Chapter 4

FALLACIES

FALLACY – is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but proves on examination not to be so;
in a very general sense, it is any error in reasoning

GROUPS OF FALLACIES

1. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE – when an argument relies on premisses that are not relevant to its
conclusion, and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth; the premises of the argument are
simply not relevant to the conclusion.

1.1 Appeal to Emotion / to the Populace (Ad Populum) – is fallacious because it replaces the
laborious task of presenting evidence and rational argument with expressive language and
other devices calculated to excite enthusiasm, excitement, anger, or hate.

 When careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculated to elicit enthusiasm and
emotional support for the conclusion advanced.

 Everyone is selfish; everyone is doing what he believes will make himself

happier. The recognition of that can take most of the sting out of accusations that
 you're being "selfish." Why should you feel guilty for seeking your own happiness
when that's what everyone else is doing, too?

 “Band-Wagon Fallacy” from the known phenomenon that, in an exciting campaign,

many will be anxious to “jump on the bandwagon” to do what others do because so
many others are doing it.

 “Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so
many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because – so many people are
attracted to the Grand Prix! (bandwagon fallacy)

 Appeal to Pity (Argument ad misericordiam – literally means ‘merciful heart’) –

generosity and mercy of the audience are the special emotions appealed to.

When careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculated to elicit sympathy on the
part of the hearer for the objects of the speaker’s concern.

 I, who am probably in danger of my life, will do none of these things. The contrast
may occur to [each juror’s] mind, and he may be set against me, and vote in anger
because he is displeased at me on this account. Now if there be such a person
among you – mind, I do not say that there is – to him I may fairly reply: My friend, I
am a man, and like other men, a creature of flesh and blood, and not “of wood or
stone” as Homer says; and I have a family, yes, and sons, O Athenians, three in
number, one almost a man, and the two others who are still young; and yet I will
not bring any of them here to petition you for acquittal.

1.2 The Red Herring – an informal fallacy committed when some distraction is used to mislead
and confuse; deliberately misleading trail

 One legislator, apparently speaking to protect his corporate donors, entered the debate
with the irrelevant point that there is a serious need for the provision of better advice to
retired persons on the investment of their pensions. No doubt there is. But one
commentator absolutely observed, “What does this have to do with employers
squandering their worker’s retirement?”

 At Duke University in 2006, three student athletes were indicted for rape; the
indictments were plainly unfounded and soon withdrawn. When the prosecutor was
charged with misconduct in office, feelings at the university grew intense. One member
of the Duke faculty, writing in the local newspaper, defended the prosecutor and some
other faculty members who had supported him. In the course of this defense, she
argued that the real “social disaster” in the Duke rape case was that “18 percent of the
American population lives below the poverty line” and that we do not have “national
health care or affordable childcare.”

1.3 The Straw Man – may view this fallacy as a variety of the red herring, because it also
introduces a distraction from the real dispute. In this case, however, the distraction is of
 particular kind: it is an effort to shift the conflict from its original complexity into different
conflict, between parties other than those originally in dispute.

 In general, straw man often take the form of supposing that the position under attack
adopts the most extreme view possible – that every act or policy of a certain kind is to
be rejected. Its premises are not relevant to the conclusion that was originally proposed.

 Often presents a genuine objection or criticism, and the objection may be sound, but it
is aimed at a new and irrelevant target.

 Every fallacious argument presents some risk of this kind; the fallacy of the straw man
invites it with special force.

 “You say that the New Testament teaches that we are not under law, and that we are
saved by grace through faith alone. Therefore, what you teach is that we can sin all we
want after we are saved.”

1.4 Argument Ad Hominem (Argument Against the Person) – a fallacious attack in which the
thrust is directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it.

Ad Hominem arguments are fallacious (and often unfair to the adversary) because an attack
against some person is generally not relevant to the objective merits of the argument that
person has put forward.

 Abusive – participants in strenuous argument sometimes disparage the character of

their opponents, deny their intelligence or reasonableness, question their integrity, and
so on.

- “Who cares what you think about movies? You're just an ignorant American
who doesn't know anything about real culture.”

- “One dishonest and unworthy tactic used by several of my detractors is to

attribute to me complaints I never made and then to dismiss the “complaints” as
“irresponsible and evidence of my reckless unfairness.”

 Circumstantial – it is the irrelevance of the connection between the belief held and the
circumstances of those holding it that gives rise to the mistake. The circumstances of
one who makes (or rejects) some claim have no bearing on the truth of that claim

- Hunters, accused of the needless slaughter of unoffending animals, sometimes

reply by noting that “their critics eat the flesh of harmless cattle.”

