Fallacies 2022-2023 PDF - Obafemi Awolowo University

Department of Philosophy Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife 2022/2023 Rain Semester PHL104 Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence Dr. A. O. Alade...

Department of Philosophy Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife 2022/2023 Rain Semester PHL104 Introduction to Philosophy II: Critical Thinking, Argument and Evidence Dr. A. O. Alade FALLACIES Fallacies can be defined as errors in reasoning. They are primarily associated with bad arguments whose premises do not actually establish their conclusions. Fallacies are also sometimes associated with definitions, beliefs, questions or other products or tools of reasoning. These errors can arise as a result of any of the following: (i) providing false or wrong grounds for a claim, (ii) a wrong connection of the grounds of an argument to the claim, (iii) a problematic use of words in an argument, (iv) a wrong or false interpretation of the facts of the argument, or (v) a wrong structure or form of an argument. When a piece of reasoning contains a fallacy, such reasoning is faulty, and the argument which is thus presented is negatively impacted. Note that a piece of reasoning can contain more than one fallacy. Thus, studying the nature of these fallacies can help to personally avoid fallacious reasoning or to identify these errors in other people’s reasoning. To determine whether there is a fallacy in an argument, and to identify the fallacy, it is important to identify the premises of the argument distinctly from the conclusion to allow for clear understanding of the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. There are two broad categories or kinds of fallacies. These are formal and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies are errors in deductive arguments that arise as a result of the form or structure of the arguments. Formal fallacies are determinate and almost fully systematized. These kind of fallacies make the arguments in which they occur invalid. Examples include affirming the consequent, negating the antecedent, affirming a disjunct, negating a conjunct, undistributed middle, fallacy of four terms, etc. Informal Fallacies Unlike formal fallacies, informal fallacies are innumerable and not systematized like formal fallacies. Thus, there is no formal approach to identifying them when they appear in arguments or propositions. It is sufficient to remember that a fallacy is involved when there is an error in the reasoning from premises to conclusion on the basis of any of the reasons identified earlier. Informal fallacies are further classified depending on the kind of error involved the reasoning from premises to conclusion. A. FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE/APPEAL TO IRRELEVANT GROUNDS Fallacies of relevance occur when the premises offered in an argument are not relevant to the truth of the conclusion of the argument. There are many examples of fallacies of relevance. Following are some of the examples: i. Appeal to force (argumentum ad baculum/argument from the stick): this occurs when there is a subtle or direct appeal to force in the premise of an argument. For instance, You 1  ought to study medicine because I will not pay your fees if you study another course; You should agree that God exists, otherwise, you will end up in hell fire, etc. While appeal to force can compel action, it does not establish the validity or strength of an argument. The grounds for a good argument are facts, relevance, and the relationship between the premises and the conclusion ii. Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ingnorantiam): this occurs when someone defends a claim on the basis of the lack of evidence showing that the claim is false, or refutes a claim on the basis of the lack of evidence showing that the claim is true. Ignorance is not sufficient ground for affirming or refuting a claim. For instance, since no one has given any clear evidence that God exists, then God does not exist; Depression is not the cause of high blood pressure since no one has been able to establish a causal link between them. iii. Appeal to pity (argumentum ad miserisordiam): this occurs when the ground for supporting the conclusion relies on arousing compassion in the audience. For instance, you ought to change my fail grade in Philosophy to a pass because I will lose my scholarship if it is not changed; Alfred should not be jailed because jailing him will cause his wife and children to suffer. iv. Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): this fallacy occurs when a respected personality or tradition is invoked as the ground for affirming a claim. There are two forms of appeal to authority that may constitute a fallacy. These are when there is reliance on inexpert authority or a reliance on tradition. a. Appeal to inexpert authority: This occurs when the ground provided in support of a conclusion is the testimony of a person without the proper credentials or technical knowledge of the subject of the conclusion, or when the person involved is not reliable. For instance, the Nigerian economy is on the right track because my pastor insists that the president is making the right policies. b. Appeal to tradition: This occurs when the truth of a conclusion is affirmed simply on the basis of a traditional practice. For instance, the hike in school fees is unjustified because Federal universities have been known to provide cheap of free education for the common people. v. Appeal to popularity (argumentum ad populum/bandwagon effect): This fallacy appeals the belief of many people, or the majority, as ground for affirming the truth of a particular claim. For instance, many people believe that Nigerians are terrible persons. So, Nigerians must be truly terrible. That a particular claim/position is supported/affirmed by the majority of people