"Heuristic Principle definition: a principle of thinking or reasoning which is not judged based upon its truth but rather

its pragmatic consequences. It is assumed to be true for the purposes of some problem or inquiry. Argument: An argument is a deliberate attempt to move beyond merely making an assertion. When offering an argument, you are offering a series of related statements which represent an attempt to support that assertion to give others good reasons to believe that what you are asserting is true rather than false. An argument is a collection of at least two propositions. !f those, all but one are premises and the final is a conclusion the assertion which you are trying to support. Arguments can be either deductive or inductive, and logic is, in part, the study of how arguments work. Fuzzy Logic: "eveloped by #ofti $adeh, fu%%y logic is a system of reasoning which allows for the possibility that propositions may have degrees of truth or falsity, rather than simply possessing simple truth or simple falsity. Bivalence Definition: &he principle of bivalence states that every proposition must be either true or false. &hus, when we have the proposition: 'aris is the capital of (rance. ...it must be either a true proposition or a false proposition. &here are no other alternatives. Although this may seem obvious at first glance, there are disagreements about it because some propositions, if either true or false, create problems. &he easiest e)ample of that would be propositions about future events. (or e)ample: &omorrow I will watch &*. If that proposition is, today, true, then it would seem that I cannot freely choose not to watch &*. !n the other hand, if it is, today, false, then it seems that I cannot freely choose to watch &*. &hus, if the principle of bivalence applies to all propositions, then free will cannot e)ist. +ut if we think that free will e)ists, then the principle of bivalence is not universally applicable. Analyzing Arguments and Evidence esta!ility: is t"ere a #ay to determine #"et"er a statement is true or false$ ,ometimes statements are made that would be very hard to disprove even if they were false. In some cases the statement is so vague that almost anything could happen without our feeling the statement was disproved. !ther statements would require impossible effort to prove or disprove. ,uch statements cannot be considered reliable, since, even if they were wrong, nobody could show it Burden of proof In criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution because we do not want to mistakenly punish people who are innocent. +ut proving things is hard. As a result, we often find that people debating an issue say the burden of proof is on their opponent. &hey want the easy job and they want their opponent to have the hard job. If a believer in -od debates an atheist, it is likely that the believer will assert the atheist must prove -od doesn.t e)ist and the atheist will claim it is the duty of the believer to prove that -od does e)ist. /ach wants to claim victory if their opponent cannot accomplish an almost impossible task. 0ealistically, t"e !urden of proof is on anyone #"o claims to "ave certain %no#ledge one #ay or t"e ot"er. &he person who claims an issue is in doubt doesn.t have to prove anything. Avoiding !ias If we are judging the flavor of a wine, we want to judge only on the flavor, not on the knowledge that it was e)pensive to produce or that other e)perts consider it to be e)tremely good. We don.t want to be influenced by propaganda that someone has contrived to deliberately sway our opinion. &ypically bias is

avoided by objective tests 2such as multiple choice tests3, in which there is no opinion involved in doing the grading, and by blind tests, where the information that might bias us is kept hidden, for e)ample by tasting wine without seeing the bottle or its label &easure #"ere possi!le' and !e a#are of t"e pro!a!le error ,ince decisions are between alternatives, we normally want to pick the alternative that is 4best4 in some respect. &his implies that we don.t just want to know whether a course of action is 4good4 or 4bad4, but how good or bad, because we may be deciding between two good possibilities or two bad ones. 5ost of the time this 4magnitude4 is determined intuitively, and in some cases this may be e)tremely unreliable. If we have a way to do an objective measure of how good something is, even a very inaccurate measure may be much better than our intuition. /ngineers and physicists, who routinely deal with measured quantities, usually include an estimate of the inaccuracy of their measurements: instead of 464 as a value, they may 46 plus or minus 74 or 46 plus or minus .814. ,uch judgments about accuracy are just as important in human affairs, but are rarely stated specifically. (elf)defeating measurements It is often impossible, or at least impractical, to measure the quantity we actually care about, like the actual value of an employee.s work. Instead, some relatively easy measurement is made that seems to be closely related to the relevant trait. &his can backfire. Don*t count data t#ice &he newscaster might say 4'rices are up 9: this month. Worse news the price of gasoline is up 6:.4 ,ince the price of gasoline was reflected in the 9: figure, we have already taken the unpleasantness of this news into account. &he fact that this particular product increased by more than the average necessarily implies that other products have increased by less than the average, so the additional news is not necessarily bad. (ee% out t"e opposing vie# 'eople who have some cause to promote, whether for profit or some public issue, can often come up with some very convincing arguments. ,ometimes they will tell us the arguments used by their opponents and why they are wrong. +e s"ould never ma%e up our minds unless #e "ave "eard t"e opponents* arguments directly' since t"ose promoting t"e cause aren*t li%ely to represent t"e ot"er side fairly. We should seek out the best argument each side has to offer, and then decide if one side.s case is strong enough for us to form a firm opinion. Free ,n-uiry In the ;nited ,tates we have 4freedom of speech4. &he idea is that if all sides of an issue are heard, the truth will have an opportunity to be heard. When people become very convinced of a particular belief, they often want to suppress any discussion that calls that belief into question. 5y impression is that people who do this are wrong in their position a high percentage of the time, and so the true viewpoint 2as well as many false ones3 is usually suppressed by censorship. rying principles on ot"er issues When an argument involves issues about which we might make assumptions or have biases, we can sometimes try the same argument on a different subject in order to see if it really is valid. False memory &he fact that someone remembers something does not imply it happened. It is easy for people two confuse things that happened at one time with things that happened at another, or even to visuali%e something that someone suggests might have happened and confuse that with an actual memory of it happening. As a result it is common for perfectly intelligent people to 4remember4 events or details that are false or inaccurate. We should particularly be suspicious of things remembered during hypnosis, since a hypnoti%ed subject is very suggestible. .pen)mindedness

!pen mindedness is a virtue if it implies a willingness to listen to views that are different from our own. It should not mean believing those views without sufficient evidence. Easily c"ec%ed facts t"at aren*t c"ec%ed If we are told there are before and after pictures on record at a certain place of a person who was miraculously healed, we might think of that as irrefutable proof of the miracle, but we should maintain some skepticism if we have not seen the pictures. ,ometimes when things like this are checked either the 4before4 or the 4after4 picture happens to be lost. (ew people follow up on such statements, and even if somebody has shown a statement like this to be untrue, we probably wouldn.t hear about it. Anecdotal Evidence ,cientists often dismiss reports of remarkable events, saying it is 4anecdotal evidence4. &he problem with anecdotal evidence is that it cannot be checked or reproduced. ,tories of personal e)periences can turn out to be false or misleading for a variety of reasons. /itpic%ing !ften someone makes a statement that is essentially true, but we notice that there is some special case that is an e)ception or some interpretation of the words that does not apply. When there is a genuine problem with misunderstanding or the e)ception is an important one, pointing it out may be valuable. !therwise nitpic%ing gets in t"e #ay of addressing t"e real issues' tends to create "ostility' and is unli%ely to #in people over to our position0 .ccam*s 1azor <amed for William of !ccam, a fourteenth century /nglish philosopher, it says that if several e)planations fit the facts equally well, the simplest is most likely to be true. &his makes sense since the more elements that are required for an e)planation, the greater the chances that one of them is wrong. 2to be e)panded3 &uc" of t"e "arm in t"e #orld is done !y people #"o t"in% t"ey are doing good0 We all recogni%e the value in knowing things that are true. &hat.s why we go to school, ask questions, read the newspapers, and investigate things we don.t understand. It is clear that knowledge is valuable. +ut suppose we think we know something but we are wrong= How often do we believe things that aren't true? While we are frequently concerned about what we don.t know, we may forget to be concerned about things we think we know that are actually false. >ow serious can it be when people believe things that aren.t really true= ?onsider World War II. &he <a%is believed they were a superior race that was entitled to rule the world. &hey were wrong. If they had not had this wrong belief, they would not have caused the deaths of huge numbers of people, both in battle and in death camps. <o doubt some who supported the <a%is were simply malicious individuals. +ut the great majority undoubtedly believed that their cause was just. Without the support of these 4good4 people people raising families, people working for a living, but people who believed something terribly false the <a%is would never have risen to power. !ne of the ugliest periods of human history would simply not have happened. 'eople believing something that wasn.t true had a terrible price. In ,alem, 5assachusetts in 16@7 women were e)ecuted for witchcraft. &he good, honest people of ,alem were trying to get rid of an evil they believed was destructive to their community. While their actions were tragically wrong, they truly believed at the time that they were right. (alse beliefs about science can delay finding the cures for diseases or new sources of power or lead to bad educational or social policies. +ecause of this, scientists usually take many precautions to avoid accepting findings that are not sufficiently confirmed. /ven so, science has sometimes gone off on wrong paths. It can be very difficult to know if a particular thing is true, such as whether a particular religion is true or whether a medicine is effective or whether a politician will do a good job. +ut it should not be that difficult to recogni%e when we do not %no# something. I believe that people can learn that ability, but

unfortunately our schools and our culture as a whole do little to help people develop it. If we care about the welfare of humanity, this is something that must change. Ho# Does 1esponsi!le "in%ing Differ From 2ritical "in%ing$ 4?ritical &hinking4 is a term that has been around for many years and many books have been written and courses taught that are devoted to it. I feel that the people who promote critical thinking are trying to achieve essentially the same thing I am with 40esponsible &hinking4 and in fact are teaching many of the same principles. >owever I feel that there are several ways that typical critical thinking approaches have not quite hit the nail on the head in term of relevance and effectiveness. >ere is how we might treat critical thinking differently: +e s"ould emp"asize avoiding false !eliefs rat"er t"an identifying false arguments. ?ritical thinking comes from a tradition of critiquing oral or written arguments. &his is valuable because it can help prevent us from being fooled by these arguments. We should be able to do even better, however, if we alter the emphasis from critiquing arguments to avoiding being misled. It is the false beliefs, not the bad arguments themselves that can get us into trouble, so the beliefs should be our focus. &his also allows us to consider situations where we might draw false conclusions even though no actual argument is involvedA such as assuming air travel is dangerous because we see news stories about plane crashes. We need to emphasi%e the importance of critical thinking much more forcefully. !ften treatments of critical thinking say little about why we want to be critical thinkers e)cept perhaps that it is useful for decision making or conforms to a higher intellectual standard. It sometimes sounds like something we learn so we can impress people with how smart we are. In reality, critical thinking is of e)treme importance for everyone. When things go terribly wrong it is often a result of poor critical thinking. +ad elected officials and corporate scandals could be avoided by better critical thinking. 0eligious cults result from critical thinking problems. 'ersonal feuds are critical thinking problems. 5ost of the greatest problems facing humanity are caused, at least in part, by people.s critical thinking failures. &he future of humanity depends on making critical thinking a very high priority. Polarization 'olari%ation is an effect that drives people so far apart on an issue it is as if they are at opposite poles. &he people become emotionally attached to one side of an issue and become almost incapable of seeing any virtues in the opposing position or any faults in their own. It makes responsible thinking about the issue difficult or impossible. It may lead to personal animosity towards people who take the opposing viewpoint. 5ost of us have issues about which we are at least partially polari%ed. (ome issues on #"ic" people can !ecome polarized <ationalism: 0ivalries which go on for centuries occur between neighbors such as /nglish vs. Irish, (rench vs. -ermans, <orwegians vs. ,wedes, +osnians vs. ?roats vs. ,erbs vs. Albanians, -reeks vs. &urks. 0acism: >atred between whites, blacks, !rientals, <ative Americans, and other groups typically starts with an assumption of racial superiority 2typically by whites in the ;nited ,tates3 which results in discrimination, abuse and conflict. 0eligion: 0eligious conflicts can be particularly bitter because each side is likely to feel that they represent good and so anyone who opposes them must be evil. 'olitics: 0epublican vs. "emocrat, #iberal vs. ?onservative, ,ocialist vs. #ibertarian, se)ism, gun control, abortion, ta)es, management vs. labor, and many other issues all can bitterly divide people.

Workplace issues: 'eople often get into serious disputes with coworkers about workplace issues and policies. 'ersonal and family feuds: "ivorce often involves very bitter polari%ation between the people involved, and romantic disputes are a common cause of murders. !ther long lasting family feuds can result from issues as trivial as not attending a social occasion. Becoming polarized' step !y step !ne side of an issue appeals to us. We seek out facts to support this side. We get most of our information from advocates of this side. We feel superior for being on this side. We like the people on our side better. We trust the people on our side more. We believe advocates for our side without analy%ing them critically. We distrust advocates for the other side. We feel the people on the other side have undesirable traits that led them to their wrong opinions. We jump on the slightest flaw in arguments made by the other side.s proponents. We find negative stereotypes about the other side very believable. When our opponents make negative references to us, it is further evidence of their bad character. ,ources of information that treat us and our opponents almost equally must be biased, or they would recogni%e our superiority and the inferiority of our opponents. 0ather than enduring such unreliable sources or listening to our opponents. arguments directly, we learn of their misguided views and motives from our own trustworthy leaders. When an opponent is found to have done something unethical, it is reprehensible, but typical of what we e)pect from the people we oppose. When one of us is found to do something unethical it is not very important and possibly e)cusable if it aids our noble purposes. We are good. &hey are bad. &he superiority of our view is so obvious that our opponents could not possibly be sincere. &hey are deliberately promoting evil, self serving policies. &hey are our enemies, out to destroy us and our way of life 'eople like them should be ridiculed, stripped of power, silenced, punished, and perhaps even destroyed

<ot all polari%ed situations will involve all the factors above, but one characteristic that is a very common warning sign is anger and perhaps even hatred we feel towards those on the other side. Leaders use polarization to manipulate us It is easy as individuals to become polari%ed about issues, but the situation is aggravated by leaders who deliberately play on our emotions to strengt"en t"eir o#n influence. When political campaigns turn negative it is pretty typical to accuse opponents of improper behavior or having outrageous views. #eaders of virtually all political movements work to find the most dramatic and e)treme cases of questionable behavior by opponents in order to stir up our anger. In two recent wars in which the ;.,. was involved, our leaders employed the tactic of demoni%ing the opposing leaders in order to gain public support for the war. When it was decided to bomb ,erbia

because of the events in Dosovo, 'resident ?linton constantly told of the evil nature of 5r. 5ilosevic, and in the case of the war against Iraq, 'resident +ush constantly told us of the evil character of ,addam >ussein. <either of these men was any less evil fifteen years before, but at those times there was no need to rally public opinion against them. ,ometimes polari%ation is used by leaders to boost their popularity such as when ,enator Eoseph 5c?arthy ran his anti communist crusade in the 1@C8s and when #ester 5addo) was elected governor of -eorgia after he gained fame by defying efforts to integrate his restaurant in the 1@68s. &he ;nited ,tates has few long standing nationalistic antagonisms, but in countries that do, it is commonplace for leaders 2like 5ilosevic3 to attack such enemies as a means of increasing their popularity. It is a common tactic for leaders to create and make use of polari%ation for their own political ends. ,f #e #ant to ma%e #ise decisions a!out suc" leaders and t"eir claims' and avoid !eing manipulated' #e must recognize suc" tactics and resist !ecoming polarized0 A good policy is to never regard negative claims or inferences a!out a person or group as at all meaningful unless #e get t"e information from a neutral source and #e "ave given people from t"e opposing side a fair opportunity to e3plain t"eir position0 &hings like negative campaign ads 2and probably all campaign ads3 should be completely ignored since anyone with the money to produce and air such advertising can invariably find ways to make their opponent look bad. +y paying attention to such material we are unlikely to improve our decision making and we allow the advertiser to buy our vote. As a more general rule, #e s"ould al#ays !e suspicious of any person or group t"at tries to get our support !y inciting anger to#ards anot"er person or group0 Basing 4no#ledge on t"e Aut"ority of .t"er People +"o is an aut"ority$ &he word 4authority4 to mean anybody whose statements we use as a source of information. We also get information from friends, political or business leaders, teachers, clergy, newspaper reporters and columnists, recogni%ed e)perts in various fields, people who are famous for some reason, and authors of books. &anipulative Persuasion If a person has something to gain from persuading us of something, we have to be particularly careful about whether we believe them. ,uch people may or may not believe what they claim, but their primary purpose in not to inform us of something. ?ommon situations include the politician trying to get elected, promoters of political or social or religious ideologies, confidence artists, or just people wanting us to do them a favor. ,ometimes studying their techniques will help us see what is going on, but there will always be new ploys and techniques we haven.t run into. >ere are some of the ploys I.ve run into. ?onsidering such cases will help us if we run into similar situations, and it should also make us reali%e we.re not always going to be able to recogni%e the deceptions that are aimed at us. People #"o are sincere !ut #rong While the dangers of believing people who have a manipulative agenda are great, we also must recogni%e that we can often be mislead by people who are totally sincere about what they tell us, but are wrong anyway. >ere are some e)amples of how people can be sincere but wrong: A friend has seen an infomercial for an e)ercise machine and tells us it will work wonders. &he infomercial is manipulative, but the friend is sincere. &he leader of the >eaven.s -ate cult told the members they should kill themselves so they could join the aliens in the space ship following the >ale +opp comet. +oth the leader and the cult members obviously sincerely believed this because they actually did kill themselves. ,igmund (reud, recogni%ed at the time as one of the world.s greatest psychologists, promoted theories about interpreting dreams that most psychologists now feel have little validity.

&he author of a book on alternative medicine claims wearing a digital watch will sap your strength. <ewspapers originally reported that C888 people died in the World &rade ?enter attack when the actual number about 9888. 'eople usually raise their children to accept their own religious views, but since there are many conflicting religions, most cannot be entirely true.

