Fallacy PDF

11-HUMSS 3B TUE 8:30AM-10:00AM & THU 7:00AM-8:30AM INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON Bro. Ronald Allan P. Salenga  Formal Fallacies FALLACIES...

11-HUMSS 3B TUE 8:30AM-10:00AM & THU 7:00AM-8:30AM INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN PERSON Bro. Ronald Allan P. Salenga  Formal Fallacies FALLACIES the mistake is in the form or structure of an a rg um e nt a defect [mistake or error] in an a rg u m e n t bu t the defect is anything Informal other than merely having false premises. Fallacies the mistake is in the content of an a rg u me nt  Premise Conclusion Keywords Keywords ARGUMENT since given that therefore thus a collection of sentences because consequently for it follows that that a tte m p t to establish owing to accordingly that s o m e conclusion is as indicated by entails that in that we may conclude true. The first sentences seeing that consequently are called premises maybe inferred from for this reason for the reason that hence (usually, there are two of because we may infer these), while the last as so in as much as as a result sentence is called the for wherefore given that it must be that conclusion. implies that Example of a fallacy: the a r g u m e n t is Premise 1: All winged-animals are birds u n s o u n d (defective), for, the premise 1is false. Premise 2: Bats are winged-animals Conclusion: Therefore, bats are birds. People used to believe bats were birds, they just didn't have feathers. B u t bats a n d birds fall into two very distinct categories; bats are classified as m a m m a l s a n d birds are aves. Bats give birth to live young a n d produce milk to feed their babies. Birds lay eggs a nd forage to feed their young. https://byjus.com/questions/difference-between-aves-anhttps://www.google.com/search? q=Isa+bat+a+bird%3F&rlz=1C1CHBF_enPH922PH922&oq=is&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j69i60l3.1661j0j7&sourceid= chrome&ie=UTF-8d - mammals/  mammals & aves mammals aves Mammals are a class of Aves or birds are vertebrates vertebrates of kingdom that are able to fly. They own Animalia. Mammals are feathers. Aves bones are distinguished from other hollow and light. Forelimbs of animals by having their own the aves are adjusted to mammary glands. Mammals flight. The Aves belong to the are multicellular, eukaryotic phylum Chordata of the organisms. Animals belonging animal kingdom. to class Mammalia are https://byjus.com/questions/difference- referred to as mammals. between-aves-and-mammals/ FORMAL The middle term is undistributed in both FALLACIES premises. So, this commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Premise 1: All dogs are mammals We only need to look Premise 2: All cats are mammals at the FORM of the argument to see that it has a mistake. Conclusion: Therefore, all dogs are cats We do not need to look at the actual CONTENT. I N FO R MAL the mistake is in FALLACIES the content of an a r g ume nt 1.Fallacies of Relevance 2. Fallacies of Weak Induction 3. Fallacies of Presumption 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity 5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy Fallacies of Relevance the premises are not logically relevant to the conclusion Fallacies of Relevance 1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) 2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) 3. Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) - Direct, - Indirect; Bandwagon Argument, - Indirect; Appeal to Vanity, - Indirect; Snoberry Fallacies of Relevance 4. Argument Against the Person (argumentum ad hominem) - Abusive - Circumstantial - “You Too”, tu quoque 5. Accident 6. Straw Man 7.Missing the Point 8. Red Herring  Fallacies of Relevance 1. Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) the person giving the argument in some way THREATENS the listener, and this threat is the reason supplied for why the listener should believe the conclusion (rather than some premises that are actually relevant). a threat REPLACES evidence. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum) “I’m the best man for the įob. Anyone who says otherwise is in for a world of hurt.” "I guess you will be testifying that I am innocent tomorrow. After all, neither of us wants anything to happen to your children, do we?" "Buy this, or you will regret it!” "Never Say No To Panda!"  Fallacies of Relevance 2. Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) someone tries to support a conclusion by evoking pity, rather than by supplying evidence that is actually relevant to the conclusion. Just as the threat replaces the evidence in the “Appeal to Force” fallacy, here, the pity evoked in the listener replaces the evidence in the “Appeal to Pity” fallacy. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) Student to Professor: “But, I really NEED to pass this class. I need this class in order to graduate this semester, and I can’t afford to pay for more classes in the future. I already work 6 0 hours a week and supporting four children all by myself, and I’m barely scraping by as it is. You should give me a passing grade.” Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) the cause of the listener’s acceptance of the conclusion is that they are made to feel like they are a PART OF something special (that they admire, value, envy, etc.), or else because they WANT to be a part of something special. the speaker in some way APPEALS to the listener, or else makes the conclusion sound APPEALING. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (a gumentum ad populum) A. Appeal to the People (Direct) the speaker DIRECTLY appeals to, or excites the emotions of the listener(s), and this excitement is what causes the listener(s) to accept the conclusion being endorsed by the speaker. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) A. Appeal to the People (Direct) Speaker: “Vote for my candidate! Vote for AMERICA! Everybody say ‘Yeah’!” Crowd: “Yeah!” Speaker: “I can’t hear you! I said, Everybody say ‘Yeah’!” Crowd: “YEAH!!” Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) B. Appeal to the People ( (Indirect; Bandwagon Argument) the speaker implies to the listener(s) that they will be left out or left behind if they do not agree with the speaker. Usually, this involves pointing out that “everyone else is doing it/believes it”. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) B. Appeal to the People ( (Indirect; Bandwagon Argument) “Really? You don’t own a car? But EVERYONE owns a car.” Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) C. Appeal to the People (Indirect; Vanity) the speaker associates the conclusion they are putting forward with some desirable person or feature. This puts in the listener’s mind the idea that, if they believe the conclusion, they will be JUST LIKE this desirable person, or they will HAVE this desirable feature too! C. Appeal to the People (Indirect; Vanity) “You should buy a Ferrari. That’s what Tom Cruise drives.” Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) D. Appeal to the People (Indirect; Snoberry) Snoberry - the behavior or attitude of people who think they are better than other people : the behavior or attitude of snobs. Snob - a person with an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth who seeks to associate with social superiors and dislikes people or activities regarded as lower-class. - a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people. Fallacies of Relevance Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) D. Appeal to the People (Indirect; Snoberry) the speaker associates the conclusion with being in an elite class or a lucky member of a select few. Fallacies of Relevance 3. Appeal to the People (argumentum ad populum) D. Appeal to the People (Indirect; Snoberry) “You should accept the offer at the summer internship. How many people actually get accepted into that program? So many apply, and only a few get in. You’ve got a one in a million opportunity right in front of you— I can’t believe you’re even considering turning it down.” Fallacies of Relevance 4. Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) whenever, someone, rather than providing evidence for their view, merely resorts to attacking their listener instead. Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) A. Argument against the person (abusive) when one person, rather than supplying REASONS for why their opponent is wrong, instead resorts to directly verbally abusing the other. Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) A. Argument against the person (abusive) PEGGY: “I think you should slow down a little bit.” SUE: "Well, you’re an idiot.”  Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) B. Argument against the person (circumstantial) ” when someone, rather than supplying REASONS for why their opponent is wrong, instead resorts to pointing out circumstances that make it MORE LIKELY that their opponent would be asserting the conclusion that they are asserting. This fact that we’d EXPECT someone in those circumstances to say just what they’re saying is somehow supposed to make their conclusion false.  Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) B. Argument against the person (circumstantial) ” “Of COURSE my opponent is arguing against taxation of the rich. Just look at him! He’s the richest person in town. There’s no way someone like that could argue anything else.” Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) C. Argument against the person (“You Too”, tu quoque) whenever someone, rather than supplying REASONS for why someone is mistaken, instead merely tries to make that person seem like a hypocrite. Fallacies of Relevance Argument against the person (argumentum ad hominem) C. Argument against the person (“You Too”, tu quoque) PEGGY: “You shouldn’t eat fast food. I hear it’s really bad for you and could lead to health complications.” SUE: “Whatever! You eat fast food all the time!” Fallacies of Relevance 5. Accident General rules often have exceptions. This fallacy is committed whenever someone misapplies a general rule to one of the cases that is an exception. POLICE OFFICER: “Are you lost? Where’s your Mom and Dad? Talk to me.” CHILD: “I can’t talk to strangers.” Fallacies of Relevance 6. Straw Man whenever someone, in order to attack an opponent, attacks some WEAKER, DISTORTED VERSION of their opponent’s argument, rather than the actual argument the opponent is giving. This often involves twisting an opponent's words to be saying something much more absurd or ridiculous than they are actually saying. This ridiculous claim is much easier to refute, and (once it is refuted), the speaker then concludes that they have refuted their opponent’s ACTUAL argument. Fallacies of Relevance Straw Man PEGGY: “I’m įust saying that nuclear energy would provide a lot of energy in a clean way, so we should at least consider it as an option.” SUE: “Oh, so you’re in favor of nuclear war? Is that what you want? For all of the countries to be nuking each other until we’re all dead? How ridiculous!” Fallacies of Relevance 7. Missing the Point whenever someone takes certain premises which support ONE particular conclusion, and—rather than draw THAT conclusion—they instead draw a DIFFERENT (but somewhat related) conclusion instead; and it is one that the premises do NOT support. The fact that the mistaken conclusion is loosely related to the real conclusion that the premises ACTUALLY support often makes the mistake persuasive and difficult to detect. Fallacies of Relevance Missing the Point “Our daughter got all D’s this semester at D University. Every single professor there should be fired!” PEGGY: “There is so much welfare corruption! They found out that some people are using welfare checks for drugs and gambling.” SUE: “I know! We should įust get rid of the welfare program!” Fallacies of Relevance 8. Red Herring whenever someone responds to their opponent by changing the subject to something completely different. Sometimes, the different topic can be loosely related to the actual topic that was being debated. When this happens, red herrings can be misleading in a very subtle way that is difficult to detect. Fallacies of Relevance Red Herring The phrase “red herring” comes from a 19th-century story about using the smell of a herring to distract dogs from chasing a rabbit. Today, the literary and rhetorical device called a red herring refers to distracting a reader or listener with a seemingly (but not actually) relevant argument. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/red-herring-examples.html Fallacies of Relevance Red Herring a silvery fish that is most abundant in coastal waters and is of great commercial importance as a food fish in many parts of the world. a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke. something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting. Fallacies of Relevance Red Herring Fallacies of Relevance Red Herring PEGGY: “The scientific community is in unanimous agreement. We are altering the climate, and if we continue on our present course, the results will be disastrous. Climate change is a real problem in this world.” SUE: “You know what’s a problem in this world? People įust believing everything they hear. People will believe įust about anything, as long as it’s said on television.” Fallacies of weak Induction the premises only WEAKLY support the conclusion. whenever someone concludes something from premises that only provide very WEAK support for that conclusion, they are being irrational, and committing an informal fallacy; namely, a “fallacy of weak induction”.  Fallacies of weak Induction 1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) 2. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) 3. Hasty Generalization (converse accident)  Fallacies of weak Induction 4. False Cause A. Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc) B. Correlation (non causa pro causa) C. Oversimplified Cause D. The Gambler’s Fallacy  Fallacies of weak Induction 5. Slippery Slope 6. Weak Analogy Fallacies of weak Induction 1. Appeal to Unqualified Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) whenever someone proposes that some conclusion is true because someone who is NOT an authority on the subject SAID it was true.  Fallacies of weak Induction 2. Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) whenever someone concludes that either (a) because they can’t see how something could be true, it must be false, or (b) because they can’t see how something could be false, it must be true. when someone uses their own IGNORANCE about something as evidence for some CONCLUSION.  Fallacies of weak Induction Appeal to Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam) No one has ever been able to prove the existence of extrasensory perception. We must therefore conclude that extrasensory perception does not exist. No one has ever been able to prove that extrasensory perception does not exist. We must therefore conclude that extrasensory perception exists.  Fallacies of weak Induction 3. Hasty Generalization (converse accident) whenever someone draws a conclusion about a WHOLE group after examining only SOME of the members of that group. I’ve met three dogs and all of them were friendly. So, all dogs are friendly.  Fallacies of weak Induction 4. False Cause whenever someone bases a conclusion upon the imagined existence of a causal connection that probably does not exist.  Fallacies of weak Induction 4. False Cause A. Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc) B. Correlation (non causa pro causa) C. Oversimplified Cause D. The Gambler’s Fallacy  Fallacies of weak Induction 4. False Cause A. Coincidence (post hoc ergo propter hoc) whenever someone observes one event followed by another, and then concludes that the first event CAUSED the second. “It’s raining. And I left my umbrella at home. But, it’s only raining BECAUSE I left my umbrella at home. If I had brought the umbrella with me, it would be bright and sunny.” Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause B. Correlation (non causa pro causa) whenever someone mistakes CORRELATION for CAUSATION. Correlation is the fact of two things commonly existing or occurring together, or in conjunction with one another. But, it is a mistake to think that, just because two things are often found coupled, that one is CAUSING the other. Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause B. Correlation (non causa pro causa) All of the really fast runners wear Nike shoes. So, if I get some Nike shoes, I will be a really fast runner too! Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause C. Oversimplified Cause whenever some effect is the result of a fairly complicated system or chain of causes, but the observer selects only a small PART of that causal system and mistakes it for the ENTIRE cause. Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause C. Oversimplified Cause Throughout the 1960s, the youth culture experimented more and more with sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It’s all The Beatles’ fault. Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause D. The Gambler’s Fallacy whenever someone assumes that two independent events of random chance are connected because the events are both a part of the same game.  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause D. The Gambler’s Fallacy “Wow, this coin has come up heads 5 times in a row. The next one is BOUND to come up tails!” “This slot machine hasn’t paid out in over an hour. I’ve got to keep playing though, because it’s SURE to hit the įackpot really soon.”  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause D. The Gambler’s Fallacy I’ve been losing for hours,” they think. “SURELY I’ll start winning soon.” “I’ve been getting more and more scared to drive lately. I’ve never been in a traffic accident, so I įust KNOW that one of these days an accident is bound to happen soon.” “It’s been warm and sunny all week. So, it’ll probably rain tomorrow—and on my day off, too!”  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause 5. Slippery Slope whenever someone concludes something based on an assumption about a chain-reaction that they think will occur — but the chain-reaction is actually (contrary to their assumption) very unlikely.  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause 5. Slippery Slope “The government shouldn’t regulate AR-15 assault rifles. If they do that, then pretty soon, they’ll be regulating ALL guns, and then probably knives too! And pretty soon, there will be a law for everything and you won’t be able to move an inch without breaking some law or other.”  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause 6. Weak Analogy whenever a conclusion is drawn about something because it is similar to something else. So, this is exactly like the NON fallacious variety of inductive argument called the “argument by analogy”— except that a conclusion derived from an analogy is NOT supported if the analogy or similarity is not very strong.  Fallacies of weak Induction False Cause 6. Weak Analogy “Meghan is my best friend. I can’t wait to meet her sister tomorrow. I įust know we’re going to hit it off.” Fallacies of Presumption the premises do NOT provide INDEPENDENT evidence for the conclusion. Each of these fallacies of presumption has premises that assume one of the very things that is supposed to be proved in the conclusion. Fallacies of Presumption 1.Begging the Question This occurs when the very thing to be proven in the conclusion (or some crucial bit of evidence which supports it) is already assumed to be true at the outset of the argument. Fallacies of Presumption 1.Begging the Question A. Missing Key Premise Often, arguments that beg the question come in the form of enthymemes, where the crucial premise is left out.  Fallacies of Presumption 1.Begging the Question A. Missing Key Premise Obviously, Philosophy should be removed from the curriculum because it’s a really difficult subject. We can re-write this argument as follows: 1.Philosophy is a difficult subject. 2. Therefore, Philosophy should not be taught. But, this is a bad argument because it leaves out a crucial premise. Namely: Premise 1:Philosophy is a difficult subject. Premise 2.: Difficult subjects should not be taught. Conclusion: Therefore, Philosophy should not be taught. Premise 2 has been left out—but this is a really crucial premise. Without it, the argument fails. This argument “begs the question” because it leads us to ask, “Yes, but why do you think that difficult subjects should be removed from the curriculum?” Without a good answer to this question, the argument proves nothing.  Fallacies of Presumption 1. Begging the Question B. Conclusion Restates the Premise whenever the conclusion says basically the same thing as the premise(s). this gives the illusion that something has been “proved” when in reality it is merely the case that the same thing is being said twice in a row.  