concerned is not sufficient evidence for the truth of such claim/position. vi. Appeal to person (argumentum ad hominem): This fallacy occurs when a claim is rejected on the basis of the personality of the proponent of the claim rather than the merit of the argument itself. An individual can present a good argument regardless of the personality. There are different versions of the ad hominem fallacy: a. Abusive ad hominem/character assassination: this fallacy occurs when there is a resort to criticizing the character of a person in order to reject or refute the person’s claim rather than considering the premises of the argument. For instance, Alfred’s 2  claim that abortion is morally wrong should be ignored because he is a chauvinist who is also fond of disrespecting women. b. Circumstantial ad hominem: this fallacy involves the acceptance or rejection of a claim on the basis of the circumstances of the proponent of the argument rather than looking at the premises of the argument. For instance, Alfred’s claim that education should be free is not acceptable because Alfred is a student who is seeking to benefit from the free education policy c. To quo que/what about you: This involves the rejection of a claim on the basis of the fact that the proponent of the argument is guilty of the act which he/she argues to oppose. For instance, Alfred’s claim that gambling is unethical should be rejected because Alfred is an addicted gambler himself. d. Attacking affiliation: This involves rejecting a claim because the proponent belongs to, or is affiliated with, a particular group or association rather than considering the premises of the argument. For instance, Ologunagba’s critic of the 2024 Nigerian budget is not acceptable because he is the National Publicity Secretary of the Peoples’ Democratic Party. vii. Poisoning the well: When aspersions are cast on a person, painting the person in such a negative manner that it becomes difficult for the person to make an argument without making matters worse. For example, “The president is a very smooth talker. But he is all talk and no action. (not reacting may suggest agreement, while reacting merely seems to confirm the allegation) B. FALLACIES OF EVIDENCE Fallacies of evidence are errors of reasoning arising from faulty or wrong use of evidence. i. Fallacy of false cause (Post hoc ergo propter hoc): This occurs when it is argued that two events are causally related simply because the two events occur simultaneously or in a temporal sequence. This kind of reasoning is faulty because temporal succession or coincidence is not sufficient to establish a causal relationship. For instance, “Alfred is suffering from Malaria because he has fever.” ii. Gamblers fallacy: this fallacy occurs when it is argued that a claim is true because it is contrary to what has been experienced in the past. In other words, the fallacy rests on an assumption that the future will be different from the past. For instance, there will be many accident insurance claims in the coming year because there have been very few claims in the last 5 years. iii. Begging the question (Petitio principi/circular reasoning): This occurs when the premise of an argument contains or relies on the truth of the conclusion. For a premise to sufficiently serve as ground for a conclusion, the premise must be established independent of the conclusion. For instance, God exists because the word of God affirms that only a fool denies the existence of God. iv. Fallacy of hasty Generalization: This fallacy occurs when an argument draws a conclusion which makes an unqualified general claim on the basis of a few observed instances. For 3  instance, the observation of a few instances does not provide sufficient evidence to support a universal claim. e.g. OAU students are brilliant because the students that have represented them in the inter-university debates in the last five years have been brilliant. v. Fallacy of accident: This is the converse of the fallacy of hasty generalization. It occurs when a conclusion is drawn about a particular case on the basis of a rule that is generally valid without paying attention to the exception that may occur in particular cases. For instance, Alfred was in the class at the time of the incident because he is a student and the students were having a class at that time. vi. Slippery slope fallacy: this fallacy occurs when it is argued that a claim or position should be rejected because accepting it will lead to a series of undesirable consequences. For instance, building more hostels on campus will increase the number of students on campus and consequently increase the occasions of unrest. The problem about this fallacy is that there is no proof presented to justify the claim that the action will truly lead to the undesirable consequence. vii. Fallacy of false dilemma/insufficient options/false alternatives: This fallacy occurs in an argument when the proponent presents only two out of all possible alternatives on an issue. By ignoring other possible alternatives, the proponent creates a dilemma which is not necessary. For instance, my parents do not allow me to go to the club. They either hate me or do not want me to enjoy my life. This arguer deliberately ignores other possible explanations such as that the action of the parents is out of love; to graduate with good grades, you must be able to pay in cash or with your body. To identify and resolve the problem with the argument, what is required is to identify the other available alternatives C. FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY Fallacies of ambiguity arise as a result of ambiguities or misuse of words, phrases or statements in arguments. This lack of clarity in the use of expressions can lead to unwarranted conclusions. i. Fallacy of equivocation: This occurs when a word is used differently in the same argument to mean different things. The word