committed to deductivism, he maintained that only valid deductive inferences counted as reasoning. Thus, he took every fallacy to belong to either the class of deductive failures logical fallacies or the class of non-logical failures material fallacies.
III, intro. The logical fallacies divide into the purely logical and the semi-logical fallacies. The purely logical fallacies are plain violations of syllogistic rules like undistributed middle and illicit process.
The semi-logical fallacies mostly trade on ambiguous middle terms and are therefore also logical fallacies, but their detection requires extra-logical knowledge including that of the senses of terms [ 4 ] and knowledge of the subject matter Bk. Begging the question fits under the heading of a non-logical, material fallacy in which a premise has been unduly assumed, and ignoratio elenchi is a non-logical, material fallacy in which an irrelevant conclusion has been reached. The ad -arguments are all placed under the last division as variants of ignoratio elenchi , but they are said to be fallacies only when they are used unfairly.
This kind of ad hominem fallacy can be seen as falling under the broader ignoratio elenchi category because what is proved is not what is needed. The creation of the category of non-logical fallacies was not really a break with Aristotle as much as it was a break with what had become the Aristotelian tradition. Aristotle thought that some fallacies were due to unacceptable premises although these are not elaborated in Sophistical Refutations see section 2.
Mill held that only inductive reasoning counts as inferring and accordingly he introduces new categories as well as a new classification scheme for fallacies. Mill drew a division between the moral and the intellectual causes of fallacies. The former are aspects of human nature such as biases and indifference to truth which incline us to make intellectual mistakes.
These dispositions are not themselves fallacies. It is the intellectual errors, the actual taking of insufficient evidence as sufficient, that are fallacious. The various ways in which this can happen are what Mill took as the basis for classifying fallacies. Mill divided the broad category of argument fallacies into two groups: those in which the evidence is distinctly conceived and those in which it is indistinctly conceived.
Fallacies falling under evidence indistinctly conceived Bk. V, vii were further described as fallacies of confusion. These result from an indistinct conception of the evidence leading to a mistaking of its significance and thereby to an unsupported conclusion. Some of the traditional Aristotelian fallacies such as ambiguity, composition and division, petitio principii , and ignoratio elenchi , are placed in this category.
Although Mill followed Whately closely in his exposition of the fallacies of confusion, he does not mention any ad -arguments in connection with ignoratio elenchi. As for the category of fallacies of evidence distinctly conceived, it too is divided. The two sub-classes are fallacies of ratiocination deduction and fallacies of induction.
The deductive fallacies Bk. V, vi are those that explicitly break a rule of the syllogism, such as the three-term rule. Also included in this category is the secundum quid fallacy. He divided inductive fallacies into two further groups: fallacies of observation V, iv and fallacies of generalization Bk. Fallacies of observation can occur either negatively or positively. Their negative occurrence consists in non-observation in which one has overlooked negatively relevant evidence. Observation fallacies occur positively when the mistake is based on something that is seen wrongly, i.
Such mal-observations occur when we mistake our inferences for facts, as in our inference that the sun rises and sets Bk. V, iv, 5. Fallacies of generalization, the other branch of inductive fallacies, result from mistakes in the inductive process which can happen in several ways. As one example, Mill pointed to making generalizations about what lies beyond our experience: we cannot infer that the laws that operate in remote parts of the universe are the same as those in our solar system Bk.
V, v, 2. Another example is mistaking empirical laws stating regularities for causal laws—his example was because women as a class have not hitherto equalled men as a class, they will never be able to do so Bk. V, v, 4. Also placed in the category of fallacies of generalization is post hoc ergo propter hoc , which tends to single out a single cause when there are in reality many contributing causes Bk.
V, v, 5. V, v, 6. Mill also included what he calls fallacies of inspection, or a priori fallacies Bk. V, iii in his survey of fallacies. These consist of non-inferentially held beliefs, so they fit the belief conception of fallacies rather than the argument conception.
This is circularity by synonymy. Circularity is sometimes equated with begging the question. However, I think that begging the question is better understood as a broader category of fallaciously offering evidence that is no better than the conclusion it defends.
