Scribd
Upload
29 views

3.1 Fallacies in General

Uploaded by

mapengoali371
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views

3.1 Fallacies in General

Uploaded by

mapengoali371
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Fallacies in General

3.1 Fallacies in General

3.1.1 Fallacies
3.1.1.1 A fallacy is an error in reasoning. An argument contains a fallacy when there is a
defect in the reasoning involved in an argument. Fallacious reasoning is a different kind
of problem with an argument than merely contains false premises. It is a mistake in the
inference from the premises of an argument to its conclusion.
3.1.1.2 A fallacy that involves a mistake in reasoning is sometimes called a non sequitur
(Latin: “it does not follow”). Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain
fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent.
3.1.2 Two Kinds of Fallacies: Fallacies are usually divided into two groups: formal and
informal.
3.1.2.1 Formal fallacies: a formal fallacy is an error in reasoning that involves the explicit
use of an invalid form. Formal fallacies occur only in deductive arguments. The
following categorical syllogism contains a formal fallacy:

All bullfights are grotesque rituals.


All executions are grotesque rituals.
Therefore, all bullfights are executions.

This argument has the following form:

All A are B.
All C are B.
All A are C.

By merely examining this form, one can see that it is invalid.


Here is an example of a formal fallacy that occurs in a hypothetical syllogism:

If apes are intelligent, then apes can solve puzzles.


Apes can solve puzzles.
Therefore, apes are intelligent.

This argument has the following form:

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore, A

3.1.2.2 Informal fallacies: an informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not
involve the explicit use of an invalid form. Informal fallacies cannot be detected merely
by examine the logical form of the argument. Rather, they can only be detected by
examining the content of the argument. Consider the following example:

1
The Brooklyn Bridge is made of atoms.
Atoms are invisible.
Therefore, the Brooklyn Bridge is invisible.

To detect this fallacy one must know something about bridges—namely, that they are
large visible objects, and even though their atomic components are invisible, this does not
mean that the bridges themselves are invisible.

Or consider this example:

A chess player is a person.


Therefore, a bad chess player is a bad person.

To detect this fallacy one must know that the meaning of the word “bad” depends on
what it modifies, and that being a bad chess player is quite different from being a bad
person. The various informal fallacies accomplish their purpose in so many different
ways that no single umbrella theory covers them all. Some fallacies work by getting the
reader or listener to feel various emotions, such as fear, pity, or camaraderie, and then
attaching a certain conclusion to those emotions. Others attempt to discredit an opposing
argument by associating it with certain pejorative features of its author. And then there
are those that appeal to various dispositions on the part of the reader or listener, such as
superstition or mental laziness, to get him or her to accept a conclusion.

By studying the typical ways in which arguers apply these techniques, one is less likely to
be fooled by the fallacious arguments posed by others or to stumble blindly into fallacies
when constructing arguments for one’s own use.

You might also like