Fallacy
Part of a series on |
Rhetoric |
---|
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument[1][2] that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.[3]
Fallacies may be committed intentionally to
Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal." A
A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof with a concealed, or subtle, error. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of false proofs of obvious contradictions.[6]
Overview
Fallacies are types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.[7] According to The New Handbook of Cognitive Therapy Techniques, they include "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts."[8] Informal fallacies, in particular, are frequently found in mass media such as television and newspapers.[9] Understanding fallacies may allow one to recognize them in either one's own or others' writing. Avoiding fallacies may help improve one's ability to produce sound arguments.[10]
It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of soundness and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.[11] Moreover, whether a specific argument is fallacious often depends on the content rather than the form of the argument. An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [12] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [13] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance can be found." Evaluating an instance of an argument as fallacious is therefore often a matter of evaluating the context of the argument.
Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the emotional, intellectual, or psychological weaknesses of the audience. Recognizing fallacies can develop reasoning skills to expose the weaker links between premises and conclusions to better discern between what appears to be true and what is true.
Argumentation theory provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In the pragma-dialectical theory, for instance, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals who attempt to resolve their disagreement on the merits of a case.[14] The protocol consists of normative rules of interaction, and violations of these rules are considered fallacies because they frustrate the attempt at resolving the disagreement.
Fallacies are used in place of valid reasoning to communicate a point with the intention to persuade. Examples in the
Systems of classification
Fallacies are generally classified strictly by either their structure or their content, such as by classifying them as
Greek logic
The Greek philosopher
- "Coriscus is different from Socrates."
- "Socrates is a man."
- "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man."[18]: 4
Indian logic
- Asiddha: It is the unproved reason that results in this fallacy. [Paksadharmata]
- Savyabhichara: This is the fallacy of irregular reason.
- Satpratipaksa: Here the reason is contradicted by another reason. If both have equal force, then nothing follows. 'Sound is eternal, because it is audible', and 'Sound is non-eternal, because it is produced'. Here 'audible' is counterbalanced by 'produced' and both are of equal force.
- Badhita: When another proof (as by perception) definitely contradicts and disproves the middle term (reason). 'Fire is cold because it is a substance'.
- Viruddha: Instead of proving something it is proving the opposite. 'Sound is eternal because it is produced'.
Whately's grouping
English scholar and theologian Richard Whately (1787–1863) defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not".[18]: 8
Whately divided fallacies into two groups: logical and material. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion follows from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's
Other systems of classification
Other famous methods of classifying fallacies are those of
Formal fallacy
A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (
Even non-deductive arguments can be said to be fallacious: for example, an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality. But "since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments."[5]
A logical form such as "A and B" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that, given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false. Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. Both the argument and all its premises must be true for a conclusion to be true.
The term logical fallacy is in a sense self-contradictory because logic refers to valid reasoning, whereas a fallacy is the use of poor reasoning. Therefore, the term formal fallacy is preferred. In informal discourse, however, logical fallacy is used to mean an argument that is problematic for any reason.
The term non sequitur denotes a general formal fallacy, often meaning one that does not belong to any named subclass of formal fallacies, like affirming the consequent.
Common examples
Ecological fallacy
An ecological fallacy is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."[26]
Fallacy fork
Maarten Boudry[27] and others[28] have argued that formal, deductive fallacies rarely occur in real life and that arguments that would be fallacious in formally deductive terms are not necessarily so when context and prior probabilities are taken into account, thus making the argument defeasible and/or inductive. Boudry coined the term fallacy fork.[27] For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation scheme, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork), or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork).[27] To argue, for example, that one became nauseated after eating a mushroom because the mushroom was poisonous could be an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.[27]
Informal fallacy
In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates from a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument. but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.
Though the form of the argument may be relevant, fallacies of this type are "types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the content of the propositions constituting the argument".[29]
Faulty generalization
A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of
Hasty generalization
Hasty generalization often follows a pattern such as:
- X is true for A.
