Scribd
Upload
82 views

Discussions On Fallacies

Discussions on Fallacies

Uploaded by

xray187
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views

Discussions On Fallacies

Discussions on Fallacies

Uploaded by

xray187
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

DISCUSSIONS FOR PHILO 121 - LOGIC

Chapter 6 Fallacies
Fallacy an error in reasoning
- is a type of argument that may seem to be correct, but that proves on examination not to be so.
A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally.
- when the fallacy is committed unintentionally it is called paralogism.
- when it is committed intentionally then it is called sophism.
3 Characteristics of Informal Fallacies
1. Fallacies of Relevance
2. Fallacies of Presumption
3. Fallacies of Ambiguity

Fallacies of Relevance
the mistaken arguments rely on premisses that may seem to be relevant to the conclusion but in fact are not.

R1. Argument from Ignorance (Ad Ignorantiam):


- When it is argued that a proposition is true on the grounds that it has been proved false, or when it is argued
that a proposition is false because it has not been proved true.
Ex. "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore,
God does not exist."
Premisses:
Since no one yet proved that X is true
Conclusion
Therefore X is false.

Fallacy of Presumption

R2. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Ad Verecundiam)


- When the premisses of an argument appeal to the judgment of some party or parties having no legitimate
claim to the authority in the matter at hand.
Ex.
PNP Gen. Allan Talawan claims that AIDS can be prevented 100% by the use of condom. Therefore, using
condom is an effective contraception against AIDS.
PNP Gen. Allan Talawan is not a legitimate authority to say that using condom can prevent aids 100% because he is a
policeman.
R3. Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem)
- When the attack is leveled not at the claims being made or the merits of the argument, but at the person of the
opponent.
Two Forms of Ad Hominem
a. Argument Ad Hominem, Abusive when the attack is directly against the person seeking to defame or discredit
them or the attack against the personality of the person.
st
Ex. 1 Speaker: I guess we humans came from the apes because we have common traits with the apes.
2nd Speaker: Its only you who came from the apes, look at your face it seems to be a son of an ape.
b. Argument Ad Hominem, Circumstantial when the attack is indirectly against the person, suggesting that they
hold their views as a group, affiliation, class, clan, etc (look whos talking, hes one of them)
- Poisoning the well
Ex.
You are a Catholic! No doubt that you are against Divorce Law in your country because your religion doesnt
want to have it.
R4. Appeal to Emotion (Ad Populum)
- when careful reasoning is replaced with devices calculated to elicit enthusiasm and emotional; support for the
conclusion advanced.
Ex.
Women of Philippines, if you love your children, then you must support the pending divorce bill so that you and
your children will be protected against the maltreatment of your husband.
the emotion of love to the children is being appealed to in order accept the divorce bill in the country.

R5. Appeal to Pity ( Ad Misericordiam)


- when careful reasoning is replaced by devices calculated to sympathy on the part of the hearer for the onjects
of the speakers concern. This pity may be directed towards the arguer or towards some third party such as
children, family, wife, illness, etc.
Ex.
Mr. Lim, I know I was an irresponsible student of you last semester. I failed to attend your classes and just be
there during examinations. But sir please let me pass your subject. I need to work hard for my 1 year old daughter and
now she is sick. Please sir let me pass your subject.
R6. Appeal to Force (Ad Baculum)
- occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion to another person and tells that person that some harm will
come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion. The fallacy always involves a threat by the
arguer to the physical or psychological well being of the listener or reader, who may be either a single person
or group of persons. Such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion.
Ex.
a. If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.
b. I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I receive any opposition
on this initiative, I will personally see your family at the cemetery.
R7. Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)
- When the premisses miss the point, purporting to support one conclusion while in fact supporting or
establishing another.
Ex.
"I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this,
because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected. Therefore, the proposal that academic
requirements should be raised because of the possible effects of a budget crisis on teachers salaries.