(uperficial indicators of #isdom ,ince there is considerable power in being able to persuade people of what you would like them to believe, people often use every superficial indicator possible to increase their appearance of reliability. &his includes dressing well, speaking with great confidence and sincerity, using intellectual sounding terms and comple) sentence structure, quoting famous people, and acting sympathetic to the beliefs and concerns of their audience. "e aut"ority of many of people !ne sort of authority is the authority of the masses. If almost everybody around us believes something, we are usually inclined to think it is true. If we look to history, we often find that common public beliefs were wrong. 5ost likely there are many commonly held beliefs that are wrong today as well. +isdom of t"e ancients$ We also should not count on ancient people being particularly wise. ;ntil relatively modern times, virtually any sort of education, including reading and writing, was limited to a privileged few. +efore the invention of the printing press, books were rare and e)pensive. ,ources of information like radio, television, newspapers, maga%ines, and the internet were not available. -overnments were undemocratic and free speech and other rights were not generally enjoyed. 0ules and customs were likely to promote the interests of the powerful and not the common people. ,lavery, suppression of women, and other forms of bigotry were widely accepted. ,cience was primitive and most scientific instruments had not been invented. (or the most part, philosophical understanding was at a huge disadvantage compared to what we have today. Aut"orities #e love or "ate If there is an issue that polari%es people into two camps, there is a strong tendency to believe the claims offered by somebody on 4our4 side and be e)tremely skeptical of claims offered by people on the 4other4 side. A variation of this is believing people because they are from a group we feel has been oppressed or otherwise treated unfairly. &he fact that someone has been treated badly doesn.t mean they are correct. ,imilarly we may assume something is false because someone we don.t like favors it. If, for e)ample, >itler felt everyone should drink lots of milk, it wouldn.t mean that drinking milk was bad. 5nnamed aut"orities We will sometimes hear statements like 4Eones has been called the meanest man in (rump ?ounty4. /ven if true, this means nothing if we don.t know who called him that. &his statement could be technically true if the writer himself said aloud 4Eones is the meanest man in (rump ?ounty4 just before writing the statement. /ven a stronger statement like 4e)perts say peanuts cause hair loss4 means little as long as the e)perts are not identified. Aut"ority of t"e past If something has been done a certain way for a long time, we may believe that there must be a good reason for it. ,hould we assume somebody very wise in the past came up with that idea= It.s more likely to be a pointless tradition. Is good posture really better for your back, or is this just a traditional belief= It.s easy to see how this could have become a superstition, but hard to see how it could have been proven. I suggest the following principle: if a belief or traditional practice cannot be supported on the basis of evidence available today, the fact that it was believed or practiced in the past is of almost no

consequence. About all we can say is that the belief did not cause complete failure of the culture that held it 2assuming that culture is still around3. Lying ,ometimes what people tell us is not merely a mistake, but a deliberate lie. ,ince it is an insult to call a person a liar, we may be tempted to rule this out as an e)planation for what they say, but it is foolish not to consider it as a possibility. (cience as a met"od of determining trut" 1eality as 6udge &he basis of science is to determine what is true, not by what the greatest authorities claim, or by what would be true in the ideal universe, or some magical revelation or inner feeling, but by what actually happens in the real world. 'hilosophers could theori%e about whether a heavy object fell faster than a light object, but -alileo actually tried it 2contrary to e)pectations, both fell at the same speed3. /ature' not p"ilosop"ers or aut"orities' is t"e ultimate 6udge of scientific trut"0 "e a!ility to correct false !eliefs ,cience recogni%es that all beliefs have the possibility of error, so it is always open to new evidence. &here is no dogma that must be believed, only principles that work well on the cases observed up until now. While some principles seem e)tremely reliable, they must be reconsidered when there is sufficient evidence that they don.t work. A century ago it was believed that continents were firmly fi)ed in there positions and there was no way they could move. !ver time evidence accumulated that they did gradually move evidence was found that mountain ranges on both sides of the Atlantic had once been joined, and that seafloor spreading originated in faults at the bottoms of the oceans. As evidence accumulated, scientists changed their opinions, and now it is generally accepted that continents have moved considerably from their positions millions of years ago. +ecause the scientific method provides for correcting faulty principles, the truth about continental drift was able to be recogni%ed. ,s science precise' accurate' and aut"oritative$ While scientific e)perts may seem imposing and authoritative, it is reality, and not a person.s credentials, that determines what is true. !ne area in which good science needs to be precise is in the statements of its claims. &hey must be clear and unambiguous. It must be clear what evidence would tend to confirm or deny any hypothesis, and what we should e)pect to happen if the statement is true. &he meaning of a scientific claim must not be a matter of judgment by the listener. /eed for firm foundations -enerally science deals with universal truths that might be of value to people all over the world and for many years in the future. !ften scientific knowledge is essential as a foundation for building new knowledge in the future. &he penalty for false knowledge is great many people are affected and progress is prevented. If, for e)ample, it is found that chewing on a certain kind of bark helps to reduce cold symptoms, scientists would be likely to spend a lot of time and money to find out just what component of the bark has this effect. &his could lead to the development of better cold treatments that avoid various disadvantages of actually chewing on the bark. If it turns out that the original belief was wrong that the bark was actually ineffective then all the work to find the active ingredient would turn out to be wasted. +ecause future progress depends on it, it is important that scientific knowledge be as reliable as possible. Bad science: 6argon' o!fuscation' priest"ood ,cience as it is practiced in the real world does not always live up to the ideal required by the scientific method. ;niversities sometimes reward research faculty more on the basis of quantity of publishing than quality, resulting in a glut of papers that are rarely read. It is common for such papers to use a comple) and difficult to understand writing style that creates the impression of intellect while perhaps getting reviewers to accept it rather than admit they don.t understand it. While there are legitimately some areas

of science that cannot be understood without considerable background, it is also tempting for academics to use jargon and set themselves up as e)perts who are above questioning by those without credentials in their field. &here may also be areas of research that have not yet sufficiently recogni%ed the need for properly controlled e)periments. Precise definition of a pro!lem or "ypot"esis In order be able to properly confirm or deny a scientific principle, it is necessary to define that principle in terms that are clear to proponent and skeptic alike. &he claim 4famous people die in groups of three4 is impossible to test since different people can have different opinions about when a group starts or ends, or who counts as famous. We can improve the hypothesis by defining a person as famous if their death is reported on the front page of at least half of the top ten newspapers in the ;nited ,tates. A new 4group4 could be started whenever a week goes by without any such deaths. At this point we would have a statement that can be tested 2and will probably fail to be found accurate3. 'roponents could claim a different criterion, such as using the top ten newspapers worldwide instead of American ones and using ten days instead of a week to separate groups. &he new hypothesis would have to be tested independently. When a hypothesis is well stated, those who believe it and those who don.t should at least agree on what actual observations would support it and what would contradict it. We should also be able to determine how likely it is that the observed evidence might have happened by chance. "e /ull "ypot"esis: A is unrelated to B It seems to be human nature to speculate about relationships between things. A basketball player who has just made several baskets is often assumed to have the 4hot hand4 and have a better chance to make his ne)t shot. In other words, if he ordinarily made BG: of his shots, this would say he.d do better than BG: when the previous shot was a success and worse than BG: when the previous shot was missed. &his implies a relationship between shots the player has made in the recent past and shots made in the future. &here are many possible factors affecting future events, but the most common situation is that the two factors are not related to any important e)tent. &he hypothesis that there is no relationship is called the 4null hypothesis4. In the case of the basketball player, the null hypothesis would say that the chances of his or her shots going in is not related to the success of previous shots, so for the above case, the chances would be BG: either way. Predictions A good scientific hypothesis should be predictive, and its truth can be judged by whether things it predicts come true. In 168C the astronomer /dmund >alley used the hypothesis of <ewtonian 5echanics to predict that the comet of 16G8 would reappear in "ecember of 1FCG. >alley.s ?omet returned on "ecember 7Cth of that year. ,ince this is what was predicted by <ewton.s hypothesis, and was unlikely to have happened by chance since comets are rare, it was convincing evidence that <ewtonian 5echanics worked. A prediction is a good test of a hypothesis if it is very likely to be true if the hypothesis is true, and very likely to be false if the hypothesis is false. Historical .!servations ,ome scientific hypotheses concern whether certain events occurred in the past. &he theory that the universe began with a big bang, or that people evolved from ape like ancestors, or that ancestors of <ative Americans came to <orth America from Asia over a land bridge crossing the +ering ,traits are of this type. It is hard to see these as predictive, since they concern things that happened long ago. <evertheless, such statements do predict that certain kinds of evidence might be found in the future and certain kinds will not. +ased on the big bang theory, scientists determined that a certain frequency of microwave radiation should be coming from all directions in the sky. &his was later confirmed. &he &heory of /volution, as it is currently understood, predicts that more primitive fossils, such as those of dinosaurs, should be found in strata below, but not above, more advanced ones, like most mammals. ,o far this has been true. &heories of the origin of <ative Americans might be verified by comparing their physical traits or cultural factors to see whether they are more similar to those of ancient Asians or ancient /uropeans.

2orrelation If two factors are correlated it means that certain values of one make values of the other more or less likely. (or e)ample, a tall person is likely to weigh more than a short person, so height is correlated to weight. !f course there are e)ceptions, so height and weight are not perfectly correlated, but on the average a taller person will weigh more. &his would be a positive correlation. A negative correlation means a greater quantity of one is associated with a lesser quantity of the other. !besity is negatively correlated with life e)pectancy, since being more overweight is likely to result in living less long. !ne can get a more quantitative idea about the relationship between occurrences by doing correlations. We might, for e)ample, correlate the severity of punishment for a particular crime in various states with the frequency of occurrence of that crime. If there is a correlation, it may be that one was the cause of the other, but it may also be that both were influenced by a third factor. We might find that beer drinking is correlated with good health, but that a third factor, age, caused both. 'eople in their twenties typically drink more beer than people in their si)ties, and, being younger, are normally healthier than people in their si)ties. We cannot conclude that it is the beer that makes them healthy. We could also erroneously assume the reverse causation, as in the story of the person who noticed that the rooster crowed just before the sun came up, and deduced that the rooster caused the sun to rise. ,cientists will often use correlation to suggest a hypothesis that one thing causes another, but they cannot prove causality is true using only correlation. E3periments When scientists can deliberately create a situation that tests some hypothesis, this is an experimental test. ,ome features that may be important if we are to trust e)perimental results are controls, single and double blinding, proper statistical analysis, a published report, and replication. 2onfounding /)periments typically try to determine how a change in one variable 2say the amount of oat bran people eat3 affects another quantity 2like their blood cholesterol level3. ,uppose an e)periment has one group of people eat an oat bran cereal for breakfast every day while a control group does whatever they want. After several months the oat bran group has lower average cholesterol levels. While the oat bran might be responsible, that group also may have had more milk because they ate the cereal with milk. ,ince both oat bran and milk were different between the two groups, it is possible that the milk rather than the oat bran might have caused the favorable result. &he two variables, amount of oat bran and amount of milk, are said to be confounded, meaning we can.t tell which is responsible for the result. "e Place!o Effect 'eople who believe they are being given an effective treatment for a medical problem are very likely to feel an improvement for their condition even if the treatment is worthless. &his is called the placebo effect. It makes it very common for people to falsely jump to the conclusion that a treatment is effective even when it is not. In an A+? television special about people.s beliefs, journalist Eohn ,tossel showed a class of college age students which had been given some pills that they were told might affect their sleep. &hree quarters of the students said they had felt an effect and several of them were so convinced of their value that they were eager to get more of the pills. It turns out that the students were given pills which had no active ingredients. ,uch pills or similar dummy treatments are known as 4placebos4. In e)periments to test a real drug, the results for a group using the drug are compared with the results for a group using a placebo. If the only effect of the drug is the placebo effect, then the two groups should do about the same. If the drug is actually effective, the group taking the drug should do better. E3traordinary claims re-uire e3traordinary evidence An e)traordinary claim is one that is highly improbable and inconsistent with known evidence, such as the claim that the tree in your front yard can talk. /ven if a very reliable person told you this, you would be

18

justified in assuming she was joking, lying, mistaken, or delusional rather than believing her. All of these possibilities would be more likely than a talking tree. If television news crews, established scientists and personal observation all confirmed that the tree could talk, then it might be reasonable to consider that the e)traordinary had actually happened. HIHIHIHIH Arguing ,f you are #rong' it is good to lose t"e argument We want to know the truth. &he objective in an argument should not be to defeat the other person, but for the two sides to share knowledge so that one or both has a better understanding of what is true. While it may provide short term satisfaction to win an argument even if you are wrong, the long term result is that neither party has become any wiser. Don*t ma%e it "ard for yourself or t"e ot"er person to c"ange t"eir opinion /go is usually involved when two people disagree. If our opinion is the correct one, the ideal result is that the other person ends up agreeing, not that the other person ends up humiliated. If we suggest that our opponent is a fool for disagreeing with us, he is likely to get angry and concentrate only on winning the argument, not on understanding the points we are trying to make. &he opponent will resist agreeing even more strongly than before. If we turn out to be wrong after ridiculing our opponent, we then must either refuse to acknowledge the truth or suffer considerable embarrassment. E3pect opinions to c"ange slo#ly When debating an issue of some importance, each side usually has considerable prior e)perience on which their opinion is based. A good thinker should always spend some serious effort mulling over new arguments before he or she abandons opinions based on long e)perience. &he new arguments could be faulty in ways we don.t at first appreciate. It is important to be willing to reconsider our position, but we should not be hasty about it. We should also not be upset with others if they don.t immediately accept some argument we have made. 7eneral approac"es to pro!lem solving and understanding (or the most part 0esponsible &hinking involves recogni%ing that information we get is deceptive and unreliable, so we should recogni%e that we are unsure of things that others may become convinced are true. >owever there are some general purpose analysis techniques that help us to better understand things so we can improve our ability to deduce what is true when others may be unsure. We will look at some of them here. &he academic field of 4operations research4 typically addresses methods of this sort in great depth. .ptimization' o!6ective functions' and local minimal ,uppose a problem has many possible solutions, and we are looking for the best one. An e)ample might be that we must visit several cities and we want to choose the order we visit them. &he 4best4 solution is the one with the shortest total distance traveled. &his is called an optimi%ation problem. &he 4objective function4 is the method of calculating how good a potential solution is. In this case the objective function is the sum of the distances from each city on the list to the ne)t one on a chosen route. (or a large number of cities, it is impractical to try all the possible orderings. !ne approach to solving such a problem is to start with some solution and see if we can improve on it by making small changes, like switching the order of two cities on the list. If a small change is an improvement, we keep this as our best solution, and try to improve on this. We quit when no small change is better. &he final result may or may not be the best possible solution. It is called a 4local4 minimum because it is better than all the 4nearby4 solutions. "e la# of diminis"ing returns As you try to come closer and closer to perfection on some job, progress typically becomes more and more difficult. &his is because the easiest parts of the job are normally done first. E-uili!rium and insta!ility

11

&ypically the population of rats, or any other species, is in equilibrium. If at some point in time there is an unusually large population of rats, there won.t be enough food for them all of them and many will die, reducing the population. If there is an unusually small number of rats, they will multiply, increasing the number until their food supply cannot support any more. As a result, if the food supply stays constant, the number of rats will stay relatively constant. Instability is when a change in the quantity of something tends to create a greater change in the future. At present, human population is unstable, since the more people there are, the more babies are born. (or at least a little while, food and other resources are sufficient for this to continue in most parts of the world. At such time as some resource prevents further growth, the unstable growth will cease. &hese are simple aspects of control theory. &hey are important concepts in many fields, from chemistry to economics. 1esponsi!le "in%ing 7uidelines ,eek as accurate an understanding of reality as possible, guarding against false beliefs. Juestion the claims of authorities and widely held beliefs. "o not become polari%ed or emotionally attached to any viewpoint. ,ubjective judgments may seem to be based on our own e)perience but may in fact be based on what we have been told or on our e)pectations. Always judge a course of action in comparison to its alternatives. +ase opinions on measurements wherever possible. ;se calculations rather than intuitive judgments when very large or very small quantities are involved. *ague claims are usually worthless. <ever form a strong opinion after hearing only one side of a controversy. A person can be highly intelligent, sane, and honest and still be totally wrong. ?orrelation does not imply causation. +eware of shortcuts to the truth. A (trategy for Promoting 1esponsi!le "in%ing 5ost of the topics covered are not difficult to understand, and if a substantial percentage of the people in the world had a reasonable grasp of them, I believe much of the strife in the world would be eliminated. &hese topics are not particularly controversial, and require no belief in any arbitrary dogma. &hey should not be a threat to any e)isting beliefs unless those beliefs happen to be false. "espite this, many of these principles are not widely taught in schools, and in fact are often not widely known even among well educated people. I believe, however, that most people who are intelligent, philosophical, and concerned about the public interest will agree that the sort of knowledge discussed here ought to be more widely known. We must count on the efforts of such people to promote the widespread teaching of responsible thinking principles in the schools. &hese things cannot be taught in the grade schools until they are well understood by the teachers, which will require various programs of teacher education. &his will take time, but like other newly emerging subjects, computers for e)ample: our educational system can be modified to incorporate them. It is already recogni%ed by many who are involved with science education that teaching the methods of science needs to be emphasi%ed more than teaching the facts of science. We should not just teach the principles of critical thinking, but must also teach the dangers of untrue beliefs. As time goes by there will be new ploys devised by those who would deceive us, and we will need to modify education accordingly. As long as intelligent people who care about the truth are involved in curriculum decisions, we can keep up with new challenges. <aturally not every student will become an e)pert at critical thinking, but if a substantial number are somewhat more aware, they will be able to turn the tide on some important issues for the better. We have

17

come to accept principles such as freedom and democracy as essential values in our society. If truth and responsible thinking could achieve a similar status, the benefits to humanity could be profound. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH Affirming t"e conse-uent &his fallacy is an argument of the form 4A implies +, + is true, therefore A is true.4 &o understand why it is a fallacy, e)amine the truth table for implication given earlier. >ere.s an e)ample: "If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere. nd we do see order, not randomness !! so it's clear that the universe had a creator." &his is the converse of "enial of the Antecedent. Amp"i!oly Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing. (or e)ample: ""remise# $elief in %od fills a much!needed gap." Anecdotal evidence !ne of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. (or e)ample: 4&here's abundant proof that %od exists and is still performing miracles today. 'ust last wee( I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured." It.s quite valid to use personal e)perience to illustrate a pointA but such anecdotes don.t actually prove anything to anyone. Kour friend may say he met /lvis in the supermarket, but those who haven.t had the same e)perience will require more than your friend.s anecdotal evidence to convince them. Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. &his is part of the e)planation for urban legendsA stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years. Argumentum ad anti-uitatem &his is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it.s old, or because 4that.s the way it.s always been.4 &he opposite of Argumentum ad <ovitatem. ")or thousands of years *hristians have believed in 'esus *hrist. *hristianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution." Argumentum ad !aculum 8 Appeal to force An Appeal to (orce happens when someone resorts to force 2or the threat of force3 to try and push others to accept a conclusion. &his fallacy is often used by politicians, and can be summari%ed as 4might makes right.4 &he threat doesn.t have to come directly from the person arguing. (or e)ample: "... &hus there is ample proof of the truth of the $ible. ll those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell." "... In any case, I (now your phone number and I (now where you live. Have I mentioned I am licensed to carry concealed weapons?" Argumentum ad crumenam &he fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctnessA that those with more money are more likely to be right. &he opposite of Argumentum ad la%arum. /)ample: "+icrosoft software is undoubtedly superior, why else would $ill %ates have got so rich?"