Circularity is the a special case. Circularity is often disguised by introducing the repeated information, but doing so several steps removed from the conclusion. For example: "God's existence can be proven by the miracles that He provides. When a skydiver's parachute fails and yet a tree breaks the fall, allowing the skydiver to survive, that survival is miraculous. Since no one but God can do anything miraculous, such cases prove God's existence.
Coincidence is a fallacy of sampling, but it is mainly a concern when we use sampling to establish a correlation in order to establish a cause. Basically, it is the fallacy of putting too much trust in a sample that, due to no other fallacy, fails to represent the general picture. How does this happen? Statistical information has both a margin of error and a confidence level. The two are related. Failure to consult the margin of error can result in hasty generalization.
The fallacy of coincidence is the failure to understand the importance of the confidence level. Because we cannot know the truth falls outside our margin of error, it is foolish to trust studies and experiments that are not replicated by a second study or experiment.
If a separate study gets the same result and neither has any other fallacies, then there is almost no chance that both got the same erroneous result by coincidence! So what is the fallacy of coincidence? Basically, it is trusting statistical information that would, on further study, turn out to lack statistical significance. Either the result was one of those few cases predicted to be wrong by the confidence level, or the statistic is just a coincidence of the circumstances in which we conduct our study.
Either way, we can only say that a statistic is subject to the fallacy of coincidence when we can point to further data that shows the sample happened to be one of the "bad" results predicted by the confidence level. Denying the antecedent The invalid argument pattern in which the second premise conflicts with the antecedent of a conditional.
Not B Example: 1. If Sam is tired then he will fail the exam. Sam will not fail the exam. It's invalid because the premises might be true while the conclusion remains false, due to some additional reason making the consequent of the first premise true as it originally stands.
In this example, perhaps Sam is well rested but Sam didn't study for the exam. An extreme form of provincialism in which someone identifies one's own needs and then settles a problem by simply determining how those needs can be met.
Someone is egocentric when she or he oversimplifies a problem by refusing to consider the relevance of facts and information that conflicts with one's personal interests. A display of egocentrism constitutes a fallacy when it blocks discussion of relevant information in the context of arguing. A common form of provincialism in which someone identifies oneself in terms of one's ethnicity and then settles a problem by simply determining how that group is benefited.
A display of ethnocentrism constitutes a fallacy when it blocks discussion of relevant information in the context of arguing. As with many of the fallacies, equivocation is only a fallacy if we first establish that it takes place within a context of reasoning!
People equivocate all the time, but it doesn't have the status of a fallacy unless they are engaged in reasoning in leading someone to a conclusion. The fallacy can be intentional or unintentional. In the former case, the person giving the argument misleads the audience by exploiting the equivocation. In the second case, the speaker does not try to mislead, but the audience draws an unsound conclusion by misinterpreting statements that can be taken two different ways. Example : John has catholic interests: he likes sports, science, mystery novels, and silent films.
Most Catholics go to mass on a regular basis, so John probably goes to mass on a regular basis. Analysis: The first premise uses 'catholic' with a lower case 'c', meaning broad or universal. The second uses an upper case 'C', meaning the religion. Since the two premises are true according to different interpretations of the term, there has been a change of subject and the two premises do not connect to make a strong pattern.
It is unsound. Example : In this country, a suspect is innocent unless proven guilty. Since my trial has not yet reached the verdict stage, I'm innocent. Analysis: Pretty silly! In reality, one is or isn't innocent quite apart from the jury's verdict. One is merely treated as innocent unless proven guilty it's a statement about the burden of proof in law, not a statement of fact.
One can't go from the legal principle to a claim of real innocence. When the equivocation is created by a punctuation error or error in grammatical construction, the fallacy is technically known as the fallacy of amphiboly. Real example : Jared Blair, manager of a Hooters Restaurant in Panama City Beach, told the waitresses at the restaurant that the company would reward the one who sold the most beer during April with a "new Toyota.
When Berry was led blindfolded to the parking lot to claim her prize, she got a new "toy-Yoda" Star Wars doll instead of the promised car, the suit contends. Berry has sued the Restaurant. For the complete news article, click here. Analysis: Berry alleges breach of contract. If her claims are true, it is clear that Blair is guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, for choosing wording that would mislead the waitresses.