- X is true for B.
- Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.
Relevance fallacy
The
Argument from silence
An argument from silence is a faulty conclusion that is drawn based on the absence of evidence rather than on the presence of evidence.
Examples of informal fallacies
Post hoc (false cause)
The post hoc fallacy assumes that because B comes after A, A caused B. It gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which translates as "after this, therefore because of this".
Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if one registers for a class and their name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time are not really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation does not necessarily entail causation. For example, if one eats a sandwich and then gets food poisoning, that does not necessarily mean the sandwich caused the food poisoning. Something else eaten earlier might have caused the food poisoning.
Slippery slope
For an argument to be a slippery slope type of argument, it must meet the requirements of that argumentation scheme. A slippery slope argument originates from a conversation or debate in which two actors take turns. It usually originates from one actor giving advice on a decision or act. Along the way, the actor must make additional choices on similar matters through which the actor enters the ‘grey area’ of the slippery slope. At this point, the actor potentially loses control over the direction of the arguments, thus leading to a ‘fatal’ outcome.[31]
Such an argument is built up according to the following argumentation scheme: initial premise, sequential premise, indeterminacy premise, control premise, loss of control premise, catastrophic outcome premise, and conclusion. Slippery slope arguments may be defeated by asking critical questions or giving counterarguments.[32]
There are several reasons for a slippery slope to be fallacious: for example, the argument is going too far into the future, it is a too complex argument whose structure is hard to identify, or the argument makes emotional appeals.[33]
It may be that a slippery slope is not necessarily fallacious if context is taken into account and there is an effort to assess plausibility.[34]
False analogy
Informally known as the "
Straw man fallacy
The straw man fallacy refers to the refutation of a standpoint in an argument that was never proposed. The fallacy usually occurs in the presentation of an opponent's standpoint as more extreme, distorted, or simplistic than it actually is. Compared to criticizing the opponent's actual standpoint, this allows the arguer to offer a seeming refutation of what is, however, not the actual standpoint.[36] Such an argument involves two arguers, with one criticizing the other's perspective.[37] The reason for the straw man argument to be fallacious originates from the problem of how to deal with natural discourse. The opponent's argument is not reflected by the arguments that are proposed by the speaker.[38]
Measurement fallacy
Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement. Where
Knowledge value measurement fallacy
The increasing availability and circulation of big data are driving a proliferation of new metrics for scholarly authority,[41][42] and there is lively discussion regarding the relative usefulness of such metrics for measuring the value of knowledge production in the context of an "information tsunami."[43]
For example,
A naturalistic fallacy can occur, for example, in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better"[43] or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better".[46]
A
As another example, consider the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index of Academic Analytics. This tool purports to measure overall faculty productivity, yet it does not capture data based on citations in books. This creates a possibility that low productivity measurements using the tool commit argument from silence fallacies, to the extent that such measurements are supported by the absence of book citation data.
Ecological fallacies can be committed when one measures the scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g., "Hispanic" faculty).[47]
Intentional fallacy
Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
Examples of this include the speaker or writer:[48]
- Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a Ignoratio elenchi)
- Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
- Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii)
- Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
- Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
- Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning)
- Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified, also called false dichotomy
- Selectively using facts (card stacking)
- Making false or misleading comparisons (false analogy)
- Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization) (secundum quid)
- Using an argument's connections to other concepts or people to support or refute it, also called "guilt by association" (association fallacy)
- Claiming that a lack of proof counts as proof (appeal to ignorance)
In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of
When someone uses logical fallacies intentionally to mislead in academic, political, or other high-stakes contexts, the breach of trust calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.[50]
Assessment: pragmatic theory
According to the pragmatic theory,[51] a fallacy can be either a heuristic error or a ploy used intentionally to unfairly win an argument. There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy: the perpetrator and the intended victim.