Fallacies of Presumption
In these the mistaken arguments arise from reliance upon some proposition that is assumed to be true, but is in
fact false, doubtful, or without a warrant evidence.

P1. Complex Question


- When a question is asked ins such a way as to presuppose the truth of some assumption buried in that
question.
Ex.
How many times per day do you beat your wife?
Even if the response is an emphatic, none!, the damage has been done. If you are hearing this question, you are
more likely to accept the possibility that the person who was asked this question is a wife-beater, which is fallacious
reasoning on your part.
P2. False Cause
- When one treats as the cause of a thing what is not really the cause of that thing, or more generally, when one
blunders in reasoning that is based upon causal relations or superstitious beliefs.
Event A happened.
Event B happened after A.
Therefore, A caused B.
Ex.
I have an insomnia that night so I looked at the moon and it was so full . On Friday morning I found myself
overslept. Therefore, the full moon caused me to oversleep and that every full moon I can just easily sleep.
P3. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)
- Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
- Circular argument
Ex.
"Since I am not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth"
It is already presumed in the premiss that in telling the truth one is not lying.
A triangle has three corners, therefore it has three angles.
Triangle means three angles. Therefore it is already proved in the premiss that he conclusion is true simply on the
basis that it states meaning of the word triangle.

P4. Accident
- When one applies generalization to an individual case that it does not properly govern.
- When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations, when clearly there are exceptions to the rule.
Ex.
All birds normally can fly.
Tweety, the Penguin is a family bird.
Therefore, Tweety can fly.
P5. Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization)
- When one moves carelessly or too quickly from a single case to an indefensibly broad generalization
Ex.
Dennis Rodman wears earrings and is an excellent basketball player. Therefore, people who wear earrings are
excellent basketball players.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
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 premisses to their use in the conclusion.
A1. Equivocation
- when the same word or phrase is used with two or more meanings, deliberately or accidentally, in the
formulation of an argument.
Ex.
Really exciting novels are rare. But rare books are expensive. Therefore, really exciting novels are expensive.
Rare in the first premiss means unusual while rare in the second premiss means limited/limited edition.
-

A2. Amphiboly
- When one of the statements in an argument has more than one plausible meaning, because of the lose or
awkward way in which the words in that statement have been combined.
Ex.
A reckless motorist Thursday struck and injured a student who was jogging through the campus in his pickup
truck. Therefore, it is unsafe to jog in your pickup truck.
A3. Accent
- When a premiss relies for its apparent meaning on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion is drawn from it
that relies on the meaning of the same words accented differently.
Ex.
I am opposed to taxes which slow economic growth.
What exactly is this political candidate trying to say? Is she opposed to all taxes because they all slow economic
growth? Or is she instead only to those taxes that have the effect of slowing economic growth? In writing, this
distinction can be made clear with the presence or absence of a comma after "taxes"; but when spoken, the location of
stress in the sentence is what indicates the proper interpretation. If no stess is given, then the speaker is committing
the Fallacy of Amphiboly.
A4. Composition
a. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a part to the attributes of the whole
b. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of an individual member to the totality of the group.
Ex.
Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound.
Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet.
A5. Division
a. When one reason mistakenly from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of its parts
b. When one reasons mistakenly from the attributes of a totality of some collection of entities to the attributes of
the individual entities within that collection
Ex.
His house is about half the size of most houses in the neighborhood, therefore, his doors must all be about 3 1/2 feet
high.
The size of ones house almost certainly does not mean that the doors will be smaller, especially by the same
proportions. The size of the whole (the house) is not directly related to the size of every part of the hous
I heard that the Christian Church was involved in a sex scandal cover-up. Therefore, my 102 year-old Christian
frequently attends Church, is guilty as well!
While it is possible that the 102 year-old granny is guilty for some things, like being way too liberal with her
perfume, she would not be guilty in any sex scandals just by her association with the Church alone.

You might also like