19

Argumentum ad "ominem Argumentum ad hominem literally means 4argument directed at the man4A there are two varieties. &he first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by critici%ing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. (or e)ample: "-ou claim that atheists can be moral !! yet I happen to (now that you abandoned your wife and children." &his is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn.t depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily critici%ed person. (or e)ample: "&herefore we should close down the church? Hitler and .talin would have agreed with you." A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person.s particular circumstances. (or e)ample: "&herefore it is perfectly acceptable to (ill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're /uite happy to wear leather shoes." &his is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. &he fallacy can also be used as an e)cuse to reject a particular conclusion. (or e)ample: "0f course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. -ou're white." &his particular form of Argumentum ad >ominem, when you allege that someone is rationali%ing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as 4poisoning t"e #ell.4 It.s not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won.t, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won.t alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make. Argumentum ad ignorantiam Argumentum ad ignorantiam means 4argument from ignorance.4 &he fallacy occurs when it.s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn.t been proved false. !r, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn.t been proved true. 2<ote that this isn.t the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for e)ample, you.re generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.3 >ere are a couple of e)amples: "0f course the $ible is true. 1obody can prove otherwise." "0f course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. 1obody has shown any proof that they are real." In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn.t occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however. (or e)ample: " flood as described in the $ible would re/uire an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. &he earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. &herefore no such flood occurred." It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. -ood science would then demand a plausible testable theory to e)plain how it vanished. !f course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1G@9, the 0oyal Academy of ,cience were convinced by ,ir 0obert +all that communication with the planet 5ars was a physical

1B

impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. 2)ortean &imes 1umber 34.5 Argumentum ad lazarum &he fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous than someone who.s wealthier. &his fallacy is the opposite of the Argumentum ad crumenam. (or e)ample: "+on(s are more li(ely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth." Argumentum ad logicam &his is the 4fallacy fallacy4 of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. 0emember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. "&a(e the fraction 67879. 1ow, canceling a six on top and a six on the bottom, we get that 67879 : 689." ";ait a second -ou can't <ust cancel the six" "0h, so you're telling us 67879 is not e/ual to 689, are you?" Argumentum ad misericordiam &his is the Appeal to 'ity, also known as ,pecial 'leading. &he fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. (or e)ample: "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe "lease don't find me guilty, I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." Argumentum ad nauseam &his is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. ,o an Argumentum ad <auseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting somethingA saying the same thing over and over again until you.re sick of hearing it. !n ;senet, your argument is often less likely to be heard if you repeat it over and over again, as people will tend to put you in their kill files. Argumentum ad novitatem &his is the opposite of the Argumentum ad AntiquitatemA it.s the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else. "$e0. is a far better choice of operating system than 0pen.tep, as it has a much newer design." Argumentum ad numerum &his fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. (or e)ample: 4&he vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. &o suggest that it doesn.t in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous.4 4All I.m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.4 Argumentum ad populum &his is known as Appealing to the -allery, or Appealing to the 'eople. Kou commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. &his form of fallacy is often characteri%ed by emotive language. (or e)ample: 4'ornography must be banned. It is violence against women.4 4(or thousands of years people have believed in Eesus and the +ible. &his belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that Eesus was the ,on of -od= Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools=4

1C

Argumentum ad verecundiam &he Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. (or e)ample: 4Isaac <ewton was a genius and he believed in -od.4 &his line of argument isn.t always completely bogus when used in an inductive argumentA for e)ample, it may be relevant to refer to a widely regarded authority in a particular field, if you.re discussing that subject. (or e)ample, we can distinguish quite clearly between: "Haw(ing has concluded that blac( holes give off radiation" and ""enrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer" >awking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably e)pect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. 'enrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence. Audiatur et altera pars !ften, people will argue from assumptions which they don.t bother to state. &he principle of Audiatur et Altera 'ars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated e)plicitly. It.s not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of your assumptionsA however, it.s often viewed with suspicion. Bifurcation Also referred to as the 4black and white4 fallacy and 4false dichotomy4, bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives e)ist or can e)ist. (or e)ample: "=ither man was created, as the $ible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. &he latter is incredibly unli(ely, so..." 2irculus in demonstrando &his fallacy occurs if you assume as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. !ften, the proposition is rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. (or e)ample: "Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his <ob. &herefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blac(mail. &herefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office." <ote that the argument is entirely circularA the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the +ritish ,ecret ,ervices. official ban on homose)ual employees. ?ircular arguments are surprisingly common, unfortunately. If you.ve already reached a particular conclusion once, it.s easy to accidentally make it an assertion when e)plaining your reasoning to someone else. 2omple3 -uestion 8 Fallacy of interrogation 8 Fallacy of presupposition &his is the interrogative form of +egging the Juestion. !ne e)ample is the classic loaded question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" &he question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. &his trick is often used by lawyers in cross e)amination, when they ask questions like: ";here did you hide the money you stole?"

16

,imilarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as: "How long will this => interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?" or 4"oes the ?hancellor plan two more years of ruinous privati%ation=4 Anot"er form of t"is fallacy is to as% for an e3planation of somet"ing #"ic" is untrue or not yet esta!lis"ed0 Fallacies of composition &he (allacy of ?omposition is to conclude that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those itemsA or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing. /)amples: "&he bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight." " car uses less petrochemicals and causes less pollution than a bus. &herefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses." A related form of fallacy of composition is the 4just4 fallacy, or fallacy of mediocrity. &his is the fallacy that assumes that any given member of a set must be limited to the attributes that are held in common with all the other members of the set. /)ample: "Humans are <ust animals, so we should not concern ourselves with <ustice, we should <ust obey the law of the <ungle." >ere the fallacy is to reason that because we are animals, we can have only properties which animals haveA that nothing can distinguish us as a special case. 2onverse accident 8 Hasty generalization &his fallacy is the reverse of the (allacy of Accident. It occurs when you form a general rule by e)amining only a few specific cases which aren.t representative of all possible cases. (or e)ample: "'im $a((er was an insincere *hristian. &herefore all *hristians are insincere." 2onverting a conditional &his fallacy is an argument of the form 4If A then +, therefore if + then A.4 "If educational standards are lowered, the /uality of argument seen on the Internet worsens. .o if we see the level of debate on the net get worse over the next few years, we'll (now that our educational standards are still falling." &his fallacy is similar to the Affirming the consequent but phrased as a conditional statement. 2um "oc ergo propter "oc &his fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. &he fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It.s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause2s3 of the events. "?iteracy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. *learly television viewing impedes learning." &his fallacy is a special case of the more general non causa pro causa. Denying t"e antecedent &his fallacy is an argument of the form 4A implies +, A is false, therefore + is false.4

1F

<ote that this fallacy is different from <on ?ausa 'ro ?ausa. &hat has the form 4A implies +, A is false, therefore + is false4, where A does not in fact imply + at all. >ere, the problem isn.t that the implication is invalidA rather it.s that the falseness of A doesn.t allow us to deduce anything about +. "If the %od of the $ible appeared to me, personally, that would certainly prove that *hristianity was true. $ut %od has never appeared to me, so the $ible must be a wor( of fiction." &his is the converse of the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. "e fallacy of accident 8 (#eeping generalization 8 Dicto simpliciter A sweeping generali%ation occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It.s the error made when you go from the general to the specific. (or e)ample: "*hristians generally disli(e atheists. -ou are a *hristian, so you must disli(e atheists." &his fallacy is often committed by people who try to decide moral and legal questions by mechanically applying general rules. Fallacy of division &he fallacy of division is the opposite of the (allacy of ?omposition. It consists of assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its partsA or that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. "-ou are studying at a rich college. &herefore you must be rich." " nts can destroy a tree. &herefore this ant can destroy a tree." E-uivocation 8 Fallacy of Four erms /quivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. (or e)ample: ";hat could be more affordable than free software? $ut to ma(e sure that it remains free, that users can do what they li(e with it, we must place a license on it to ma(e sure that will always be freely redistributable." !ne way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument, and avoid words like 4free4 which have many meanings. "e E3tended Analogy &he fallacy of the /)tended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. &he fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other. >ere.s real e)ample from an online debate about anti cryptography legislation: "I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by brea(ing it." ".uch a position is odious# it implies that you would not have supported +artin ?uther @ing." " re you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for $lac( liberation? How dare you" ,gnoratio Elenc"i 8 ,rrelevant 2onclusion &he fallacy of Irrelevant ?onclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion. (or e)ample, a ?hristian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of ?hristianity are undoubtedly true. If he then argues at length that ?hristianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that ?hristian teachings are true.

1G

,adly, these kinds of irrelevant arguments are often successful, because they make people to view the supposed conclusion in a more favorable light. "e /atural La# Fallacy8 Appeal to /ature &he Appeal to <ature is a common fallacy in political arguments. !ne version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar: 4&he natural world is characteri%ed by competitionA animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. ?apitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It.s how the natural world works.4 Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is .unnatural.: "0f course homosexuality is unnatural. ;hen's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?" 0obert Anton Wilson deals with this form of fallacy at length in his book 4<atural #aw4 A recent e)ample of 4Appeal to <ature4 taken to e)tremes is the ;nabomber 5anifesto. "e "/o rue (cotsman000" fallacy ,uppose I assert that no ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Kou counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say " h, yes, but no true .cotsman puts sugar on his porridge. &his is an e)ample of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertionA you might call it a combination of fallacies. /on 2ausa Pro 2ausa &he fallacy of <on ?ausa 'ro ?ausa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. (or e)ample: "I too( an aspirin and prayed to %od, and my headache disappeared. .o %od cured me of the headache." &his is known as a false cause fallacy. &wo specific forms of non causa pro causa fallacy are the ?um >oc /rgo 'ropter >oc and 'ost >oc /rgo 'ropter >oc fallacies. /on (e-uitur A non sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren.t logically connected with it. (or e)ample: ".ince =gyptians did so much excavation to construct the pyramids, they were well versed in paleontology." 2<on sequiturs are an important ingredient in a lot of humor. &hey.re still fallacies, though.3 Petitio Principii 8 Begging t"e 9uestion &his fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. &ypically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. (or e)ample: "&he $ible is the word of %od. &he word of %od cannot be doubted, and the $ible states that the $ible is true. &herefore the $ible must be true. +egging the question is similar to circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is e)actly the same as the premise. Plurium interrogationum 8 &any -uestions &his fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple 2or simplistic3 answer to a comple) question. " re higher taxes an impediment to business or not? -es or no?" Post "oc ergo propter "oc

1@

&he fallacy of 'ost >oc /rgo 'ropter >oc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event. (or e)ample: "&he .oviet >nion collapsed after instituting state atheism. &herefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons." &his is another type of false cause fallacy. 1ed "erring &his fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone.s attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion. "-ou may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime !! but what about the victims of crime? How do you thin( surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son (ept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son's murderer to be fed and housed?" 1eification 8 Hypostatization 0eification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing. "I noticed you described him as 'evil'. ;here does this 'evil' exist within the brain? -ou can't show it to me, so I claim it doesn't exist, and no man is 'evil'." ("ifting t"e !urden of proof &he burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. ,hifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. &he source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. "0@, so if you don't thin( the grey aliens have gained control of the >. government, can you prove it?" "e (lippery (lope Argument &his argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. &here is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. (or e)ample: "If we legalize mari<uana, then more people would start to ta(e crac( and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. $efore long we'd have a nation full of drug!addicts on welfare. &herefore we cannot legalize mari<uana." (tra# man &he straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else.s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It.s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. "&o be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no %od. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the >niverse and all the places where %od could possibly be. .ince you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible." &he above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net.

u -uo-ue &his is the famous 4you too4 fallacy. It occurs if you argue that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it. (or instance:

78

"-ou're <ust being randomly abusive." ".o? -ou've been abusive too." &his is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad hominem. Fallacy of t"e 5ndistri!uted &iddle 8 "A is !ased on B" fallacies 8 "000is a type of000" fallacies &hese fallacies occur if you attempt to argue that things are in some way similar, but you don.t actually specify in what way they are similar. /)amples: "Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the $ible also a form of history?" "Islam is based on faith, *hristianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of *hristianity?" "*ats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?" 8:8:8:8:8:8:8:88: Fallacies !ased on faulty logic ;invalid argumentation))t"e conclusions do not follo# from' or are not supported !y' t"e premises< Accident: a generali%ation is applied when circumstances suggest there should be an e)ception. Fallacy fallacy 2argumentum ad logicam3: a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument 2fallacious arguments can arrive at a true conclusion3. ,llicite ma6or: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term or idea in the predicate. ,llicite minor 2argumentum ad logicam3: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term or idea in the subject. ,nconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true. .versimplification 20eduction ad absurdum3: reducing an argument to an inaccurate absurdity one where the conclusion does not follow from the premise. >owever, not all reductio ad absurdums are fallacious. In fact, correctly demonstrating that a given arguments lead to an absurd conclusion, is widely used as test of logic. (lot"ful induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary (pecial pleading ;dou!le standards< and self)undermining reasoning: refusing to apply the same principles to oneself that one applies to others. (elf)rig"teousness: confusing good intentions with actual good or truth. (tolen concept: using a concept while denying another concept upon which the former logically depends. Anonymous aut"ority: the authority in question is not named. Appeal to aut"ority 2argumentum ad verecundiam3: citing someone who is incompetent, or non objective, or lacking specific scholastic or e)periential backgroundA or, the e)perts in the field disagreeA or, the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

Fallacies !ased on irrelevant information' issue avoidance' or distractions

71

Appeal to cele!rity: using someone.s celebrity to support a claim. Appeal to num!ers 2argumentum ad numerum3 or majority, or popularity: asserting that the acceptance of an idea by a majority, or by a large number of people, is reason to believe it. Appeal to people ;Argumentum ad populum<' misery ;ad misericordiam<' pity' or emotions: the use of prejudicial language or an emotional ploy to win over people to one.s side Appeal to tradition 2argumentum ad antiquitatem3: asserting that something is true or good because it is old2er3. Fallacy of opposition: those who disagree with you must be wrong and not thinking straight 7uilt !y association: attacking the idea because of those who support it, or make spurious links between publicly favorable things and publicly unfavorable things. Humor and ridicule: using inappropriate humor or ridicule to avoid the issue, cast unwarranted aspersions, or deflect attention away from the discussion &ultiple -uestions or assertions 2plurium interrogationum3: asking a comple) question or a series of questions, or stating a comple) assertion or multiple assertions, while only allowing for a single simple response, and then assuming the oppositions inability to adequately respond is indication that their position is wrong /ot"ing !ut o!6ections: continually raising objections as a means of avoiding the issue. 1ationalization: making e)cuses instead of addressing the issue. 1ed "erring: attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent. /)amples: 1, 7. ("ifting t"e !urden of proof: demanding that the person denying and assertion prove hisHher case, whereas the burden of proof is upon the person who argues the position. /)ample: 1. (lippery slope: one thing leads to another. 1 (tyle over su!stance: the manner in which the argument is presented or arguer is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion. u -uo-ue or "t#o #rongs ma%e a rig"t": dodging the main argument by including the opposition in the blame 24you did it to43, or justifying an action because one.s opponent has performed it. /)amples: 1, 7. Ad lapidem: dismissing a statement as absurd or false without demonstrating it to be such. /)amples: 1. A priorism: attempting to deduce facts from abstractions and principles rather than inducing from facts. /)amples: 1, 7, 9, B. Arguing from silence 2argumentum ad ignorantium3: argument based on the unknown something is considered valid because it is not proved false, or something is considered false because it is not proved true. /)amples: 1, 7, 9. 7eneralization: asserting a universal statement unsupported by evidence.