When an argument by analogy overlooks significant differences, it is subject to this fallacy and is unsound. To accuse it of false or faulty analogy, one must note at least one significant difference between the things being compared, and must explain how the difference is relevant to the issue being debated.
Example: Some people argue that because alcohol is legal for adults, all other mood-altering substances should be legal for adults. But this is a false analogy, because many mood-altering substances are drugs that permanently alter the pleasure center of the brain, causing strong addictions almost immediately. Alcohol does not work in the same way, so it does not have the same level of addiction that we would get if we legalize many other substances.
False Dilemma Limited Options Fallacy The fallacy of arguing by offering someone a false or implausible set of choices. In other words, an excluding possibilities argument with a false disjunction. A false dilemma is always unsound. We show that the fallacy has taken place by pointing out one or more plausible but overlooked options. Example: "Either Pat should study harder or take easier classes. Pat won't study harder, so Pat should take easier classes.
Example : My opponent wants to extend the hunting season by starting it a week earlier. But that isn't fair to the young animals, cheating them of time to develop and making them easy targets. Instead, we should extend the season by a week.
Analysis: Fails to consider the option of "none of the above," for example, by just leaving the dates of the season alone. In this fallacy, the argument is usually valid. So this is not a "formal fallacy" the problem is not the form of the argument. One variation of this fallacy is known as the Black-and-White Fallacy.
In this case, the arguer oversimplifies a complex situation by seeing the situation as "black and white," putting all cases into one of two extreme categories. The arguer ignores "shades of gray. Example : He can't be a Christian. Look, he's got tattoos! Analysis: Implicit but false assumption: You conform to a certain "dress code" or you're not a Christian. Example : You're either a patriot or you're one of those radicals criticizing the war!
Analysis: Implicit but false assumption: there is no middle ground. Another variation is the middle ground fallacy a. In this variation, the arguer begins the argument with a false dilemma by proposing two extreme options. Based on their extreme nature, the arguer then proposes that the reasonable option must be in the middle ground between the two, and proposes a specific third option as that middle ground. Yet this remains a false dilemma if the arguer has ignored additional options that would be alternatives such as none of them.
Example : Smith thinks that all the faculty should use Mac computers, because that's what they use in her department. Jones thinks that all the faculty should use PCs, because they're more common in industry. But neither of those plans can work. PCs lack the capacity for graphics needed by the art department, and Macs don't run all the accounting software needed in the business school.
So the university should adopt the compromise: half of future computers will be Macs, and half will be PCs. The National Academy of Science recommends the teaching of evolution in all high schools.
However, most Americans do not believe in evolution and do not want it taught. What we should do is balance the teaching of evolution with equal time given to teaching the Bible's book of Genesis. The fallacy of generalizing from a small sample and failing to take this into account in the conclusion of the argument. A sample that is adequate in size when asking people who they plan to vote for will be too small for medical research that looks for low levels of allergic response to a new medication.
Basically, the fallacy occurs when we present a conclusion that is more precise than the sample warrants. To be more precise, every sample size creates a margin of error for the resulting generalization. These margins specify the range within which we can expect to find the correct answer. For example, suppose a unbiased sample of Americans gets 55 positive responses to the question "Do you like ice cream with apple pie?
The fallacy of giving evidence against the position being defended, either directly, by undercutting the conclusion, or indirectly, by undercutting evidence being presented by the conclusion. It is not a fallacy to state objections to one's argument if one then goes on to answer those objections. To recognize serious problems but to insist that one is still correct would be a case of inconsistency.
Real Example : A contest promotion that advertised "50 random entries automatically win this one-of-a-kind T-Shirt! The announcement includes this paragraph: KFC's new Famous Bowls, a departure from the restaurant's popular family style bucket, provides lunch-starved Americans with the perfect all-in-one, "made for one" remedy to their usual rushed and unsatisfying lunchtime routine.
Real Example : Cameron Helder, father of domestic terrorist Lucas Helder made this statement about his son: "I really want you to know that Luke is not a dangerous person.
Please don't hurt anyone else. It's time to talk. You have the attention you wanted. Cameron Helder's defense of his son appears to be a case of egocentric perspecitive. The fallacy of biasing an exchange by asking a question that has an unjustified assumption built right into the question, influencing the answer given to it.