Fallacies of Presumption 1. Begging the Question C. Circular Reasoning Finally, begging the question occurs whenever the argument is “reasons in a circle”. This is when a chain of inferences, or several steps, reasons in such a way that the last step ends up proving the initial assumption (i.e., the first step). We call this “circular” reasoning. We can see that this argument could go around and around in a circle forever  Fallacies of Presumption 1. Begging the Question C. Circular Reasoning CHILD: “Why is the sky blue?” PARENT: “Because I said it’s blue.” CHILD: “But, why do you say it’s blue?” PARENT: “Because the sky IS blue.” CHILD: “But, why is the sky blue?” PARENT: Because I SAID so!  Fallacies of Presumption 2. Complex Question when a question is proposed as if a “yes” or “no” or some other short or one-word answer would suffice, when a longer, clarifying answer is actually needed. This is due to the fact that the question being asked is actually TWO questions disguised as one.  Fallacies of Presumption 2. Complex Question “When did you decide to stop beating your children?” “Where did you bury the body parts of your victim?” ‘We (hopefully!) want to answer “Never!” to the first question and “Nowhere!” to the second. However, if we say “Never!” to the first, this implies that we STILL ARE beating our children. Similarly, if we say “Nowhere!” to the second, this implies that the body parts of our victim ARE NOT BURIED YET. These misleading implications are derived from the fact that each of the above questions are actually TWO questions in disguise. The first SHOULD say: “Did you ever beat your children? If so, when did you stop?” Meanwhile, the second question SHOULD say: “Did you murder the victim? If so, where is the body?” We must be careful not to word questions in such a way that multiple, unspoken implications are being made. This will result in bad reasoning. Fallacies of Presumption  3. False Dichotomy whenever someone presents two options as if they were the ONLY two options (though they are not), and then, after eliminating ONE of them, concludes that the second option must be true. Fallacies of Presumption False Dichotomy “Either you’ll go out on a date with me, or you clearly hate my guts. But, I know you don’t hate my guts.” “You’re either against Obamacare, or you’re an evil person. You don’t want to be an evil person, do you?” Misinformers will often present only two choices. This or that. Black or white. Fallacies of Presumption  4. Suppressed Evidence when an argument purposely leaves out or ignores relevant evidence because that evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion being offered. Fallacies of Presumption Suppressed Evidence “I would be a great employee. You should hire me. I graduated magna cum laude with a degree in business from Harvard, I know about all of the procedures, and I have extensive experience in this line of work.” (Information not provided: “I was fired from my last job for being a terrible employee”) “England has very strict gun control laws and the homicide rate there is very low. Meanwhile, the United States has much looser gun control laws and the homicide rate is much higher. So, the evidence indicates that we should regulate guns more strictly in order to lower the homicide rate.” I N FORMA L FALLACIES 4. Fallacies of Ambiguity the conclusion depends on some kind of linguistic ambiguity. Terms are ambiguous when it is unclear how to interpret them. This can lead us to draw erroneous conclusions from given premises. I N FORMA L FALLACIES Fallacies of Ambiguity A. Equivocation whenever a single term is being used in two different ways within an argument.  I N FORMA L FALLACIES Fallacies of Ambiguity A. Equivocation “The pamphlet for this animal rescue organization says, ‘All former zoo animals are now free’. I think we should go get a free koala bear. After all, they’re just giving them away!”  I N F O R M AL FALLACIES Fallacies of Ambiguity A. Equivocation “Everyone knows that it is wrong to discriminate or treat people differently on the basis of what race they are a part of. So, even though the 100-meter dash and the long-distance marathon are different races, it is clear that we should hold the members of each to the same set of standards.” I N F O R M AL FALLACIES Fallacies of Ambiguity B. Amphiboly whenever an ambiguous statement, which could be interpreted in different ways, is interpreted in the WRONG way in order to support some conclusion. I N F O R M AL FALLACIES Fallacies of Ambiguity B. Amphiboly “This newspaper headline says, ‘Local Children Make Nutritious Snacks’. I can’t believe they’re eating children now!” “They say that Peggy gave a lecture on drugs yesterday. I had no idea she was a junkie!”  I N FORMA L FALLACIES 5. Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy Mistaken inferences are drawn from the parts of something to the whole, or from a whole to its parts.  I N FORMA L FALLACIES Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy A. Composition B. Division  I N FORMA L FALLACIES Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy A. Composition when someone mistakenly assumes that, just because all of the PARTS of something have some feature, that the whole must ALSO have that feature. INFORMAL FALLACIES Fallacies of Grammatical Analogy B. Division when someone mistakenly assumes that, just because a WHOLE has some feature, that all of its parts must ALSO have that feature. NOTE: Keep in mind that there ARE instances where these sorts of inferences are NOT fallacious.