Fallacies !ased on t"e a!sence of information

77

=umping to conclusions 2audiatur et altera pars3: arguing from unstated premises, or drawing a conclusion absent supportive facts. /)amples: 1, 7. Lip service: verbal agreement unsupported in action or true conviction. /)amples: 1. P"antom cause 2non causa pro causa3: something is identified as the cause of an event or condition, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause 1elativism: asserting that because there are no applicable objective truths, the truthfulness of a proposition is grounded in the respective perceptions of each individual or group. (u!6ectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true. (u!verted support: the phenomenon being e)plained does not e)ist. 5ntesta!ility or argument to t"e future: the verity or accuracy of the evidence, premise, or conclusion, cannot currently, or perhaps ever, be tested, or verification lie somewhere in the future. Anecdotal evidence or confa!ulation: using stories and personal e)periences as evidence in support of universal principles. 2ard stac%ing and t"e fallacy of e3clusion 2suppressed quantification3: using selected evidence to make one.s side look favorable, or omitting evidence that would undermine an argument. 2orrupt (ource: support for one.s argument comes from a source one considers corrupt. Fallacy of interrogative presupposition: loaded questions or statements 2like 4have you stopped beating your wife43. Fallacy of repetition 2Argumentum ad nauseam3: an assertion is considered more likely to be true the more often it is stated. False dic"otomy 2bifurcation3, 4eitherHor4, or the 4all or nothing4 mistake: presenting only two options 2typically where both are are undesirable3 where multiple options e)ist. False metap"or or False analogy: ambiguous comparison with more relevant dissimilarities than similarities. Faulty causal assumption 2post hoc ergo propter hoc3: assuming the fact that one event follows another indicates that the two are causally related. Faulty causal direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed. Faulty causal generalization 2<on causa pro causa3: taking one event to be the cause of another when there is not enough evidence, or when there is no causal relationship. Faulty causal presumption 2cum hoc ergo propter hoc3: asserting the fact that two events occur together means that they are causally related. Faulty causal significance: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared other causes of the effect.

Fallacies !ased on misleading or errant information' or faulty conceptualizing

79

Faulty comple3 cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect. 7am!ler*s fallacy: misapplying the statistics of a group to a single situation. Historical parallelism: similarities in the structure or wording of ideas from two different sources is proof that the one source borrowed 2or plagiari%ed3 the idea from the other source. ,diosyncratic language: charging words with personal meaning which alter their meaning. 1, 7. "/o true (cotsman0 0 0" fallacy: an argument that takes the form of: 4no ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge4, which is countered with 4my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge4, but is followed by the rejoinder, 4Ah yes, but no true ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge4. .ccam*s razor fallacy, or the principle of parsimony: 4less is more, and more is less4, 4plurality should not be posited without necessity4, or 4the simpler the e)planation the better &isuse of etymology: asserting that words should remain close to their etymological roots, and using such to come to a certain conclusion. .ver)precision: rejecting a concept as unusable because it has borderline cases or because the definition, phrasing, synta), grammar, or structure of the proposition or argument is not perfect. Paradigm or cultural fallacy: taking one.s own encapsulated world view, or system of thought 2paradigm3, or culture, as the standard by which all other paradigms may be judged. Personification: attributing human traits to other creatures or reading purpose into inanimate configurations. 9uoting out of conte3t: manipulating a quote either from an authority, or from one.s opponent, in such a way that the original meaning of the statement is altered. 1eification or hypostati%ation: treating a conceptuali%ation as if it represented a concrete typically, as if the concept or entity were humankind. (tra# man: attempting to refute one.s opponent.s proposition by attacking the misrepresentation of the opponent.s position. (#eeping generalities 2dicto simpliciter3: applying a principle to a specific situation while ignoring the conte)t under which the principle was formed. Amp"i!oly and glittering generalities: using ambiguous language or generali%ed terms to push forth a claim or obfuscate the meaning. Fallacy of t"e !eard 2?ontinuum (allacy3: that you cannot come to a conclusion because one thing differs from another only in degree. 2&he name of the fallacy derives from the difficulty of determining when e)actly someone has a beard3. Hasty generalization: stating premises, or drawing conclusions, based on too little information, or generali%ing from too few particulars that are probably not representative of an entire group. /)ample: 1. >ague similarities: asserting that two situations or e)istents are similar without specifying the properties they share. /)amples: 1.

Fallacies !ased on insufficient or am!iguous information

7B

5ndistri!uted middle: arguing that things are in some way similar without specifying in what way they are similar, or two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property. /)amples: 1.

#ogical (allacies (ull #ist Accent &his fallacy is one of ambiguity and, in fact, this fallacy is sometimes referred to as the mbiguity of ccent. It is one of the si) language dependent fallacies. &his one has been known for a long time. In fact, Aristotle 2in 0n .ophistical Aefutations3 said of it that, 4this is the number of ways in which we might fail to mean the same thing by the same names or e)pressions.4 &o understand what Aristotle meant by 4accent4, however, we have to consider some things about the written -reek of his time. &oday, in most printed -reek te)ts, three accents are included to indicate pronunciation. In Aristotle.s time, the accents were not a part of the written language, but were supplied by the reader.s knowledge of spoken -reek. (or this reason, some words which were pronounced differently were spelled the same in classical -reek, that is, they were homographs 24written the same43 but not homophones 24sound the same43. ,o, a written word could be ambiguous in a way that depended on how it was accented in speech. What about accent as a source of fallacy today= Is it possible to have ambiguity of accent in /nglish, or other living languages= &here are /nglish homographs which are not homophones, 4sewer4, for instance. >owever, the different meanings of 4sewer4 are not accented differentlyA rather, the difference in pronunciation is due to the vowel sound in the first syllable. 2>ere we are talking about the difference between one that sews, such as 4a fine sewer of clothing4, and 4an artificial conduit for carrying off sewage4.3 !ne of the closest cases of an ambiguity of accent in /nglish are the two meanings of 4resent4: there is a difference in accent, but also a difference in the pronunciation of the 4s4, so it is not a pure case of ambiguity of accent. ?onsider the following sentence: "I resent that letter." &his sentence could mean either that one sent the letter again or that one has a feeling of resentment towards it. If you concluded, falsely, on the basis of the sentence, that the speaker sent the letter again, then you would have committed a fallacy of accent, if what was meant was that the speaker resented the letter. Another ambiguity of accent is with 4invalid4, meaning either 4a chronically ill person4 or 4not truth preserving4. /ven with these e)amples, it seems highly unlikely that ambiguities of accent occur all that often in /nglish. (or this reason, linguistic traps based on such accentual ambiguities will be fairly rare. >owever, I should point out that in recent times people have stretched the concept of the accent fallacy quite a bit. &he original concept referred specifically to accents on syllables but now people associate it with whole passages of te)t. ,ince this new meaning is often what you will find in books on the subject, I will discuss that briefly. &he modified version of the accent fallacy is said to occur when improper emphasis is placed upon a word, phrase, or sentence and on the basis of this emphasis a conclusion is inferred. ,ometimes this fallacy is committed when emphasis is used to suggest a meaning different from the actual content of the proposition in question and it is also committed by the use of shifting meaning. A relatively simple and often used e)ample is: "&his movie contains no .=B" >ere the emphasis is clearly being used to direct the eye towards 4se)4 even though the actual message claims there is a lack of such. Another e)ample of this is where the emphasis is placed on certain words to the e)clusion 2in fact, the ommitance3 of others. ?onsider: 4A research paper was returned to a student with the notation, .,ome parts of this paper are good and other parts interesting. &he interesting parts are inaccurate and the good parts were copied.. &he student then writes to his parents and says, .&he professor wrote that my theme was good and interesting..4 In other words you place accent on those elements you want to highlight and conveniently ignore or omit the rest. 2-iven all this it is easy to see why you might sometimes hear this fallacy referred to as the )allacy of mbiguity of .ignificance, which means drawing an improper conclusion by misinterpretation of the significance of a statement. >owever, with that said, one has to reali%e that this gets far away from the original nature of the fallacy.3

7C

o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to identify when emphasis is being used in such a fashion as described above, whether in speech or in writing. In speech you can usually tell by how a sentence is phrased or what word is accented. In writing this is generally much easier since you can see if a picture or word is used or placed in such a manner as to draw emphasis. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply avoid using accent to structure your argument in a misleading way. We all know that it is easy to sometimes selectively place the accent where we want people to look. In cases where this is simply to make your point more effectively that is fine, but when it is used to misdirect or mislead it is, obviously, a fallacy. Accent fallacy ) ;am!iguity of accent<0 A subtle shift in the meaning or intention of an argument caused by changing the emphasis 2accent, tone3 of certain words, phrases, or statements. /)ample: 4We must always be honest with our friends,4 seems to say nothing more than we should be honest, which of course includes being honest with our friends. 4We must always be honest with our friends.4 +y emphasi%ing, 4friends,4 implies it is only our friends we need to be honest with. ("ifting t"e accent: altering the meaning, but not the literal truth, of a reported statement by falsely emphasi%ing certain words. Accident &his fallacy is also known as dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum /uid, which is sometimes just shortened to Cicto .impliciter. Another name for this fallacy, one that is much more common, is the .weeping %eneralization. In general, the fallacy of the accident applies a general principle to an e)ceptional case without critical e)amination or regard to conte)t. !r perhaps a better way to say that is that the fallacy occurs when someone either attempts to apply a rule of thumb to an obviously abnormal instance or when someone treats a rule of thumb itself as if it were an e)ceptionless universal generali%ation rather than a defeasible rule of thumb. And, of course, this makes it clear why the fallacy of the accident is put in the same conte)t as the sweeping generali%ation. ,uch a generali%ation occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable or, at least, questionable. ,o it is the potential error made when you go from the general to the specific. #et us consider an e)ample: 4It is always good to respect and help your elders so should you should help this man, who is your elder, commit a bank robbery like he has asked you.4 >ere while it is true that, in general, you should make a point of respecting and helping your elders, in this particular case helping such an elder rob a bank might not be the thing to do. &here are two things to look for here in the e)ample: one is applying a general rule or principle to a particular instance whose circumstances by 4accident4 do not allow the proper application of that generali%ation. &he other is the error in arumentation of applying a general statement to a situation to which it cannot, and was not necessarily intended to, be applied to. An e)ample that might apply in the testing world is an e)ample where someone claims that some process or activity is a 4best practice4. &his is often a cover word for a sweeping generali%ation which suggests that the process or activity will work regardless of where it is implemented. As most of us know, however, certain practices will not work in certain conte)ts and that can be for a relatively wide variety of reasons. &his is very common in the testing world on advice forums or newsgroups as well when perceived 4gurus4 tell people how they 4should4 do things in their organi%ation. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, simply try to notice that the conclusion 24help elder rob a bank4, 4use this particular best practice43 for the particular generali%ation 24help your elders4, 4use good practices43 is not always the correct generali%ation. &hen you can show why the particular circumstances of the case in question argue against the general rule. 2In this case, robbing a bank is a crime.3

76

o avoid committing t"is fallacy, try to be watchful of mechanically 2and unthinkingly3 applying general rules to all situations you encounter. +e open to the possibility that the statement you are making is, in fact, a generali%ation and while it might be true, leave yourself open to the possibility that there are e)ceptions to most 2if not all3 such generali%ations. ?onsider the generali%ation 4birds can fly4. <ow, it is not true that all birds can fly since there are, in fact, flightless birds 2like penguins, as one e)ample3. 4,ome birds can fly4 and 4many birds can fly4 are another way to form the thought and 4most birds can fly4 is yet another way, but we have to reali%e that what we are doing here is making a statistical argument of sorts. &he unqualified phrase 4birds can fly4 is a 4rule of thumb4, and the fallacy of accident is a fallacy involving reasoning with rules of thumb. In reality, what we call common sense is full of rules of thumb which do not hold universally but which do seem to hold 4generally4 2which is why some arguments are stated with the qualifier, 4As a general rule...43. &he difference between rules of thumb and universal generali%ations is that the former have e)ceptions. (or instance, flightless birds are e)ceptions to the rule of thumb 2generali%ation3 that birds can fly. !ne might hope to represent this rule of thumb by the universal generali%ation 4all non!flightless birds can fly4 but even this is not correct because flighted birds with broken wings usually cannot fly. !ne might still hope that some lengthy list of e)ceptions would do the trick. /ven with that, however, an obstinate logician can help you imagine many different scenarios in which a flighted bird 2even one without a broken wing3 would not be able to fly 2e.g., its feet are stuck in something or have been glued to the ground, it is afraid of flying, the air is too thin, etc3. !ne might then try to sum up this diversity of cases under the rubric of 4untypical4 or 4abnormal4 and then say something like: 4All typical or normal birds can fly4. &his is e)actly what a rule of thumb 2or heuristic3 is. With all that being said, we have to reali%e that rules of thumb differ from statistical generali%ations, such as if we were to say 4ninety percent of birds can fly4 in that there is no specific proportion of flighted to flightless birds that determines normality. &he rule of thumb does not even necessarily imply that the ma<ority of birds can fly although we can at least say that it would be unusual if this did not hold. We can imagine, for instance, that there might be so many penguins in Antarctica that the majority of birds would be flightless. >owever, our notion of normality applies to the familiar, everyday birds we usually see rather than more 4e)otic4 birds on distant continents. !f course one can imagine people who live around penguins rather than other birds. ?learly, then, rules of thumb are specific to a cultural and temporal conte)t. Ad Fidentia &he term ad fidentia is #atin, meaning 4to confidence4 and this fallacy is where you have an instance of someone making an argument and someone else is attempting to refute that argument but the arguer.s confidence is being used or referred to instead of the argument itself. In other words, a speaker may attack an opponent.s confidence in his ability, flustering him and possibly drawing attention from the argument. !ne could hardly call this type of rebuttal an 4argument4 but one can call this a fallacy because however confident in their assertions an arguer is, their ideas may still be correct. !f course we also have to reali%e that sometimes a person.s lack of confidence can stem from truly not knowing what they are talking about. A good e)ample of this fallacy in the testing and JA world that I have seen numerous times is when someone gives a presentation on some topic and they apparently lack a certain amount of confidence. I have seen first hand how the assumption is often made that the person.s ideas were not valid or worth consideration simply because of that lack of confidence without actually considering the validity of what the person was talking about. ;sually it is the case, however, that the person simply had a fear of speaking in front of people but their ideas were actually quite sound. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, the key is to reali%e when someone is using an arguer.s confidence as the sole reason for discounting the argument. !ne also has to truly look at the argument because the person.s lack of confidence may, in fact, stem from a lack of knowledge or lack of good argumentation and, in that case, you do not have a fallacy.

7F

o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply make sure you concentrate on an arguer.s argument rather than on their perceived lack of confidence. If you find the argument lacking then it really does not matter all that much how confident 2or not3 the arguer was. Ad Hoc &here is a difference between argument and e)planation. If we are interested in establishing A, and + is offered as evidence, then the statement 4A because +4 is an argument. If we are trying to establish the truth of +, then 4A because +4 is not an argument, it is an e)planation. &he ad hoc fallacy is committed when one gives an after the fact e)planation which does not apply to other situations. !ften this ad hoc e)planation will be dressed up to look like an argument. (or an e)ample that might apply to testing: &he Ad >oc fallacy is to give an after the fact e)planation which doesn.t apply to other situations. !ften this ad hoc e)planation will be dressed up to look like an argument. (or e)ample, if we assume that -od treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc e)planation: "I was healed from cancer." ""raise the ?ord, then. He is your healer." ".o, will He heal others who have cancer?" "=r... &he ways of %od are mysterious." 5anager: 4>ow did testing the application go=4 &ester: 4-reat We found no major defects.4 5anager: 4Well, I prayed for that. &hat must have been why you found no defects.4 -ranted this is a little contrived, but here the ad hoc e)planation is that the person figures the praying must have been why the person found no defects when, in reality, a more likely e)planation would probably be either the testing was not very complete 2hence no major defects being found3 or that many defects had already been found prior to this current test run or the programmers were really good in that area of the application. 'ut another way, unless the efficacy of the prayer can actually be shown to have had some direct impact on the testers not finding defects, it is an ad hoc e)planation of why no defects were found rather than a valid argument for the cause of no defects being found. A more realistic e)ample might be: 5anager: 4>ow is the application looking=4 &ester: 4It looks really good. <o major defects at all.4 5anager: 4Why do you say that=4 &ester: 4+ecause we tested it.4 +y itself, the fact that the application was 4tested4 is not a good argument for saying that the application looks good in the sense of finding no major errors unless one specifies e)actly what 4testing4 the application means. &his is particularly true because, as we all know, it is possible for testing to be done in a fashion that is less than optimal and that lets many defects go unfound and, thus, uncorrected. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, note when you have been given an ad hoc e)planation rather than a good argument. 2In our first e)ample above, the tester would do well to make it clear to the manager that it was actually a good, solid programming or test effort that resulted in there being few major defects. In the second e)ample, the manager should ask why the tester feels confident that the testing that was done was of a good enough nature that it is indicative of the true state of the software.3 o avoid committing t"is fallacy, make sure that you do not give simple e)planations that are ad hoc in nature. &he best way to do this is think about the questions that you would have to answer if you had to represent your case in court or if you had to answer in such a manner as to keep your job. In other words, think in terms of making a good argument for your assertion2s3. Affirmation of a Dis6unct