The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component. A dialogue has individual goals for each participant as well as shared goals that apply to all participants. A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply a violation of the rule of reasonable dialogue. It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation based on sleight-of-hand. Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contests. But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history, to the Sophists. The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labeled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue. Hence, under the pragmatic approach, each case needs to be analyzed individually to determine whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable.
See also
- List of cognitive biases – Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
- List of fallacies – List of faulty argument types
- List of memory biases– Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
- List of paradoxes – List of statements that appear to contradict themselves
- All pages with titles containing Fallacy
- All pages with titles containing Fallacious
- Pragma-dialectics § Rules for critical discussion
Concepts
- Aporia – State of puzzlement or expression of doubt, in philosophy and rhetoric
- Anti-pattern – Common response to a recurring problem that is usually ineffective or counterproductive
- Argument map – Visual representation of the structure of an argument
- Argumentation theory – Academic field of logic and rhetoric
- Association fallacy – Informal inductive fallacy
- Cognitive bias – Systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment
- Cognitive distortion – Exaggerated or irrational thought pattern
- Critical thinking – Analysis of facts to form a judgment
- Demagogue – Politician or orator who panders to fears and emotions of the public
- Evidence – Material supporting an assertion
- Fallacies of definition – Ways in which a term may be poorly defined
- False (logic) – Possessing negative truth value
- False premise – Incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument
- False statement – Statement contradicted by facts and reality
- Illusion – Distortion of the perception of reality
- Inference objection– Reason arguing against a premise, argument, or conclusion; expression of disagreement
- Inquiry – Any process that has the aim of augmenting knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem
- Jumping to conclusions – Psychological term
- Lemma– Theorem for proving more complex theorems
- Lies, damned lies, and statistics – Phrase criticising misuse of statistics
- Mathematical fallacy – Certain type of mistaken proof
- Paradox – Statement that apparently contradicts itself
- Prosecutor's fallacy– Error in thinking which involves under-valuing base rate information
- Sophist – Teacher in ancient Greece (5th century BC)
- Soundness – Term in logic and deductive reasoning
- Truth – Being in accord with fact or reality
- Validity – Argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are
- Victim blaming – Social phenomenon
Works
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0810875968.
- ISBN 978-9048167005.
- ^ a b c Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 February 2016.
- ISBN 978-3-319-16147-1.
- ^ a b c Garns, Rudy (1997). "Informal Fallacies". Northern Kentucky University. Archived from the original on 2017-02-01. Retrieved 2013-09-10.
- ^ "Mathematical Fallacies". brilliant.org. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
- ^ "Definition of fallacy". www.dictionary.com. Retrieved 2023-02-18.
- OCLC 41580357.
- S2CID 144780081.
- ^ "The Importance of Logical Fallacies". thelogicofscience.com. 14 March 2017. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
- ^ DeLancey, Craig. "Evaluating Arguments – Distinguishing between reasonable and fallacious tactics" (PDF). oswego.edu. self-published. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-03. Retrieved 7 March 2018.
- ISSN 0824-2577.
- ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4
- OCLC 1048664485.
- ^ "Fallacies in Propaganda". www.termpaperwarehouse.com. Retrieved 4 February 2023.
- ISBN 978-0-8264-9006-3. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
- ^ "fallacy". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 13 June 2017.
- ^ ISBN 978-90-481-2613-2.
- ^ "Aristotle's original 13 fallacies". The Non Sequitur. March 13, 2008. Retrieved 28 May 2013.
- ^ "Aristotle's 13 fallacies". www.logiclaw.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2018-07-18. Retrieved 2017-12-12.
- ^ "PHIL 495: Philosophical Writing (Spring 2008), Texas A&M University". Archived from the original on 2008-09-05. Retrieved 2013-09-10.
- ^ Phillips, Stephen (2019). "Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
- ^ Mahamahopadhyaya Satisa Chandra Vidyabhushana. The Nyaya Sutras Of Gautama (English).
- ^ Ganeri, Jonardon (2019). "Analytic Philosophy in Early Modern India". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2021-05-07.