1.5 Appeal to Force (Argument Ad Baculum) – literally means appeal to the stick; when careful
reasoning is replaced with direct or insinuated threats in order to bring about the acceptance
of some conclusion; abandonment of reason.

 What is put forward may be a veiled threat, or a proposition that suggest some danger if
the proposition in question is not given full assent.
 The President continues to have confidence in the Attorney General and I have
confidence in the Attorney General and you ought to have confidence in the
Attorney General, because we work for the President and because that’s the way
things are. And if anyone has a different view of that, or any different motive,
ambition, or intention, he can tell me about it because we’re going to have to
discuss your status.

1.6 Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi) – when the premisses miss the point, purporting to
support one conclusion while in fact supporting or establishing another

 It arises when the argument goes awry – when, on close examination, there is a
“disconnect” between the premises and the conclusion.

 Deliberate deception

 Product of sloppy thinking, a confusion in reasoning that the author of the argument
herself does not fully recognize, or grasp.

 A mistake that is made in seeking to refute another’s argument.

One person emphasizes how important it is to increase funding for the public
schools. His opponent responds by insisting that a child’s education involves much
more than schooling and gets underway long before her formal schooling begins.

- That assertion is entirely reasonable, of course, but it misses the point of what
was said earlier. One party presents an argument for P, to alleviate the need for
funds; his interlocutor counters with an irrelevant Q, about the importance of
preschool education.
 Non sequitur (does not follow) – an argument in which the conclusion simply does not
follow from the premises; most commonly applied when the failure of the argument is
obvious, when the gap between the premises and the conclusion is painfully wide.

The prisoner pleaded guilty. He then said he had made a mistake, and the judge
allowed him to change his plea to not guilty. The case was tried. The jury acquitted.
“Prisoner”, said Mr. Justice Hawkins, “a few minutes ago you said you were a thief.
Now the jury say you are a liar. Consequently, you are discharged.”

2. FALLACIES OF DEFECTIVE INDUCTION – the premises may be relevant to the conclusion, but they are
far too weak to support the conclusion and wholly inadequate; what are asserted as premises simply
do not serve as good reasons to reach the conclusion drawn.

2.1 Appeal to Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam) - The mistake that is committed when it is argued that
a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false
because it has not been proved true.

Appeal to ignorance succeeds only when innocence must be assumed in the absence of proof
to the contrary; in other contexts, such an appeal is indeed an argument ad ignoratiam.
  “No there isn’t. There really isn’t, but there is no evidence to the contrary, either.”

 The moon is not a perfect sphere, he replied, because there are surely crystal mountains
– invisible! – rising high from its surface. Because my theological critics cannot prove the
claim false, we cannot conclude that such mountains are not there!

1.2 Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Ad Verecundiam) – when the premises of an argument
appeal to the judgment of some person or persons who have no legitimate claim to authority
in the matter at hand.

Our mistake becomes one of reasoning (a fallacy) when our conclusion is based on the verdict
of an authority who has no rational claim to expertise in that matter.

 Advertising ‘testimonials’ – we are urged to drink a beverage of a certain brand because

some movie star or football coach expresses enthusiasm about it.

2.3 False Cause – when one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of that
thing, often relying (as in the subtype post hoc ergo propter hoc) merely on the close temporal
succession of two events.

When mistakenly presume that one event is caused by another because it follows that
other closely in time. (fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc)

 The sun would invariably reappear after an eclipse if the drums had been beaten
in the darkness.

Committed when one mistakenly argues against some proposal on the ground that
any change in a given direction is sure to lead to further changes in the same direction
– and thus to grave consequences (fallacy of slippery slope)

 One common objection to the legalization of assisted suicide is that once formal
permission has been given to medical doctors to act in a way that is of disputable
morality, doctors will be led to engage in more and greater immorality of the
same or similar type.

The slippery slope is indeed a fallacy – but the mere allegation that the fallacy has
been committed does not prove the argument in question faulty.

2.4 Hasty Generalization (converse accident) – when one moves carelessly or too quickly from
one or a very few instances to a broad or universal claim.

Committed when we draw conclusions about all the persons or things in a given class on the
basis of our knowledge about only one of the members of that class.

Take my son, Martyn. He’s been eating fish and chips his whole life, and he just had a
cholesterol test, and his level is below the national average. What better proof could
there be than a fryer’s son?
3. FALLACIES OF PRESUMPTION – the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition
that is assumed to be true, but is in fact false, or dubious, or without warrant; arguments that
depend on unwarranted leaps

3.1 Accident – when one applies a generalization to an individual case that it does not properly
govern

It arises when we move carelessly or unjustifiably from a generalization to some particulars

that it does not in fact cover.