7G

&his fallacy is also known by a few other names: ffirming a Cis<unct, ffirming 0ne Cis<unct, &he )allacy of the lternative .yllogism, sserting an lternative, and Improper Cis<unctive .yllogism. &his is a fallacy of propositional logic. 5ore specifically, it is a non!validating form of argument when 4or4 is inclusive, as it is standardly interpreted in propositional logic. &he standard form of this can be given as: p or -. p. &herefore, not -. !r you can consider it as: p or -. <ot p. &herefore, -. As with other propositional fallacies, an argument which affirms a disjunct is most likely to seem valid when we take into consideration some further information not e)plicitly mentioned in the argument. In the case of affirming a disjunct, this is a suppressed premise: <ot both p and -. If we have some reason to believe that the two disjuncts are contraries, then the argument may be a valid enthymeme. In contrast, if we cannot rule out the truth of both disjuncts, then the argument is fallacious. &o perhaps understand this a little better, in logic circles it is usually claimed that 4or4 has two meanings: the inclusive 2or 4weak43 disjunction 2where one or both of the disjuncts is true, which is what is meant by the common 4andHor4 of legal language3 and exclusive 2or 4strong43 disjunction 2where e)actly one of the disjuncts is true3. As a form of argument, Affirming !ne "isjunct is perfectly valid for the e)clusive sense of 4or4. It is only for the inclusive sense that it is a non validating form. (or this reason, there is generally a problem of ambiguity in the above two argument forms, which faces the application of Affirming !ne "isjunct as a fallacy. In order to accuse an argument of committing this fallacy, we must determine in which sense the 4or4 in the first premise is used. Affirming t"e conse-uent &his is also referred to as sserting the *onse/uent. It is a fallacy of propositional logic. &his fallacy is an argument of the form 4A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true4. &o understand why it is a fallacy, e)amine the truth table for implication: rut" a!le for ,mplication Premise ,nference 2onclusion A B A ?@ B (alse (alse &rue (alse &rue &rue &rue (alse (alse &rue &rue &rue >ere is an e)ample: 4If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organi%ation everywhere. And we do see order, not randomness, so it is clear that the universe had a creator.4 ,o A 2universe created by a supernatural being3 is said to imply B 2order and organi%ation in the universe3. ,ince we see B, we take A as true. !bviously though the acceptance of A is not based on anything e)cept the stated proposition of B. &here is nothing that suggests that the implication must be trueA i.e., perhaps order could come about without a supernatural being. In general, to deal with this fallacy try to show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. ,how that B might be a consequence of something other than A. ,o with this said, affirming the consequent is a non validating form of argument in propositional logicA for instance, let p be false and - be true, then there is no inconsistency in supposing that the first, conditional premise is true, which makes the premises true

7@

and the conclusion false. Instances of affirming the consequent are most likely to seem valid when we assume the converse of the argument.s conditional premise. ?onsider this argument 2of the type 5odus 'onens3: If p then -. p. &herefore, -. If it is raining then the streets are wet. &he streets are wet. &herefore, it is raining. In this instance, we may assume a 4suppressed premise4 which is: 4If the streets are wet then it is raining.4 ,ince wet streets usually dry rapidly, it is a good rule of thumb that wet streets indicate rain. With this suppressed premise, the argument in this case is valid. ,o, in general, in an instance of the form affirming the consequent, if it is reasonable to consider the converse of the conditional premise to be a suppressed premise, then the argument is not fallacious, but a valid enthymeme. In contrast, consider this argument 2of the type 5odus &ollens3: If p then -. <ot -. &herefore, not p. If it is snowing then streets will be covered with snow. &he streets are covered with snow. &herefore, it is snowing. With this e)ample, it would not be reasonable to consider this to be an enthymeme, since the converse of its conditional premise is not plausible, namely: 4If the streets are covered with snow then it is snowing.4 ;nlike rain, we know, at cold temperatures it takes snow a very long time to evaporate. ,o that, while snow on the ground is a good sign of past snowing, it is a bad sign of present snowing. &hus, this instance is a fallacious instance of affirming the consequent. We should also note that this fallacy is the converse of the fallacy called the Cenial of the ntecedent. Affirmative 2onclusion From a /egative Premise &his is what is known as a syllogistic fallacy where the conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is affirmative, but at least one of the premises is negative. In this case the syllogistic rule that is violated is the one which states that all validating forms of categorical syllogism which have one negative premise also have a negative conclusion. ,ome e)amples of this: 4All mice are animals, and some animals are not dangerous, therefore some mice are dangerous.4 4All judges are politicians, and some lawyers are not judges, therefore some lawyers are politicians.4 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you might assume that the premises are true. &hen find an e)ample which allows the premises to be true but which clearly contradicts the conclusion. Am!iguity &his is an informal fallacy that is best considered in the form of its actual fallacy types, such as ccent, mphiboly, and =/uivocation. As a feature of language, we say that ambiguity occurs when a word or phrase has more than one meaning. (or instance, the word 4note4 can mean either a musical tone or a short piece of writing. In this case, even the part of speech is ambiguous, since 4note4 can be either a noun 24"id you see her note=43 or a verb 24<ote that for future reference.43. &his situation is not at all unusual and 4note4 is not a particularly ambiguous word as far as these things go. In actual fact, ambiguity tends to increase with frequency of usage of terms and it is the rarely used, esoteric andHor technical terms that are often the most unambiguous. (or instance, 4is4 is highly ambiguous and has, as a result, caused much mischief in metaphysics, and even politics.

98

As a logical fallacy, ambiguity occurs when linguistic ambiguity causes the form of an argument to appear validating when it is not. +ecause of the ubiquity of ambiguity in natural language, it is important to reali%e that its presence in an argument is not sufficient to render it fallacious, otherwise, all such arguments would be fallacious. 5ost ambiguity is logically harmless. We say that a fallacy occurs only when ambiguity causes an argument.s form to appear validating when it is actually not. &hus, arguments which commit the fallacy of ambiguity can seem to be valid. /ven though we can say that it is not always a fallacy, ambiguity is frequently misleading and should be avoided whenever possible. A good e)ample of this in the testing world might be where you try to assure management that you are confident they can ship the application because you have tested it. >ere, however, the word 4tested4 is very ambiguous. It can mean a lot or it can mean a little, all based on what is contained within your concept of the word 4testing4. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy and to avoid committing t"is fallacy simply be watchful of ambiguous language. /)plain any terms that might have a lot of comple)ity to them or that might mean different things in different conte)ts. Am!iguous &iddle &his fallacy is sometimes known as the mbiguous +iddle &erm. It is also sometimes referred to as the )our!&erm )allacy but that latter is a mistake in that it is more appropriate to say that this fallacy is a type of four term fallacy. &his is also essentially a type of equivocation and it refers to any valid form of categorical syllogism with an ambiguous middle term. A categorical syllogism is, by definition, an argument with three categorical terms occurring within it. 4&erm4 is to be understood in a semantic sense, so that a single word may ambiguously stand for two terms. &his leads to the possibility of ambiguous syllogisms in which one of the words e/uivocates on two terms. &hat is why the fallacy of the Ambiguous 5iddle really is the fallacy of /quivocation when it occurs within the premises of a categorical syllogism. In general we say that arguments that commit a fallacy of ambiguity have two meanings. !n one meaning, the argument is valid, but one of the premises is false or, at least, controversial. !n the other meaning, the premises are uncontroversially true, but the argument is invalid. >ere are the two meanings of a similar thought 2thanks to -ary ?urtis for the e)ample3: All human fetuses are the fetuses of human beings. Any human being has the right to life. &herefore, all human fetuses have the right to life. All human fetuses are human beings. Any human being has the right to life. &herefore, all human fetuses have the right to life. &he premises of the first argument are both uncontroversially true but it is an invalid syllogism. &he second argument is a perfectly valid syllogism 2of the form +arbara3 but it has a controversial first premise. <o one who disagreed with the conclusion would be likely to agree with the first premise. (or this reason, despite the fact that the argument is valid, it commits a different fallacy 2in this case, $egging the DuestionA that is, it has a question begging first premise3. &he way in which ambiguous arguments are persuasive is by combining both these meanings into one so that they seem to be both valid and to have uncontroversial premises. +ut it is only by switching back and forth mentally between the two meanings of the ambiguous term that such an argument will seem to be sound. Amp"i!oly &his is also referred to as mphibology and it occurs when the construction of a sentence allows it to have two different meanings. (or e)ample: 4#ast night I caught a burglar in my suit.4 &he sentence could mean the person caught a burglar while wearing a suit or that the person caught the burglar while the burglar was wearing the person.s suit. #inguistically speaking, an amphiboly is an

91

ambiguity which results from ambiguous grammar, as opposed to one that results from the ambiguity of words or phrases. ,o we can say that the fallacy of amphiboly strictly occurs when a bad argument trades upon grammatical ambiguity to create an illusion of cogency. Amphibolies are often linguistic traps, but less frequently do they occur in fallacious arguments. &here are actually three types of amphiboly. !ne is the misplaced modifiers, which is like the e)ample I gave above. Another version is the ambiguous reference of pronouns. (or e)ample: 4&he astronomer took photographs of some planets, but they were not developed.4 In this e)ample, the pronoun 4they4 is ambiguous between the photographs and the planets, though presumably it was intended to refer to the former. An amphiboly fallacy can also occur if a conclusion not justified by any evidence is based upon ambiguity attributed to the synta) of a sentence. As an e)ample: 4<o cat has nine tails. Any cat has one more tail than no cat. &herefore, any cat has ten tails.4 &he problem here is the ambiguous use of the words 4any4 and 4no4 in relation to the sentence and the conclusion that is drawn. Kou might also hear this referred to as the )allacy of .imple Ambiguity and this one just results from an effort to establish a conclusion by interpreting a statement in a manner not justified by the conte)t. (inally, you may also hear this referred to as &he +isuse of Eague =xpressions and this occurs if a conclusion not justified by evidence is attributable to the misinterpretation of a vague e)pression. +asically, it all amounts to the same thing. ,umming it up, these are arguments where evidence is given in favor of an argument and the evidence being given is insufficient to prove the case of the argument. ,ometimes the evidence is just insufficient, meaning there is not enough of it, and sometimes the evidence is irrelevant to the argument at hand. It all hinges on a word or phrase being used unclearly and there are two ways in which this can occur. !ne of those is that the word or phrase may be ambiguous, in which case it has more than one distinct meaning, and the other is that the word or phrase may be vague, in which case it has no distinct meaning. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to identify the ambiguous phrase or grammar and delineate the possible interpretations. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, reali%e when terms or grammar could be interpreted in different ways which might create the possibility of a fallacious inference to the conclusion. Anecdotal Evidence &his fallacy is committed when ancedotal evidence is solely relied upon to bolster an argument. While it is, strictly speaking, valid to use personal e)periences in an argument 2and those e)periences may even support the argument3, anecdotes will very rarely prove anything. As a simple e)ample, someone might say: 4Aliens must e)ist because I saw three of them walking around in a field.4 If the person did truly see these three aliens in a field, then that would be good proof for the argument that aliens e)ist. And yet most people, upon hearing the above argument, would not consider it good evidence based just on the anecdote of the person making the claim because while it may be true, they have no way to know that it is true. Anecdotal evidence, even though it should not be used as the sole support for an argument, is often used and is often very compelling. ;sually this is because people want to believe the claim. In the e)ample above, many people would believe that the person saw an alien simply because they want to believe that aliens e)ist and by using this person.s testimony they 2incorrectly3 see themselves as having another bit of evidence to prove their case. +y the same token, those who are predisposed to not believe in alien life, or at the very least not believe that it is here on /arth, will not want to believe this claim and will immediately dismiss it as anecdotal. Another e)ample: 4&here is proof that -od e)ists and is still performing miracles today. Eust last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. >er whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.4 Again, this really proves nothing at all 2particularly when one might consider all those who were prayed for and still succumbed to their cancer3. +ut people want to believe it and will treat this kind of anecdotal evidence as confirmation of the efficacy of prayer. &his is part of the e)planation for urban legendsA stories have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years and some people do believe

97

actually happened 2such as /lvis sightings, as a simplistic e)ample3. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy in debates or arguments, you should always try to recogni%e when information is being used to bolster the argument that is based on subjective opinion or is based on personal e)periences that others did not share. A good e)ample of this are those who write about certain events that have happened in history that no one else seems to know about. >ow did they find out then= Well, they were told by an 4anonymous informant4 who gave them the information. /ven if we assume there was an anonymous informant of some sort 2which speaks to the anecdotal part3, that still leaves open the question of the veracity of this informant 2which is a potential fallacy of nonymous authorities3. !r consider cases of those who claim knowledge based on divine revelation. o avoid committing t"is fallacy do not just rely on your own e)periences unless you have tangible elements of those e)periences that you can use to bolster your case. (or e)ample, if you are relating your e)periences with a particular testing method in an effort to get your company to adopt that same method you might need to provide more information than just how well the method worked for you. Another good e)ample is the common tester to developer ratio. &elling your company they should have a certain ratio because your e)periences elsewhere were with that ratio is purely anecdotal unless you can relate how that specific ratio will help your current company. Anonymous Aut"orities &his fallacy is very simple: the authorities that are used to back up an argument are unnamed. &he reason this is a fallacy is because without knowledge of the authority being cited or quoted, we cannot know whether or not this person or persons is actually an authority about the subject being discussed. 2&o be sure, we do not even know if they e)ist, much less whether they are an authority.3 As an e)ample, if you are proposing a certain process for your company to adopt as part of its life cycle and you say that the process comes 4highly recommended by e)perts4, you have to name those 4e)perts4 otherwise you are relying on anonymous authorities. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you simply have to argue that if we do not know the source of some information we have no means of evaluating how reliable the information is and thus it should not be considered as support for a given argument. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, always supply the name of the person or institution that you are using as an authority to bolster one of your arguments. Argumentum ad anti-uitatem &his is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old or because 4that is the way it has always been.4 2&his fallacy is the opposite of rgumentum ad 1ovitatem.3 A good e)ample of this fallacy that atheists often state is a comment made by many ?hristians: 4(or thousands of years ?hristians have believed in Eesus ?hrist. ?hristianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution.4 A common argument against the above idea is to say that for many years people had believed that the /arth was completely flat and yet that was later shown not to be true. &his fallacy is somewhat similar to what people often term the ppeal to Aeverence, the idea here being that one replaces relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for respect for traditions, as for e)ample, 4American citi%ens must be wary of foreign alliances since -eorge Washington warned against taking such a course of action.4 &he fallacy here is that the tradition 2if you could call it that3 stated by Washington certainly should not be treated as a truism for all time but also the reali%ation that Washington lived in a very different time and thus his admonition might not hold the same weight. A good e)ample of this in the world of testing and quality assurance might be that a certain process is being relied upon that seems to be causing trouble for the development effort as a whole. >owever, when you try to question the use of this process, you are told that it is efficient. When you ask why it is efficient and how it is efficient, you are simply told that it has been in place for a long time. ,o, here a recourse is

99

being made to the length of time that the process has been around rather than to any good arguments about the process itself. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, look if an appeal is being made to the age or longevity of something and, by that appeal alone, a conclusion is being reached about that something. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not rely on past tradition or on the age of something as the sole reason for justifying your argument. Argumentum ad !aculum &he #atin means 4an argument according to the stick4, 4argument by means of the rod4, or 4argument using force.4 &his is often better known as the ppeal to )orce. An appeal to force happens when someone resorts to force 2or the threat of force3 to try and push others to accept a conclusion. &his fallacy could probably be summari%ed by the famous phrase 4might makes right.4 An appeal to force is a technique of distraction which occurs when force, or the threat of force, is used to 4win4 a debate or argument. 5ore frequently, it is used to cover up the fact that the threatener is losing said debate or argument. &he threat does not have to come directly from the person arguing. (or e)ample, audience members 4shouting down4 a debater whom they disagree with in order to prevent a case from being heard are resorting to this kind of fallacy. +asically what we have here is reasoning that is replaced by force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation and elicits other kinds of behavior 2such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of force, etc3. >owever, this fact also makes this a rather difficult fallacy to classify. ,ince hitting someone over the head with a stick is not an argument at all, it is fairly hard to say it is a fallacious one. A threat made in words may look more like an argument, with a premise and conclusion, so we could try to restrict the fallacy to threats rather than actual violence. >owever, threats are seldom made as reasons for believing somethingA instead, they are given as reasons to act, and as such can be quite good reasons to do so. &he aim of a threat, typically, is to change or motivate behavior, not belief. 'eople are often intimidated into pretending to believe things they do not or at least into keeping quiet about their disbelief, but this is not coming to believe something because of the fear of force. (or this reason, calling the Appeal to (orce a fallacy is, if anything, a bad statement of what is actually happening. At least a fallacious argument is an attempt to reason, albeit a failed one. &o resort to force or threats when the burden of proof is on one is not to fail to reason well, but to fail to reason at all. (or e)ample, some fundamentalist ?hristians might say something like, 4All those who refuse to accept that truth of the ,criptures will burn in >ell.4 &his is usually said so they do not have to participate in debates about various parts of the scriptures. A 5afia inspired e)ample might be, 4Kou should accept the view that our protection can strengthen the sales of your product. !therwise you might find that your machinery has been damaged and that your labor troubles increase.4 /ven a more prosaic form of this can occur in job related situations, such as: 4Kou had better agree that the new company policy is the best bet if you e)pect to keep your job.4 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you have to identify the threat and the proposition and argue that the threat is unrelated to the truth or falsity of the proposition. 2!f course, like I said before, in most situations where actual threats are being issued, the logical nuance of this will be lost on the one doing the threatening since they are hardly concerned with committing a logical fallacy.3 o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply do not resort to this tactic, even in a passive form. (or e)ample, if you are a manager saying that the team may have to work longer hours with no pay because of the current project situation is a resort to 4force4 in the sense of unpleasant consequences. Kou are trying to motivate behavior with the threat of no pay and long hours. A much better approach might be to start looking at ways to alleviate the long hours or find out why they will be necessary in the first place. Argumentum ad conse-uentiam Also known as an ppeal to *onse/uences, the idea here is that the speaker or arguer points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief or thought in order to show that this belief or