Real Example : A newspaper asks the following question of its readers:. Do you think the Fargo City Commission should meddle in private property matters? Another version of this problem is known as complex question , where two unrelated topics are combined in a single question, so that answering on part will seem to answer the other, as well. Example: "Do you support our constitutional freedoms, such as the right of individuals to possess handguns?
Loaded question is often done by introducing a false dilemma:. Example: "Are you going to support me on this in the meeting today, or are you siding with those spineless worms on the other side? Often called Appeal to Authority, I prefer a title that doesn't suggest that there's a problem with appealing to authorities! It is often appropriate to defend the truth of a claim, or a recommendation of behavior, by citing the testimony or advice of some authority.
The fallacy consists in citing someone who is not really an authority on the subject at issue. The Latin name for this fallacy is ad verecundiam. Example 4 Jack: You should stop smoking - it's bad for you. Jill: Look who's talking! You smoke three packs a day!
Jack's reasoning is perfectly good, while Jill commits the fallacy. Jack is being hypocritical, but that does not mean that what he says is false. Pointing out that someone is being hypocritical often seems like a persuasive refutation of what they've said, but regardless of whether Jack is a hypocrite, what he is saying is obviously true. Example 5 Representative Gutierrez of Illinois, arguing in Congress on July 11, , replying to Republicans arguing in favor of the "Defense of Marriage Act", a bill stipulating that 'marriage' be defined as being between a man and a woman only, excluding homosexual marriages: "I now realize that my friends on the other side of the aisle aren't the least bit serious when they talk about how important it is for the federal government not to interfere in the lives of our people.
I understand that they are just kidding - just teasing us - when they stress the importance of taking power out of Washington and giving it to local officials. And now I know that their biggest joke of all is that old line about family values - all that talk about encouraging people to care about and be committed to each other.
This example is more subtle, but again, what Gutierrez is doing is accusing his opponents of being hypocritical, rather than addressing the issues of hand. Thus, he commits an ad hominem fallacy. Fallacy of False Cause. As with the ad hominem fallacy, there are really several different kinds of false cause fallacy.
But we won't catalogue them all here. The basic problem with every false cause fallacy is that it confuses a correlation with a cause. Two events are correlated if whenever one occurs, the other occurs. Two events are causally related if one event's occurring is sufficient to make the other event occur.
For instance, there is an increase in the number of brides in June, as well as an increase in the number of flies in June. But it hardly follows that the one is the cause of the other! The two events are correlated, but not causally related. Example 1 Utah passed a strict gun-control law, and crime there decreased. Therefore, gun-control laws decrease crime. This is a false cause fallacy because we don't have enough information to conclude that the gun-control law caused the decrease in crime.
Lots of things, including the state of the economy, the nature of the illicit drug trade, the weather hot weather tends to result in an increase in crimes, and unusually cold weather tends to decrease them , and dozens of other factors influence the rate of crime. Until all of these factors are taken into account, we can't be sure whether the gun-control law caused the decrease in crime.
Similar sorts of arguments are made for and against the death penalty, and they involve the same fallacy. Example 2 "An FBI study of thirty-five serial killers revealed that twenty-nine were attracted to pornography and incorporated it into their sexual activity, which included rape and serial murder.
The suggestion is that pornography causes serial killers to rape and kill. But the argument is not sufficient to establish that pornography causes rape or murder. That the first case was diagnosed a little over a decade after the so-called "Gay Rights" and "Gay Pride" movement gained momentum and force can hardly be coincidental.
Moreover, we know that AIDS first became an epidemic in Africa where it infected primarily heterosexuals, not homosexuals. Straw Man Fallacy.
A straw man fallacy occurs when 1 the arguer misrepresents their opponents view, 2 shows that the misrepresentation is mistaken, and then 3 concludes that their opponents view is mistaken. Here are some examples:. Example 1 What I object to most about those people who oppose capital punishment is that they believe that the lives of convicted murderers are more important than the lives of the police and prison guards who protect us.
But, obviously, since the lives of those who protect us are of the greatest value, no one should oppose capital punishment. In Example 1 the opponent's view is that capital punishment is wrong. This view is then misrepresented as being the view that the lives of convicted murderers are more important than the lives of the police and prison guards.