Birds can fly.

Tweety the Penguin is a bird.
Therefore, Tweety can fly.

3.2 Complex Question – when a question is asked in such a way as to presuppose the truth of
some assumption buried in that question.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your
wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or
have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

“Does the distinguish senator believe that the American public is really so
naïve that they will endorse just any stopgap measure?” it conceals several
unchallenged assumptions: that what is proposed is a “stopgap” measure, that
is inadequate, and that the American public would reject it.

3.3 Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) – when one assumes in the premises of an argument
the truth of what one seeks to establish in the conclusion of that argument; the conclusion of
an argument is stated or assumed in one of the premises.

The arguments are circular – every petitio is a circular argument – but the circle that has been
constructed may be large and confusing, and thus the logical mistake goes unseen.

To “beg the question” is not to raise the issue, but to assume the truth of the conclusion
sought.

Circular arguments are certainly fallacious, but the premises are not irrelevant to the
conclusions drawn. They are relevant; indeed, they prove the conclusion, but they do so
trivially – they end where they began. A petition principia is always technically valid, but
always worthless.

“To cast abortion as a solely private moral question,…is to lose touch with
common sense: How human beings treat one another is practically the
definition of a public moral matter. Of course, there are many private aspects of
human relations, but the question whether one human being should be allowed
 fatally to harm another is not one of them. Abortion is an inescapably public
matter.”

“There is no such thing as knowledge which cannot be carried into practice, for such
knowledge is really no knowledge at all.”

4. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY (sometimes “sophisms”) – the mistaken arguments are formulated in

such a way as to rely on shifts in the meaning of words or phrases, from their use in the premises to
their use in the conclusion; a term may have one sense in a premise but quite a different sense in the
conclusion.

4.1 Equivocation – when the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings,
deliberately or accidentally, in the formulation of an argument; misuse of relative terms,
which have different meanings in different contexts.

All banks are beside rivers.

Therefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a
river.

In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word "bank":

 A riverside: In this sense, the premiss is true but the argument is invalid,
so it's unsound.

 A type of financial institution: On this meaning, the argument is valid, but

the premise is false, thus the argument is again unsound.

 Someone is a good scholar and is therefore likely to be a good teacher.

4.2 Amphiboly - when one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible
meaning, because of the loose or awkward way in which the words in that statement have
been combined. (arrangement of words)

The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing from premises whose formulations are
ambiguous because of their grammatical construction.

“The anthropologists went to a remote area and took photographs of some

native women, but they weren't developed.” - “they” is ambiguous between the
photographs and the native women, though presumably it was intended to refer
to the former.

4.3 Accent – when a shift of meaning arises within an argument as a consequence of changes in
the emphasis given to its words or parts. (manner of delivering the words)

The various arguments that emerge are plainly the outcome of the deliberate manipulation of
emphasis; the sentence can be used to achieve assorted fallacious ambiguities.
 The fallacy of accent may be construed broadly to include the distortion produced by pulling a
quoted passage out of its context, putting it in another context, and there drawing a
conclusion that could never have been drawn in the original context.

Physical manipulation of print or pictures is commonly used to mislead deliberately through

accent.

“I resent that letter.” This sentence could mean either that one sent the letter
again, or that one has a feeling of resentment towards it

4.4 Composition – this fallacy is committed:

a. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the
attributes of the whole itself.

Every part of a certain machine is light in weight, the machine “as a whole”
is light in weight.

Each scene of a certain play is a model of artistic perfection, the play as a

whole is artistically perfect.

Every ship is ready for battle, the whole fleet must be ready for battle.

b. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of the individual elements or
members of a collection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements. –
invalid inference that what may truly be predicated of a term distributively may also
be truly predicated of the term collectively.

 A bus uses more gasoline than an automobile, all buses use more gasoline
than all automobiles.

 The atomic bombs dropped during World War II did more damages than did
the ordinary bombs dropped – but only distributively.

 Should we not assume that just as the eye, hand, the foot, and in
general each part of the body clearly has its own proper function, so
man too has some function over and above the function of his parts?

4.5 Division – simply the reverse of the fallacy of composition. This fallacy is committed:

a. When one argues fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its
parts.

 A certain corporation is very important and Mr. Doe is an official of that

corporation, therefore, Mr. Doe is very important.
b. When one argues from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of
the elements themselves.

 Because university students study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry, and

architecture, therefore, each, or even any, university student studies
medicine, law, engineering, dentistry, and architecture.

The universe has existed for fifteen billion years.

The universe is made out of molecules.
Therefore, each of the molecules in the universe has existed for
fifteen billion years.