9B

thought is false. (or e)ample, 4Kou cannot agree that evolution is true, because if it were, then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.4 Ket another: 4Kou must believe in -od, for otherwise life would have no meaning.4 With that last one, for e)ample, one could argue that perhaps this is true but then it is equally possible that since life has no meaning, -od does not e)ist. Alternatively, one could argue that meaning does not require the e)istence of a god of any sort. With the first e)ample, one could argue that nowhere is it written that we must be better than apes or one could argue on the distinction of what means to be 4better than4 something else. &he real point here is that consequences are stated as if they were foregone conclusions, usually with unqualified terms such as 4no better than monkeys and apes4 or 4life would have no meaning.4 An e)ample in the quality world might be someone saying, 4We should not use that si) sigma thing. After all, ?ompany L used it and look where they are4 In this case, one has to imagine that 4?ompany L4 went bankrupt or something. &he consequence being stated here is that if your own company uses si) sigma it will suffer the same fate as ?ompany L. Ket a more effective way to present this would be to show that the problems with ?ompany L stemmed directly from the si) sigma use. /ven then, however, that does not suggest your company will have the same problems. After all, perhaps ?ompany L simply implemented things wrong. !r perhaps a variety of other factors were in place such that the use 2or lack thereof3 of si) sigma would have made no difference. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you want to identify the consequences that are put forth and argue that what we want to be the case does not affect what is in fact the case. Also note that it is possible for certain arugments to lead to consequences that are, in fact, undesirable. ,o there is need to look at whether the consequences are, in fact, realistic and also if the consequences are being used as the sole reason for discounting the argument. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, you can either not relate just to consequences in your argument or, alternatively, you can try to make a strong case that shows that the consequences you are laying out are, in fact, not only not desirable but are inevitable. 0emember that this may not make the argument you are against false but it will, at least, establish some credit in your reasoning of using the consequences as part of your rebuttal. Argumentum ad crumenam &his is the fallacy of believing that money or wealth of some sort is a criterion of correctnessA that those with more money are more likely to be right, for e)ample. 2&he opposite of this fallacy would be the rgumentum ad lazarum.3 As an e)ample of this consider, 45icrosoft software is undoubtedly superiorA why else would +ill -ates have gotten so rich=4 or 4"onald &rump must know what he is talking aboutA after all, look how rich he is.4 <ow, it should be noted that in matters of finance or money making, it is very possible that someone who has a lot of wealth and earned it in some fashion 2as opposed to being just given it3 may be a good source of knowledge. &hat means someone using one of these people as the basis of their argument might, in fact, have a good argument to make. ,o one has to first note upon what argument the basis of wealth is being used. Argumentum ad "ominem &his literally means 4argument directed at the man4 or the 4argument against the man4A often called the ppeal to the +an, this fallacy occurs when one seeks to prove a conclusion false by attacking the character, reputation, associations, or social situations of the person proposing it. ,o the person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. &his takes many forms. (or e)ample, the person.s nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favorable outcome. !r a person may be attacked by association or by the company they keep. +ecause this fallacy takes on a few different guises, it is helpful to look at three major forms of this fallacy. &he first form is often called abusive. >ere instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. If you refuse to accept a statement and justify your refusal by critici%ing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. (or e)ample: 4Kou claim that atheists can be moral, yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and

9C

children.4 &his is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion 2atheists being moral3 does not depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily critici%ed person. (or e)ample: 4&herefore we should become more militaristic= Well, >itler would have agreed with you.4 &he second form is often called circumstantial. >ere instead of attacking an assertion one points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person.s circumstances. (or e)ample: 4It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you will not argue otherwise, given that you are quite happy to wear leather shoes.4 &his is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. &he fallacy can also be used as an e)cuse to reject a particular conclusion. (or e)ample: 4!f course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. Kou are ?aucasian.4 &he third form is often called the tu /uo/ue. &his form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practice what he preaches. An e)ample might be: 4Kou say I should not drink, but you have not been sober for more than a year.4 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended, at least not necessarily. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, remember that this fallacy means arguing against, or rejecting a person.s views, by attacking or abusing their personality, character, motives, intentions, qualifications, etc. as opposed to providing evidence why the views are incorrect. ,o try to argue against the argument itself rather than person. 'resent evidence that shows why their argument is not valid rather than attacking the person in any fasion. Argumentum ad ignorantiam Argumentum ad ignorantiam means 4argument from ignorance4, sometimes known as the ppeal to Ignorance. &he fallacy occurs when it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proven false. !r, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. 2<ote that this is not the same as assuming something is false until it has been proven true. In law, for e)ample, you are generally assumed innocent until proven guilty, in the ;nited ,tates anyway.3 +asically, one cannot use the lack of evidence 2proof3 for something in order support its truth or falsity. Another way to look at this is that the fallacy advances the position that if one conclusion in an argument cannot be established convincingly, then the opposing view can be accepted. An e)ample might be, 4,ince you cannot disprove that there are flying saucers, you should accept as reliable the reports of those claiming to have seen such objects.4 ,ometimes this fallacy is referred to as the misuse of "not" and one can also reali%e that it is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false. 2&his is also similar to the notion of shifting the burden of proof.3 >ere are a couple of e)amples: 4!f course the ?hristian +ible is true. <obody can prove otherwise.4 4!f course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not e)ist. <obody has shown any proof that they are real.4 In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however. ,o an appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. ,ome common forms we might see: &here is no evidence against p. &herefore, p.

96

&here is no evidence for p. &herefore, not p. We should note that there are a couple of types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it. (irst, we do sometimes have meta knowledge 2knowledge about knowledge3 which can justify inferring a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. (or instance, airplance and train schedules list times and locations of arrivals and departures. ,uch schedules usually do not attempt to list the times and locations when vehicles do not arrive or depart, since this would be highly inefficient. Instead, there is an implicit, understood assumption that such a schedule is complete, that all available vehicle departures and arrivals have been listed. &hus, we can reason using the following sort of enthymeme: &here is no departureHarrival listed in schedule , for location # at time &. ,uppressed 'remise: All departures and arrivals are listed in schedule ,. &herefore, there is no departureHarrival for location # at time &. &his kind of completeness of information assumption is often called the 4closed world assumption4. When it is reasonable to accept this assumption it is not a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way. Another type of reasoning is called 4auto epistemic4 24self knowing43 because it involves reasoning from premises about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. &he form of such reasoning is: If p were true, then I would know that p. I do not know that p. &herefore, p is false. (or instance, one might reason: If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now. I do not know that I am adopted. &herefore, I was not adopted. ,imilarly, when e)tensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. (or instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another e)ample is: If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in #och <ess, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now. We do not have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in #och <ess. &herefore, there is no such animal. As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, reali%e when someone is attempting to argue for a conclusion simply because no one has proven it false. In other words, if someone suggested using a certain process in your company because it would save millions, you have every reason to ask how this person knows that. If they simply respond by saying, 4prove me wrong4, they are guilty of this fallacy. &he onus of proof is on them to justify their claim. #ikewise, however, if someone says they will not use a certian process because no one has proven that it will save them millions, this is equally a fallacy. !ne has to judge things at a more ganular level. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not argue for the truth of some idea simply because it has never been proven false that you know of. #ikewise, do not argue that something must be false simply because

9F

it has not been proven true. 0eali%e that in many situations, the notion of how true something is might depend upon its conte)t, thus categorical proof in any sort of fashion is unlikely to be forthcoming. Argumentum ad invidiam &his means the 4argument from invective4 and some refer to the fallacy as nothing more than 4name calling4. &his usually involves an attack that is related to the arguer of a proposition but not necessarily directly to them. &hat is why this is different than the rgumentum ad hominem. >owever, it shares with it this: invective is seldom directed toward the argument at hand, unless it is used to disparage it. Invective can occur in both literal and figurative forms. In its literal e)pression, invective dispenses with all pretense to civility, and the names are simply called. In its figurative form, invective is less direct and sometimes more sophisticated, but it is just as irrelevant. &he problem here is one of reference, arrangement, and the misuse of figurative language. At the most basic level, avoiding invective involves developing an ability to play fair and treat others with respect. In the practice of argument, it involves a commitment to limit the grounds of debate to the issues at hand. &his means that calling others names, either directly or indirectly, is a departure from the issue at hand. Argumentum ad lazarum &he fallacy of assuming that someone poor is sounder or more virtuous than someone who is wealthier. 2&his fallacy is the opposite of the Argumentum ad *rumenam.3 (or e)ample: 45onks are more likely to possess insight into the meaning of life, as they have given up the distractions of wealth.4 !bviously there is nothing that directly relates any special insight into the meaning of life based upon lack of wealth, hence this is an e)ample of the fallacy. !ne has to reali%e that if the argument being put forth is something that relates to having little wealth, then, obviously, it may be the case that someone in that situation 2or who has been in that situation3 is capable of putting forth a valid argument based on that. In general, however, one should concentrate on the argument being made rather than the wealth, or lack thereof, of the arguer. Argumentum ad logicam &his is sometimes referred to as the 4fallacy fallacy4, and it means arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Kou have to remember that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions. A common e)ample is usually given in mathematical terms so consider the following dialogue: 'erson A: 4&ake the fraction 16H6B. <ow, cancelling a si) on top and a si) on the bottom, we get that 16H6B M 1HB.4 'erson +: 4Wait a second Kou cannot just cancel the si) &hat is totally wrong.4 &he point here is that the answer is actually correct but it was derived in an incorrect fashion. ,o the person has to make it clear that the answer itself is not disputed in this case but the way it was arrived at is disputed. Argumentum ad misericordiam #iterally meaning 4argument to pity4, this is sometimes referred to as the ppeal to "ity, sometimes also called .pecial "leading. At the simplest level, the fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. (or e)ample: 4I did not murder my mother and father with an a)e 'lease do not find me guilty. I have suffering enough, being an orphan and all.4 ,o basically in this e)ample the jurors or judge are being told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the defendant. !ther e)amples of this: 4>ow can you say that was an interception= >e barely had possession of the ball, and besides, we are down ten games to two.4 4We hope you will accept our recommendations. We spent the last three months working a lot of e)tra time on it.4

9G

,o the idea is arguing by appeal to pity in order to have some point accepted and the replacing of relevant evidence for a conclusion with a bid for the sympathy of an audience. In the first e)ample the fact that the team is down ten games to two means nothing 2or should mean nothing3 to the referees of the game. In the second e)ample, the length of time spent working on the recommendations should be considered to a certain e)tent but the recommendations should be good and able to stand on their own, regardless of whether they were formed over a long period of time or a short period of time. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to identify the proposition and the appeal to pity and argue that the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, rely on the strength of your argument2s3 and any conclusion2s3 derived therefrom rather than asking for pity from your audience. Argumentum ad nauseam &his fallacy is based on the incorrect belief that a given assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. ,o an argumentum ad nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting somethingA saying the same thing over and over again until people are sick of hearing it. &he point to reali%e here is that a good argument should be able to stand on its own. A bad argument will still be a bad argument, no matter how many times it is repeated. Argumentum ad novitatem &his is the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else. 2&his is the opposite of the rgumentum ad nti/uitatem.3 An e)ample of this might be stating that a certain car is better than another car because of a newer design or that a new hypothesis must be better than old hypotheses simply because it is newer or that a new process is better than an older process simply because it is newer. <ote, however, that sometimes something that is new can be better because it is based on more recent e)periences or knowledge. &he trick here is looking to see if the appeal to 4newness4 is the sole reason that an argument or position is being defended. Argumentum ad populum &his is sometimes known as the consensus gentium or as the argumentum ad numerum. &his fallacy is also known as ppealing to the %allery, ppealing to the +a<ority, ppeal to "opular "re<udice, ppeal to the +ultitude, ppeal to +ob Instinct, ppealing to the "eople, or the $andwagon )allacy. Kou commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. &his form of fallacy is often characteri%ed by emotive language. (or e)ample: 4'ornography must be banned. It is violence against women.4 4All I am saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.4 4(or thousands of years people have believed in Eesus and the +ible. &his belief has had a great impact on their lives. What more evidence do you need that Eesus was the ,on of -od= Are you trying to tell those people that they are all mistaken fools=4 &he idea is that you are seeking acceptance of a point of view by an emotional reaffirmation of a speaker.s support of values, traditions, interests, prejudices, or provincial concerns shared widely by members of an audience. What one is tacitly assuming is that a proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some sector of the population. &his fallacy is sometimes also called the ppeal to =motion because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole and this leads to people sometimes arguing in order to arouse an emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without resorting to logical justification of the idea. With this, an appeal is made to such things as biases, prejudices, feelings, enthusiasms, and attitudes of the multitude in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally support the idea. ,o one is doing nothing more or less than arguing that an idea is true on the basis 2a3 that the majority of people believe it andHor 2b3 that it has been universally held by all men at all times. /)ample:

9@

4-od e)ists because all cultures have had some concept of a god.4 Also note that this is very similar to what many people call the $andwagon )allacy, which is where appeals to an interest in following the crowd and doing as they do rather than to adequate evidence justifying a conclusion. An e)ample of this might be, 4Kou really ought to buy a small /uropean sports car as all members of the smart crowd now own one of these cars.4 &he +andwagon (allacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity. &he name comes from the phrase 4jumping on the bandwagon4, referring to joining a cause because of its popularity. Advertising is a rich source of bandwagon arguments as are, in fact, many political elections where many people vote not because of an understanding of the issues a given candidate stands for but rather because of simple partisan affiliation 20epublican, for e)ample3 or because of the way that others are voting. Argumentum ad verecundiam &his is the ppeal to uthority or what some call the ppeal to Eeneration. &he #atin means 4argument from respect 2modesty34 and is also sometimes referred to by the #atin phrase Ipse Cixit 24>e, himself said it43. &his fallacy uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. (or e)ample: 4Isaac <ewton was a genius and he believed in -od.4 It should be noted that this line of argument is not always fallaciousA for e)ample, it may be relevant to refer to a widely regarded authority in a particular field when you are discussing that subject. !bviously not all arguments from e)pert opinion are fallacious, and for this reason some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as 4appeal to false authority4 or 4argument from /uestionable authority4. We must often rely upon e)pert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or e)pertise to form an informed opinion. (or instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. &here are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong. !ne of this is quite obvious: the 4authority4 cited is not an e)pert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an e)pert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. Another issue might be where the authority is an e)pert, but is not disinterested. &hat is, the e)pert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy or, at the very least, calls into question the objectivity of the person.s statements. ,ometimes the appeal to authority is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. ,ince arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself if this is possible. ,ometimes an appeal to authority is simply impossible. About some issues there simply is no e)pert opinion, and an appeal to authority is not going to be helpful. And yet another problem might be that while the authority is an e)pert, his opinion is unrepresentative of e)pert opinion on the subject. &he fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an e)pert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. &his is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find e)pert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion. /)perts are human beings, after all, and human beings err, even in their area of e)pertise. &o sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon e)pert opinion, go through the following checklist: Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to e)pert opinion= If the answer is 4yes4, then do so. If 4no4, go to the ne)t question. Is this a matter upon which e)pert opinion is available= If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else.s. If so, proceed to the ne)t question. Is the authority an e)pert on the matter= If not, then why listen= If so, go on. Is the authority biased towards one side= If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority.s word seek a second, unbiased opinion. &hat is, go to the last question.

B8

Is the authority.s opinion representative of e)pert opinion= If not, then find out what the e)pert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority.s opinion.

If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of ad verecundiam. If you think you have a case of this fallacy, you can attempt to show that either the person cited is not an authority in the field or that there is general disagreement among the e)perts in the field on this point and, thus, citing one authority is not necessarily conclusive of anything. Audiatur et altera pars #iterally this translates to 4let us hear the opposite side.4 &his fallacy occurs when people make an argument that has assumptions which are unstated. In any argument, all of the premises should be stated e)plicitly. !bviously not stating the assumptions of an argument does not make the argument wrong but not stating all of the assumptions of an argument is often looked upon as suspicious since it is hard to determine the validity of an argument without knowing the assumptions upon which it is based. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you essentially have to take things on a case by case basis. ,ince this kind of problem involves the absence of something, it is somewhat hard to state an absolute solution for spotting and dealing with this particular type of fallacy. >owever, in general, if an argument seems to rest on some unstated assumptions then you are well within your rights to ask what e)actly those assumptions are. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, try to make sure that you present all asusmptions that are the basis of your argument. !f course it goes without saying 2I hope3 that you should be aware of all the assumptions that are the basis of your argument in the first place Begging t"e 9uestion &his is a type of informal fallacy. It goes by many names: *ircular Aeasoning, Aeasoning in a *ircle, Eicious *ircle, "etitio "rincipii, or *irculus in "robando. &his fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. &ypically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. (or e)ample: 4&he +ible is the word of -od. &he word of -od cannot be doubted, and the +ible states that the +ible is true. &herefore the +ible must be true.4 /ssentially you have this fallacy when you have any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. +egging the question is similar to something known as circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is e)actly the same as the premise. What happens here is that one assumes what needs to be proven and offers this assumption as evidence for a conclusion that only particulari%es the assumption or that restates an equivalent form of the original assumption. 4All the events in nature are determined. >uman events are part of the events in nature. &herefore, human events are determined.4 ;nlike most informal fallacies, begging the question is a validating form of argument. 5oreover, if the premises of an instance of begging the question happen to be true, then the argument is sound. &hat might lead us to wonder why this is a fallacy. Well, first of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. ,uppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, pA, pB, ..., pn are equivalent by arguing as follows 2where 4p N -4 means that p implies -3: pA N pB N ... N pn N pA &hen we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. ,o, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle= (or an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premises already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to infer a conclusion not known or believed. &his, of course, rules out the worst cases of begging the question mentioned above, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premise, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. Any viciously circular argument is one which attempts to infer a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself. ,uch arguments can never advance our knowledge.