The remaining two elements of the fallacy are explicitly stated in the example. Sometimes, however, some of the elements of the straw man are implicit, as in Example Example 2 Consider the following claim by Rush Limbaugh: "I'm a very controversial figure to the animal rights movement.
They no doubt view me with some measure of hostility because I am constantly challenging their fundamental premise that animals are superior to human beings. If this is followed with the argument that animals are not superior to human beings, and thus the animal rights movement is misguided, then we have an example of a straw man fallacy.
The straw man is the misrepresentation of animal rights activists as holding the view that animals are superior to human beings: virtually no animal rights activists hold this view. If we can show that even the strongest version of a position we oppose is flawed, we may make progress.
So good logical and critical thinking leads to the principle of charity: When representing an argument that you do not agree with and are attempting to evaluate, it is important to represent that argument in a way that is reasonably faithful to the argument as it is made by the originators, and as strong as possible. Many law-abiding people are cutting their alcohol consumption because they are afraid of being caught by random breath testing. But research shows that the average drink-driver in a fatal accident has an average blood alcohol level of more than twice the legal limit.
The current campaign against drinking and driving is failing to achieve what should be our top priority; getting the heavy and hardened drinkers of the road. CEO, Dominion Breweries. He has a vested interest in keeping alcohol sales up, and the anti-drink-driving campaign threatens to reduce alcohol sales. But if Myer has given arguments in favour of his view, we should evaluate them like any other argument — are they valid? Richard Long, a respected retired New Zealand newsreader featured in advertising campaigns for Hanover Finance.
Long had no financial expertise. Newsreaders look well informed, but they are essentially presenters. That would be a fallacious appeal to authority. Appeals to authority also conflict with the basic tenet of good logical and critical thinking which calls upon us to take responsibility for evaluating the grounds for our beliefs.
Adopting a belief merely because someone else simply told us it was true is a way of avoiding good logical and critical thinking. Sometimes, however, good logical and critical thinking will itself lead us to rely on genuine authorities. When I consider whether I should rely on a genuine authority, I should consider the following questions:. Are they giving advice in the areas within which they are a genuine authority?
We should listen to actors about acting; not so much about investing or medicine. Is there a broad consensus among authorities in the area? In , they all played for the Auckland Blues.
Therefore, the Auckland Blues were a great team. Sadly, for Tim, a long-suffering Blues Fan, the conclusion of this argument was false even though the premises were true. Men are, on average, taller than women. Therefore, Tim is taller than Maria Sharapova. Any law can be repealed by the proper legal authority. The law of gravity is a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by the proper legal authority. And, showing that famous philosophers are not immune again, we see John Stuart Mill arguing that happiness is desirable:.
The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it… In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it… [T]his being a fact, we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good. Reason 8.
Leader Acceptance. A majority of the greatest leaders and thinkers in history have affirmed the truth and impact of the Bible. Reason 9. Global Influence. The Bible has had a greater influence on the laws, art, ethics, music and literature of world civilization than any other book in history.
Perhaps the Bible is true, but the fact lots of people believe it to be so is irrelevant to whether it is or not. We should investigate and evaluate their reasons for believing it, rather than taking the mere fact that they believe it as a reason to do so.
But … sometimes a consensus among properly informed people may be a fairly good guide to the truth of a claim: see the circumstances in which an appeal to authority might not be fallacious. People have believed in astrology for a very long time, therefore, it must be true. But all of the objections to arguments from majority belief apply here, too. Note : When we describe someone as ignorant, we often mean it as an insult.
Here we use it to describe the situation in which we do not know are ignorant of something. In this sense, the smartest of us are ignorant of quite a lot. Both claims assume that the lack of evidence for or against a claim is good reason to believe that the claim is false or true. Ignorance — in the sense of a lack of knowledge — features as part of the proof of the conclusion.
But in general, the mere fact that a claim has not yet been proven is not enough reason to think that claim is false. Student to Lecturer: I know I missed most of the lectures and all of my tutorials. But my family will be really upset if I fail this course. Daughter: Can we get a puppy? Father: No. That would be an appeal to emotion, in this case love.
0コメント