in question shifts meaning in the course of the argument. For instance, death is the perfection of life because death is the end of life, and the end of a thing is its perfection. The term ‘end’ is used equivocally in this argument. In its first occurrence, it means final event, while in the second occurrence, it means purpose. Thus, to resolve this fallacy, the problem word must be identified and clarified. ii. Fallacy of composition: This fallacy occurs when it is argued that a whole set has or lack a property or attribute because the various parts or members of that set have or lack that property or attribute. Chelsea Football Club is a brilliant team because the players that make up the squad are brilliant players. iii. Fallacy of division: This occurs in reasoning when it is argued that the parts or individual members of a whole set have a property or attribute because the set itself has the property or attribute. It is the converse of the fallacy of composition. For instance, Since Nigeria started taking loans from China, Nigerian citizens have become indebted to China. 4 iv. Fallacy of amphiboly: This fallacy arises out of faulty grammar such as punctuation errors or reckless placement of words in a statement leading to ambiguities that, in turn, lead to unwarranted conclusions being drawn. For example, this is a fashionable office chair suitable for young executives with soft backside and bucket seat; let’s eat grandma; women, without her man is useless D. FALLACIES OF UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS Fallacies of unwarranted assumptions occur when an argument relies on premises that themselves are not justified or require further justification. i. Moralistic fallacy (fallacy of moralism): This kind of error in reasoning derives an ‘is’ from an ‘ought.’ In other words, it occurs when it is argued that a claim is true or untrue because it ought to be true or untrue, or because we desire that it is true or untrue. Men and women are equal because both gender should relate on equal terms. ii. Naturalistic fallacy (is-ought fallacy): This is the converse of the moralistic fallacy. It occurs when it is argued that a claim ought to be true or untrue, or that something ought to be the case or not, simply because it is natural or unnatural. For instance, herbal products are better because they are natural remedies; abortion is morally wrong because it is against the natural order; Morphine is safe to use because it came from Earth and nature. iii. Fallacy of loaded question: A loaded question makes an assumption and asks a question on the basis of that assumption even when there is no warrant for such assumption, or it asks a question that can be broken into distinct questions but requires a single answer to the question. This is usually done to get the respondent to implicitly accept the underlying assumption or to answer the underlying question in a pre-determined way. For example, an attorney asking a suspect in murder case if the murder weapon is still where the suspect left it, or a lecturer who asks a student if he has stopped cheating during exams. To resolve this fallacy, you need to clarify the presupposed belief or question and distinguish them from the primary question. E. FALLACIES OF DIVERSION Fallacies of diversion occur when there is an attempt to distract the attention of the audience from the primary subject of the argument. This usually occurs when the arguer lacks, or begins to lose, evidential ground for the argument. i. Red herring fallacy: This fallacy is committed when an arguer surreptitiously introduces an issue into the argument that is not directly related to the subject of the argument in order to change the topic. If the audience is not suspecting, the discussion is dragged away from the original point of dispute. Consider the following dialogue: Alfred: The Bible teaches Christians to be people of peace and love Mary: That is not true. Christians are expected to be violent. Isn’t it recorded in the Bible that ‘the kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent takes it by force”? Alfred: But Christianity brought civilization to many parts of the world 5  ii. Strawman fallacy: This fallacy is committed when, in attempting to refute an argument, the original argument is abandoned and replaced with an exaggerated or distorted version of the argument, or an example used for illustration. The exaggerated or distorted version, which is a weaker form of the original argument, or the example, is then refuted as if the original argument has been refuted. Alfred: Given the availability of an abundance of wealth in Nigeria, Nigerian education sector should be subsidized. Mary: That position is unjustifiable. Free education cannot be sustained by the nation’s financial strength iii. Fallacy of hedging: This fallacy is committed when an arguer continues to shift ground by modifying his or her claims, or the interpretation of certain expressions in the argument, in order to avoid objections raised against the argument. Alfred: Henry is a totally selfish man. Mary: I don't find him so-he once helped me find a job. Alfred: Well, about things that affect his wallet, he is totally selfish. Mary: Yet he has on many occasions loaned money to his friends. Alfred: Well, about matters that affect his wallet he can be very selfish. iv. “Exception that proves the rule”: This fallacy is committed when a person argues that an exception to a particular generalization proves that the generalization itself is plausible. This is fallacious because genuine exceptions provide counter-examples which ordinarily proves the generalization to be false. Alfred: Law students are brilliant because they always score high grades in their exams Mary: That is not correct. John, a Law student scored low grades in all the courses he took last semester Alfred: John’s case is an exception that proves the rule 6