B1

&he phrase 4begs the question4 has come to be used to mean 4raises the question4 or 4suggests the question4, as in 4that begs the question ...4 followed by the question supposedly begged. ;nfortunately, this is a confusing usage which is apparently based upon a literal misreading of the phrase 4begs the question4. &he use of logical grammar suggests that this meaning should be avoided, and must be distinguished from its use to refer to the fallacy. ,o, in recogni%ing and dealing with this fallacy, one has to reali%e when the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. !ften, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion. ,ome e)amples: 4,ince I am not lying, it follows that I am telling the truth.4 2&his presupposes that we know the person is not, in fact, lying or just mistaken.3 4We know that -od e)ists, since the +ible says -od e)ists. What the +ible says must be true, since -od wrote it and -od never lies.4 2>ere, we must agree that -od e)ists in order to believe that -od wrote the +ible. We also have to assume that -od never lies.3 What you want to do in these cases is show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true. ,ome things to look for when dealing with this fallacy: 2a3 Arriving at a conclusion from statements that themselves are questionable and have to be proved but are assumed true. 2/)ample: 4&he universe has a beginning. /very thing that has a beginning has a beginner. &herefore, the universe has a beginner called -od.4 &his assumes 2begs the question3 that the universe does indeed have a beginning and also that all things that have a beginning have a beginner.3 2b3 Assuming the conclusion as part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. ,ometimes called circular reasoning, vicious circularity, or a vicious circle fallacy. 2/)ample: 4/verything has a cause. &he universe is a thing. &herefore, the universe is a thing that has a cause.43 2c3 Arguing in a circle. !ne statement is supported by reference to another statement which is itself supported by reference to the first statement. 2/)ample: 4/volutionary theory predicts that the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring. &he fittest offspring are defined as those who produce the most offspring.43 2ard (tac%ing &his is an informal fallacy that goes by many names: 0ne!sidedness, 0ne!.ided ssessment, .lanting, .uppressed =vidence, .tac(ing the Cec(, etc. -enerally speaking, a one sided argument presents only evidence favoring its conclusion and ignores or downplays the evidence against it. 2In inductive reasoning, it is important to consider all of the available evidence before coming to a conclusion.3 In other words, this fallacy occurs when one deliberately omits, de emphasi%es, or overemphasi%es certain points to the e)clusion of others in order to hide evidence that is important and relevant to the conclusion of the argument and that should be taken into account in the argument. With this being said, it is by no means always fallacious to present a one sided argument. We have to take the conte)t of the argument into consideration. (or instance, a trial attorney presents a one sided case in favor of a client. It is not a defense attorney.s job to present the evidence for the defendant.s guilt. 2&he prosecutor is all too willing to do that and, by the same token, he will not present evidence that suggests the defendant.s innocence.3 &he point here is that while each presenter of a given argument may be slanted, as long as both sides have their say and all of the relevant evidence is presented, decisions can be made. &his happens all the time in political debates and you certainly see it in debates about things like, say, creationism and evolution. &he key here is that people who listen to only one side will inevitably form one sided opinions. !ne sidedness is fallacious in conte)ts where we have a right to demand objectivity. In many situations it should be the case that people are e)pected to e)amine all of the evidence and come to a reasoned and informed conclusion on the merits of the argument that is presented. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, be on the lookout for the apparent deliberate organi%ation and presentation of material that makes one position look good and another look bad. ,pecifically, look to see if equal time and consideration is being given to the position that is said to be bad. (or e)ample, if you are

B7

sitting in an evaluation discussion for two automated testing products, it would be suspicious if one product was said to have no good features at all but the other product was filled with nothing but good features. Kou have a right to question if the evidence is being presented fairly. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not suppress any of the evidence against your own argument and do not suppress any evidence that e)ists for an argument that is counter to your own. &ry to give a balanced viewpoint of both arguments. If you are truly sure of the strength of your argument, you should not worry about presenting the a balanced treatment. 2ommutation of 2onditionals &his is a fallacy of propositional logic 2of the language independent variety3 and sometimes goes by the name )allacy of the *onse/uent or *onverting a *onditional. &he general form of this fallacy is: If p then -. &herefore, if - then p. !ne way we might look at this: If -eorge was 'resident, then he was over 9C. &herefore, if Eames was over 9C, then he was 'resident. &his fallacy tends to happen because people often suppose that the relation of consequence is convertible. In other words, suppose A is, B necessarily is, they then suppose also that if B is, A necessarily is. It is quite easy to see how this is not always the case. &his is very closely relatd to the fallacy of ffirming the *onse/uent. 2omposition &his is a type of informal fallacy. &he fallacy is to conclude that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those itemsA or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing. &he logical form of the argument is given as: All of the parts of the object . have the property P. &herefore, . has the property P. 2Where the property P is one which does not distribute from parts to a whole.3 ,ome properties are such that, if every part of a whole has the property, then the whole will too. >owever, not all properties are like this. #ogicians will call a property which distributes from all of the parts to the whole a 4part whole distributive property4. If P is a part whole distributive property, then the argument form above is validating, by definition of what such a property is. >owever, if P is not part whole distributive, then the argument form is non validating, and any argument of that form commits the fallacy of ?omposition. &wo simple e)amples: 4,ince everything is composed of very tiny atoms, everything must be very tiny.4 4!verall, conventional bombs did more damange than nuclear bombs in World War II, therefore conventional bombs must be more dangerous than nuclear bombs.4 Inferring that a collection has a certain characteristic merely on the basis that its parts have them erroneously proceeds from regarding the collection distributively to regarding it collectively. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, attempt to show that the properties in question are the properties of the whole and not of each part or member of the whole. It might help to delineate the parts to show that they could not have the properties of the whole. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply do not equate the whole of something with each individual part if that is not warranted. 0ecogni%e that sometimes something can be more than the sum of its parts, at

B9

least in some respects. ?ertain things have 4emergent properties4, so to speak, that e)ist as part of the whole but could not be pointed to as any one part. Ant hive colonies are something like this: the hive mind is actually more 4intelligent4 2if that is the right word3 than any one individual ant within that colony. 2um Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (rom the #atin this means 4with this, therefore because of this4. ?um >oc is the fallacy committed when one jumps to a conclusion about causation based on a correlation between two events, or types of event, which occur simultaneously. In order to avoid this fallacy, one needs to look for a possible third event, or type of event, which is the cause of the correlation. &he general form of this argument is: /vents 2 and E both happened at the same time. &herefore, 2 caused E. Ket another form we can consider: /vents of type 2 have always been accompanied by events of type E. &herefore, events of type 2 cause events of type E. &his fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. &he fallacy is casual fallacy in that it asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. &his is a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause2s3 of the events. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to recogni%e when you are presented with a cause effect relationship and check to see if the stated causes of a given event are actually causes of the event of if they could, in fact, have nothing at all to do with it. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, when you are dealing with a cause effect argument, make sure that the cause2s3 you are dealing wiht actually had something to do with the effect that you are talking about. Denial of t"e Antecedant &his is a fallacy of propositional logic and is an argument of the form 4A implies +, A is false, therefore + is false4. &he truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. rut" a!le for ,mplication Premise ,nference 2onclusion A B A ?@ B (alse (alse &rue (alse &rue &rue &rue (alse (alse &rue &rue &rue <ote that this fallacy is different from <on ?ausa 'ro ?ausa. &hat has the form 4A implies +, A is false, therefore + is false4, where A does not in fact imply + at all. >ere, the problem is not that the implication is invalidA rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about +. Also by that logic one can see that this fallacy is the converse of the fallacy of ffirming the conse/uent. ,peaking from a logician.s point of view, this is a fallacy which involves either confusion about the direction of a conditional relation or a conflating of a conditional with a biconditional proposition. A common e)ample often given here is the statement made by >enry 5orris 2head of the Institute for ?reation 0esearch3, 4+elief in evolution is a necessary component of atheism, pantheism, and all other systems that reject the sovereign authority of an omnipotent personal -od.4 &o say that - is a 4necessary component4 of p is to mean that if one has p one must also have -, that is: 4if p then -4. ,o this argument is really better shown as:

BB

&he truth of atheismHpantheism implies the truth of evolution. AtheismHpantheism is false. &herefore, evolution is false. /ven if the first premise were true 2which it is not3, it does not logically follow from a rejection of atheism or pantheism that one must reject evolution. &here are many theistic religions which accept evolution as a fact and there are many people of religious background who have no problem adopting the concept of evolution into their religious belief system. Denying a 2on6unct &his is a fallacy of propositional logic and is often known as the )allacy of the Cis<unctive .yllogism. &here are two forms we can consider for this fallacy: <ot both p and -. <ot p. &herefore, -. !r, <ot both p and -. <ot -. &herefore, p. An e)ample of this might be: It is not both sunny and overcast. It is not sunny. &herefore, it is overcast. <egating a conjunction 24not both43 means that at least one of the conjuncts is false, but it leaves open the possibility that both conjuncts are false. ,o, if we know that one of the conjuncts is true we may validly infer that the other is false 2by a conjuctive argument3. In contrast, if we know that one of the conjuncts is false we cannot validly infer from that information alone that the other is true, since it may be false as well. If we do so infer, we are committing the fallacy of "enying a ?onjunct. As a quick e)ample of a conjuctive argument form consider: <ot both p and -. p. &herefore, not -. 'resumably, it is the similarity between these two argument forms 2conjunctive and disjunctive3 that is the psychological source of the fallacy. >owever, "enying a ?onjunct is likely to seem more plausible when we have independent reasons for thinking that at least one of the two conjuncts is true. ,uppose that we add to "enying a ?onjunct the further disjunctive premise: /ither p or -. &he resulting argument form is validating. ,o, when it is reasonable to suppose that the corresponding premise has been suppressed, the argument will be a valid enthymeme, rather than fallacious. Division &his is an informal fallacy and one that is the opposite of the fallacy of composition. &he division fallacy consists of assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its partsA or that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. A simple e)ample: 4Ants can destroy a tree. &herefore this ant can destroy a tree.4 !r: 4+ecause the brain as a whole is capable of consciousness, each neural cell which makes up the brain must be capable of consciousness.4 What this is doing is inferring that the property of an organi%ed whole also characteri%es the parts of the whole. &his argument has the general form:

BC

&he object . has the property P. &herefore, all of the parts of . have the property P. 2Where the property P is one which does not distribute from a whole to its parts.3 -enerally you can call a property which distributes from a whole object to each of its parts a 4whole part distributive property4. ,o, if P is a whole part distributive property then the argument form above is validating, by definition of what such a property is. >owever, if P is not whole part distributive then the argument form is non validating and any argument of that form commits the fallacy of division. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to show that the properties of some particular object do not necessarily translate to the whole. As a simple e)ample, you might have a new tester that is writing test cases and works on the logic that 4test cases find errors, therefore this test case I wrote will find errors.4 >owever, that is not necessarily true because it depends upon how the test case was written. ,o the property of the collective may not translate to this particular instance of that collective. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, be careful to not generally apply an overall characteristic to its component elements if that is not warranted. (or e)ample, if a given project failed in your organi%ation, it would be a mistake to automatically assume that every element of that project failed. Emotional Appeal An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion. ,ome logicians will tell you that emotion is out of place in logical thinking but, in fact, much research into how human beings think suggests that emotion is not always out of place in logical thinking and, to some degree, may enhance it. With that, though, there is no doubt that strong emotions can subvert rational thought and playing upon emotions in an argument is often fallacious. &he question is when are appeals to emotion appropriate= What is the dividing line when the appeal becomes fallacious= Well, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. &he fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it falseA but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it and fear of something else a good reason to flee. 2&his is basically getting into the fallacy of ;ishful &hin(ing.3 /ven when appeals to emotion aim at motivating us there is still a way that they may fail to be rational. A case of that is when what we are being persuaded to do has insufficient connection with what is actually arousing our emotion. (or instance, a familiar type of emotional appeal is the appeal to pity or sympathy. 2&hink of many types of charities as perfect e)amples of this.3 &he idea of invoking pity in someone is to motivate a response in them, such as to help out with something or to send money. >owever it is possible for there to be little or no connection between your action and what aroused your emotion in the first place. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, first reali%e that emotion is not a bad thing. It leads to passion for things and passion is a powerful motivator for people. +ut emotion as the sole recourse of argumentation or as the sole <ustification of a conclusion is fallacious. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply reali%e that it is okay to be emotional about a subject but also reali%e that emotion cannot replace your reason. It can supplement it but it cannot totally replace it. Kour argument should be able to stand on its own merits, regardless of how emotionally vested in it you are. E-uivocation /quivocation occurs when a word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. Another way to say this is that this fallacy is where changes or shifts in the meaning of a key e)pression occurs in the middle of an argument. In other words, an argument in which a word is used with one

B6

meaning in one part of the argument and with another meaning in another part. A simple e)ample: 4&he end of a thing is its perfectionA death is the end of lifeA hence, death is the perfection of life.4 /quivocation is the type of ambiguity which occurs when a single word or phrase is ambiguous, and this ambiguity is not grammatical but le)ical. ,o, when a phrase equivocates, it is not due to grammar, but to the phrase as a whole having two distinct meanings. !f course, most words are ambiguous, but conte)t usually makes a univocal meaning clear. Also, equivocation by itself is not fallacious, though it is considered a linguistic boobytrap. At a broad level, the fallacy of equivocation occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. ?onsider the following e)ample: All banks are beside rivers. &herefore, the financial institution where I deposit my money is beside a river. In this argument, there are two unrelated meanings of the word 4bank4. !ne meaning is a riverside and, with that meaning, the premise is true but the argument is invalid, so the argument as a whole is unsound. &he other mean is as a type of financial institution and, with that meaning, the argument is valid, but the premise is false and, again, we have an unsound argument. A few other e)amples of this: 4&he sign said .(ine for parking here. and since it was fine, I parked there.4 &he key here is the word 4fine4 which can mean two different things. Another e)ample: 4!nly man is born free, and no women are men, therefore no women are born free.4 >ere the problem is 4man4 which is thought of in the sense of 4humanity4 and 4men4 which refers to the male gender specifically. 2I should probably note that this fallacy is also sometimes equated with the )allacy of the )our &erms, which is actually a special case of equivocation in which four terms are used instead of two.3 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, identify the word that has two different meanings and show that both meanings are not appropriate for the situation andHor argument at hand. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, make sure to choose your terminology carefully before beginning the argument and try to avoid words which have many meanings. !r, if you use such a word, make sure that you use it in a consistent sense within your argument. E3clusive Premises &his is a type of syllogistic fallacy that is also sometimes known as the &wo 1egative "remises fallacy. &he standard rule is that at least one premise of a valid categorical syllogism is affirmative and, in this case, we have a standard form categorical syllogism that has two negative premises. &he most common e)ample given of this: <o reptiles are mammals. <o dogs are reptiles. &herefore, no dogs are mammals. &he overall case is that when both premises are negative, there is no actual connection between them and that means that nothing follows from them. &his makes the argument form invalid. +ut note that this can lead to interesting situations. ?onsider: <o 5uslims are ?hristians. <o Eews are 5uslim. &herefore, no Eews are ?hristians. >ere, even if the conclusion is correct, the reasoning by how it is reached is fallacious and remember that logical fallacies are all about errors in reasoning. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, assume that the premises are true and then find an e)ample which allows the premises to be true but which clearly contradicts the conclusion being offerred. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, when you are giving an argument realie%e if your premises are both e)clusive of each other. &hat means the relationship between them is denied. What that means is that

BF

your conclusion cannot say anything in a positive fashion and, if it does, you have committed a fallacy. In other words, look if the information in your conclusion goes beyond what was stated in your premises. Fa%e Precision &his is obviously a type of vagueness in terms of reasoning. !ther names for this fallacy are )alse "recision, +isplaced "recision, or .purious ccuracy. &his fallacy occurs when an argument treats information as more precise than it really is. &his happens when imprecise information contained in the premises must be taken as precise in order to adequately support the conclusion. !ne common effect of overly precise numbers is that they impress some people as being 4scientific4 in nature and, thus, somehow more accurate. 5any people are intimidated by math, and it is easy to awe them with meaningless numbers or metrics. As a good e)ample of where this can be used, consider that during every presidential election, there are news stories claiming that one candidate is ahead of another based upon poll results. >owever, in the small print of most polls you will notice that the polling numbers have a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. &his means that the poll results are really a range of possible percentages. ,uppose, for instance, that the following is the result of the most recent poll: ?andidate D: BB: ?andidate 1: 9@:

It looks as if ?andidate D is ahead of ?andidate 1, but the margin of error means that the range of percentages is: ?andidate D: B1 BF: ?andidate 1: 96 B7:

In other words, ?andidate 1 might actually be ahead of ?andidate D, B7: to B1:. +ecause of the imprecision of most poll results, one candidate must be at least si) percentage points ahead of the other to be truly in the lead. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, simply note that it is happening and this is usually easy because you are being given very specific numbers. When it seems the numbers are very precise, particularly in situations where you feel such preciseness is unlikely, question the numbers or ask for confidence levels: margins of error that can be applied to the numbers. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply watch the numbers you use and look at if you are normal%ing the numbers via some scheme in order to present the numbers. While that is okay to do 2perhaps to make a presentation easier3 make sure that you indicate this to your audience. Also you should alwyas keep in mind one a)iom of basic and general statistics: an applied statistical description of a problem should not be used to generate data that appear to be more accurate or more specific or more important than those original values one is seeking to interpret. (or e)ample, it is actually less genuinely descriptive to say that 4over 66.9: of my office.s lights malfunctioned4, than it is to say 4both my desk lamps burned out, but the ceiling light stayed on4. False Dilemma &his one goes by a couple of names: bifurcation, either8or dilemma, blac(!or!white fallacy. It is an informal fallacy. &he fallacy is actually found in its disjunctive 24either or43 premise: an argument of this type is fallacious when its disjunctive premise is fallaciously supported. Deep in mind that this is a validating form of argument. &o be sure, some instances have the validating form given by what is called the simple constructive dilemma: /ither p or -. If p then r. If - then r. &herefore, r.