- OL 7104938M. Retrieved 2016-02-22.
- ISBN 978-0761923633.
- ^ a b c d Boudry, Maarten (2017). "The Fallacy Fork: Why It's Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 46–51.
- OCLC 871004444.
- ISBN 978-0-13-189834-9.
- S2CID 19584450.
- ISSN 2293-734X.
- ISBN 978-0198239253.
- S2CID 170107849.
- ^ Dwyer, Christopher (September 13, 2019). "Critically Thinking About the Slippery Slope "Fallacy"". Psychology Today.
- S2CID 145785208.
- ISSN 0378-2166.
- S2CID 145321942.
- S2CID 15523437.
- ISBN 978-0872497580.
- ISBN 978-0872205567.
- ^ S2CID 16532275.
- OCLC 1554535. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
- ^ S2CID 145424660.
- ^ National Communication Journal (2013). Impact Factors, Journal Quality, and Communication Journals: A Report for the Council of Communication Associations (PDF). Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 4, 2016. Retrieved 2016-02-22.
- ^ Garfield, Eugene (1993). "What Citations Tell us About Canadian Research". Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science. 18 (4): 34.
- ^ Stein, Zachary (October 2008). "Myth Busting and Metric Making: Refashioning the Discourse about Development". Integral Leadership Review. 8 (5). Archived from the original on October 30, 2013. Retrieved October 28, 2013.
- ^ Allen, Henry L. (1997). "Faculty Workload and Productivity: Ethnic and Gender Disparities" (PDF). NEA 1997 Almanac of Higher Education: 39. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2015. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- ISBN 978-1-930367-28-9. Retrieved February 22, 2016.
- ^ Boyer, Web; Stoddard, Samuel. "How to Be Persuasive". Rink Works. Archived from the original on July 27, 2018. Retrieved December 5, 2012.
- ^ Habick, Timothy, and Linda Cook. (2018) AICPA Test Development Fairness Guidelines. Association of International Certified Public Accounts, Ewing, NJ.[page needed]
- ISBN 978-0817307981.
Further reading
- ISBN 0916475247.
- Hans V. Hansen; Robert C. Pinto (1995). Fallacies: classical and contemporary readings. Penn State Press. ISBN 978-0271014173.
- Frans van Eemeren; Bart Garssen; Bert Meuffels (2009). Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion. Springer. ISBN 978-9048126132.
- Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989. [ISBN missing]
- Douglas, Walton (1987). Informal Fallacies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ISBN missing]
- Walton, Douglas (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. [ISBN missing]
- Walton, Douglas (2010). "Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are". Informal Logic. 30 (2): 159–184. .
- ISBN 978-1402026638.
- Woods, John (2013). Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference. London: College Publications. ISBN 978-1848901148
- Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959. [ISBN missing]
- ISBN 8799101378
- D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks, 1970. [ISBN missing]
- Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998. [ISBN missing]
- ISBN 039453512X, xv+457 pages plus addenda insert (some printings). Ch. 12.
Historical texts
- Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi. library.adelaide.edu.au
- William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (c. 1323) Part III.4.
- John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
- Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, xxiii ff Archived 2020-02-14 at the Wayback Machine. fly.hiwaay.net
- Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten – The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), (also known as "Schopenhauers 38 stratagems"). gutenberg.org
- John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic – Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion. la.utexas.edu
External links
- Hansen, Hans. "Fallacies". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Informal logic". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- "Fallacy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Fallacy at PhilPapers
- Humbug! The skeptic's field guide to spotting fallacies in thinking – textbook on fallacies. scribd.com
- List of fallacies with clear examples, infidels.org
- Interactive Syllogistic Machine A web based syllogistic machine for exploring fallacies, figures, and modes of syllogisms.
- Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate, csun.edu
- Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies, onegoodmove.org
- Explain fallacies, what they are and how to avoid them
- Fallacy Files
- Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 10 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154.