BG

&his is why this fallacy is, in fact, called the false dilemma. &hat is, however, a little bit misleading because not all instances have the form of a dilemmaA some instead take the also validating form of the dis<unctive syllogism: /ither p or -. <ot p. &herefore, -. ;sually, the truth value of premises is not a question for logic but for other sciences or recourse to common sense. ,o, while an argument with a false premise is unsound, it is usually not considered fallacious. >owever, when a disjunctive premise is false for specifically logical reasons or when the support for it is based upon a fallacy, then the argument commits what it makes sense to call a black or white fallacy. ,peaking to another name given to this fallacy, bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives e)ist or can e)ist. &hese kinds of argument tend to overlook both gradations and additional alternatives between e)treme positions, as in, 4All politicians are either highly efficient or completely inept.4 Another e)ample might be given as, 4/ither man can travel through time or time travel does not e)ist.4 2>ere a third conclusion could be that time travel e)ists but that man is not capable of achieving it.3 ,o what we have are two cases of 4black and white4 thinking. !ne is arguing with the use of sharp distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support for them. &he second is by classifying any middle point between the e)tremes as one of the e)tremes. (or e)ample, 4If he is a ?hristian then he is a decent person4 or 4>e is either a conservative or a liberal.4 &he distinctions in this fallacy are very important. (or e)ample, one common logical error is confusing contrary with contradictory propositions: of two contradictory propositions, e)actly one will be trueA but of two contrary propositions, at most one will be true, but both may be false. (or e)ample, consider: It is hot today. It is hot today. contradictories It is not hot today. contraries It is cold today.

A disjunction whose disjuncts are contradictories is an instance of the #aw of /)cluded 5iddle, so it is logically true. (or instance, 4either it is hot today or it is not hot today.4 In contrast, a disjunction whose disjuncts are contraries is logically contingent. (or e)ample, 4either it is hot today or it is cold today.4 If an arguer confuses the latter with the former in the premise of an argument, they commit this overall fallacy 2bifurcation, black or white, false dilemma3. Four erm Fallacy &his is also known by the #atin Duaternio &erminorum and this is a general type of syllogistic fallacy. &he idea here is that you have a two premise argument containing four terms, which results from a validating syllogistic form by substituting two distinct terms for one variable. 2In other words, you have a standard form categorical syllogism that contains four terms instead of three. &his violates the rule that all valid categorical syllogisms have e)actly three terms. 4&erm4 is to be understood in a semantic sense, as opposed to the syntactic sense of 4word4 or 4phrase4.3 An argument commits the four term fallacy which appears to have the form of a validating categorical syllogism, but has four terms. (or this reason, this fallacy differs from the other syllogistic fallacies, each of which involves genuine categorical syllogisms which violate one or more of the rules for syllogisms. &he four term fallacy, in contrast, involves arguments which fail to be categorical syllogisms because of too many terms. I suppose one might wonder why there is no 4(ive &erm (allacy4, and theoretically a form which resembles a categorical syllogism can have as many as si) terms. >owever, an argument with so many terms would be unlikely to fool anyone into thinking that it was a categorical syllogism. !f course, this further raises the question of how an argument with even just one extra term could truly confuse anyone. &he answer is that actual instances of the four term fallacy are usually in a form that is called polymorphously fallacious. What this means is that they are also instances of equivocation. ,o, the fact

B@

that the argument has four terms is concealed by an equivocation on two of the terms in the argument, when one word ambiguously means two terms. 2When the equivocation is on the middle term, the resulting fallacy is mbiguous +iddle &erm.3 ?onsider this: !nly man is born free. <o women are men. &herefore, no women are born free. &he four terms here are 4man4 2in the sense of 4humanity43, 4man4 2in the sense of 4male43, 4women4, and 4born free4. Kou can see that, in the case of 4man4, while the same word is used, the word has different meanings and this leads to the word being treated as two different terms. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you have to try to identify the four terms and where point out instances when one term is being used as two terms. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, stick to the standard rules of syllogistic logic and make sure that you use your terms conistently and that, where necessary, you state the meaning of each term. 7am!ler*s Fallacy &his is an informal fallacy that some know better by the term +onte *arlo )allacy. &here are actually two versions of this fallacy, the other being called the Aeverse %ambler's )allacy. +oth versions of the fallacy are based on the same mistake, which amounts to nothing more than a failure to understand statistical independence. &wo events are statistically independent when the occurrence of one has no statistical effect upon the occurrence of the other. ,tatistical independence is connected to the notion of randomness in the following way: what makes a sequence random is that its members are statistically independent of each other. (or instance, a list of random numbers is such that one cannot predict better than chance any member of the list based upon a knowledge of the other list members. &o understand statistical independence, try the following e)periment: predict the ne)t member of each of the two following sequences: 7, 9, C, F, ... 1, G, 6, F, ... &he first is the beginning of the sequence of prime numbers. &he second is a random sequence gathered from the last digits of the first four numbers in a phone book. &he first sequence is non random and predictable if one knows the way in which it is generated. &he second sequence is random and unpredictable 2unless, of course, you look in the phone book, but that is not prediction, that is just looking at the sequence3 because there is no underlying pattern to the sequence of last digits of telephone numbers in a phone book. &he numbers in the second sequence are statistically independent. 5any gambling games are based upon randomly generated, statistically independent sequences, such as the series of numbers generated by a roulette wheel or by throws of unloaded dice. A fair coin produces a random sequence of 4heads4 or 4tails4, that is, each flip of the coin is statistically independent of all the other flips. &here is no bias to produce a predictable sequence 2with a fair coin, anyway3. What this really amounts to are the two ways people commit this fallacy but in both ways a person assumes that some result must be 4due4 simply because what previously happened departs from what would be e)pected on average or over the long term. &he first specific instance of how this fallacy occurs involves events whose probabilities of occurring are independent of each other, like what I described above. &he second specific instance of how this fallacy occurs involves cases where probabilities of occurring are not independent of each other. (or e)ample, in that latter case, if a project has failed three times in the past, it would be a mistake to assume that these failures 2and the potential failure of the ne)t project3 are independent. &here are probably elements within the organi%ation 2such as activities or processes3 that are causing a probability of failure. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, point out to someone that just because something has happened more frequently than e)pected or less frequently than e)peted, that does not mean there is a decreased or an

C8

increased chance of it happening any time soon. 2At least not necessarily.3 o avoid committing t"is fallacy, reali%e when you are dealing with a system 2like a coin toss3 where subsequent probabilities are independent of each other. +ut also reali%e those situations where the probabilities that occur are not, in fact, independent. 5ake sure not to confuse the two situations. 7enetic Fallacy &he -enetic (allacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. &he fallacy part comes in when one attempts to reduce the significance of an idea, argument, or a state of affairs merely to a proposed account of its origins or earliest antecedents. Kou could also consider it a form of arguing that the origin of something is identical with that thing with that from which it originates. 2(or this reason some refer to this as the 4nothing but4 fallacy or the reductive fallacy.3 !bviously we have to reali%e that it is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past rather than on its present merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, remember that it is committed when an idea is evaluted based upon history that is irrelevant. ,o determine if the history that is being used as part of the argument is, in fact, irrelevant or not. (or e)ample, if someone is proposing that they heard the project you were working on was going to be removed, the origin of where that came from 2first hand, hearsay, rumor3 is quite important and thus the history of the proposition is certainly not irrelevant in that case. >owever in the case of someone proposing a certain technique to use on a project, the fact that this technique might have come from a major corporation may be largely irrelevant because what matters is if it can work in your organi%ation. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not use the history of something as the sole basis for validating it unless you can show that this past history did have a positively correlated effect on the present situation. 7uilt !y Association Also known as the $ad *ompany )allacy, this is the attempt to discredit an idea based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it. &his is the reverse of an ppeal to uthority. An argument to authority argues in favor of an idea based upon associating an authority figure with the idea, whereas -uilt by Association argues against an idea based upon associating it with disreputable people or groups. &he general form of this argument is fairly simple: 'erson P 2or -roup 73 accepts idea ,. &herefore, , must be wrong. 2Where the audience does not want to be associated with P or 7.3 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you have to note when an idea or conclusion to an argument is being refuted simply because someone else 2of apparently disreputable character3 held the same idea. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not immediately dismiss an idea or conclusion just based on the fact that someone you disagree with, in general, held that same idea. In other words, argue on the merits of the idea itself rather than on the person or group that held the idea. Hasty 7eneralization &his is a fallacy that is of unrepresentative sample type. ,ometimes it is called the fallacy of >asty Induction or converse accident. 2&he latter name comes in because this fallacy is the reverse of the ccident fallacy.3 Kou may also hear this fallacy referred to its #atin name a dicto secumdum /uid ad dictum simpliciter. &his is an error of reasoning whereby a general statement is asserted 2inferred3 based on 2a3 limited information, 2b3 inadequate evidence, or 2c3 an unrepresentative sampling. In other words, someone reaches a generali%ed conclusion on the basis of too limited a range of e)amples. 'ut more specifically, this is the fallacy of generali%ing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the variability in the population. !bvoiusly with a completely homogeneous population, a

C1

sample of one is sufficiently large. +ecause there are degrees of this it is somewhat difficult to put an absolute lower limit on sample si%e that is required. What we can say is that sample si%e depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required. ,o with the idea of the error being that of generali%ing from atypical or e)ceptional instances, we can say it occurs when you form a general rule by e)amining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. (or e)ample: 4Eim +akker was an insincere ?hristian. &herefore all ?hristians are insincere.4 <ote also that the reason this fallacy is the opposite to the accident is that the accident is allowing a general rule to apply to all cases where an e)ception would be warranted, while the converse accident is applying an e)ception to a situation where a more general rule would better apply. (or an e)ample that is somewhat related to quality assurance, perhaps someone says, 4!n our last project we did not use all of our processes, so that means on any other project we should not use all of our processes.4 !bviously there are a lot of caveats we could apply here in either direction but the point here, relative to this fallacy, it might be there were good reasons on that one project to not use all the processes but that, in general, this is not the way to go. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you will want to try to identify the generali%ation that is being offered and show that in special cases there are e)ceptions to the generali%ation. 2(or e)ample, someone might have a process laded approach that was needed for one of your projects because it needed certification of some type. &hat, however, might have been a special circumstance and thus generali%ing and saying that the same approach should be followed for every project might be something to watch out for.3 o avoid committing t"is fallacy, if you are making a generali%ation, make sure that you consider possible e)ceptions to that generali%ation. ,llicit 2onversion &his is a fallacy of quantificational logic that is sometimes more cleary known as a 4false conversionO &his is a somewhat technical sounding fallacy because logicians will tell you that conversion is a validating form of immediate inference for / and I type categorical propositions. &o 4convert4 such a proposition is to switch the subject and predicate terms of the proposition, which is non validating for the A and ! type propositions. >ence, the fallacy of illicit conversion is converting an A or ! type proposition. >ere are the forms of this argument: All P are 9. &herefore, all 9 are P. ,ome P are not 9. &herefore, some 9 are not P. A simple e)ample of this might be something like: All communists are atheists. &herefore, all atheists are communists. !r... ,ome animals are not mammals. &herefore, some mammals are not animals. ,o notice what is happening here when you are switching the terms. ?onsider that the following statement is valid: 4<o cars are planetsA therefore, no planets are cars.4 +ut now consider that the following statement is not valid: 4,ome vehicles are not trucksA therefore, some trucks are not vehicles.4 In each case the premise and the conclusion are said to be converses of each other.

C7

o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy and to to avoid committing t"is fallacy, look for arguments where the condition in the argument is switched from 4if P then 94 to 4if 9 then P4. In other words, be watchful of any argument where the direction of reasoning is reversed. ,llicit &a6or ,ometimes this fallacy is called the Illicit 'rocess of the 5ajor &erm. /ssentially this a type of logical fallacy that is known as an 4illicit process4. ,peaking as a logician might, this is any form of categorical syllogism in which the major term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the major premise. ,o this means it is a syllogistic fallacy and this is an 4illicit process4 2in this case, an 4illicit4 distribution3 because it breaks the rules of the categorical syllogism. In this type of fallacy, what happens is that a predicate term in the conclusion of the argument refers to all members of a category while not recogni%ing that the same term was used in the premises as refering to a different category. A simple and common e)ample: 4All &e)ans are Americans, and no ?alifornians are &e)ans, therefore no ?alifornians are Americans.4 >ere the predicated term in the conclusion, 4Americans4 refers to all Americans but the use of the term in the premise, 4All &e)ans are Americans,4 referred only to a particular group of Americans in this case, &e)ans. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy and to avoid committing t"is fallacy you should try to show that there are other members of the predicate category, not mentioned in the premise, which are contrary to the conclusion. !bviously be watchful of this yourself when you are framing your own arguments. ,llicit &inor ,ometimes this fallacy is called the Illicit 'rocess of the 5inor &erm. /ssentially this a type of logical fallacy that is known as an 4illicit process4. ,peaking as a logician might, this is any form of categorical syllogism in which the minor term is distributed in the conclusion but not in the minor premise. An e)ample of this might be something like: All whales are mammals. All mammals are animals. &herefore, all animals are whales. &he idea here is that the subject term of the conclusion refers to all members of that category, but the same term in the premise only refers to some members of that category. &he subject term in the above e)ample is 4animals4. &he conclusion refers to all animals. &he premise 24all mammals are animals43 only refers to some animals. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy and to avoid committing t"is fallacy, show that there may be other members of the subject category that are not mentioned in the premises which are contrary to the conclusion. ,llicit 9uantifier ("ift &his is a fallacy of quantificational logic and, more specifically, it is a type of scope fallacy. &he most basic form of this argument is given as: /very P bears the relation 1 to some 9. &herefore, some 9 bears the relation 1 to every P. &he phrase 4quantifier shift4 refers to the two quantifiers at the beginning of the premise and conclusion of arguments of this form, namely, 4every4 and 4some4. 4,hift4 refers to the fact that the difference between the premise and conclusion of this form of argument consists in a shift in the order 2or, technically, the 4scope43 of the quantifiers. In the premise, the universal quantifier, 4every4, is followed by the e)istential one, 4some4, whereas in the conclusion the order is reversed. &his means that in the premise the universal quantifier has widest scope, while in the conclusion it is the e)istential quantifier which has wider scope.

C9

&he fallaciousness of this form of argument is most easily seen by e)amining some counter e)amples that would fool no one. (or instance, everyone has a mother that is, for every person, there is some mother of that person. >owever, it is false that there is a mother of us all that is, there is a person who is the mother of everyone. 2I know people like to speak of 4mitochondrial /ve4 in the scientific sense or of the biblical /ve but, obviously, that is a different kind of e)planation for things.3 Also note that the converse inference of the general form is validating. &o wit, ,ome 9 bears the relation 1 to every P. &herefore, every P bears the relation 1 to some 9. #et us consider an e)ample. (irst consider a non validating e)ample: /verybody loves someone. &herefore, there is somebody whom everyone loves. #ooking at it from both sides, if there was truly someone who loved everyone, then it would follow that everyone was loved by someone. +ut it does not follow from the fact that everyone is loved by someone that there is someone who loves everyone. &he fact that these two inferences differ only in the direction in which the quantifiers are shifted is probably one psychological reason why this fallacy is so easy to commit. ,llicit (u!stitution &his fallacy, which is a type of formal fallacy, is more accurately referred to by its full name: illicit substitution of identicals. !thers refer to this as the +as(ed +an )allacy because of a common e)ample used to showcase the fallacy. &hat e)ample is some variation of the following: &he witness claims that the masked man committed the crime. &he witness denies that 5r. Eones committed the crime. &herefore, 5r. Eones is not the masked man. ,ubstitution of identicals, also known as 4#eibni%. #aw4, is a validating form of argument so long as the conte)t in which it occurs is e)tensional or referentially transparent. (or instance, given that 5ark &wain wrote Huc( )inn and that ,am ?lemens was the same person as 5ark &wain, then ,am ?lemens wrote Huc( )inn. &he conte)t 43 wrote >uck (inn4 is e)tensional, which means that we can validly substitute identicals within it. A quoted conte)t is an intensional 2or referentially opaque3 conte)t, as are such other conte)ts such as propositional attitudes 2belief, desire, fear3 and modal conte)ts 2necessity, possibility3. &his fallacy is an application of #eibni%. #aw within an intensional conte)t when it should only be used in an e)tensional conte)t. ,mproper ransposition &his fallacy is one of propositional logic and it is sometimes referred to as 1egating ntecedent and *onse/uent. Improper transposition occurs when the antecedent and consequent of the conclusion of a transposition are switched. &he general form of the fallacy can be given as: If p then -. &herefore, if not p then not -. ,o, think of it this way: If there is a fire, then there is smoke. &herefore, if there is no fire, then there is no smoke. !r, one related to quality assurance work: If there are estimates, then there is a project. &herefore, if there are no estimates, then there is no project.

CB

With that latter e)ample, one could argue that there is no good project without estimates but the fact is that there still can be a project. &his fallacy bears the same type of similarity to Cenying the ntecedent as ?ommutation of ?onditionals bears to Affirming the ?onsequent. #ike all of these conditional fallacies, it is most plausible when the converse of the premise is also true. Loaded 9uestion &his fallacy is also known as the complex /uestion, many /uestions, or by the #atin 'lurium Interrogationum 24many questions43. 2I have also heard this referred to as the (allacy of interrogation and sometimes as the (allacy of presupposition.3 In actuality, this is the interrogative form of the fallacy of +egging the Juestion. What we have here is a question with a false or disputed presupposition. 5aybe another way to say that is that this fallacy assumes or presupposes a certain state of affairs so that any answer involves the granting of the assumption. ,o we have a loaded question being a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is 4loaded4 with that presumption. &he famous question given as an e)ample is, 4>ave you stopped beating your wife=4 &his presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking. ,ince this e)ample is a yesHno question 2as the questioner framed it3, there are only the following two direct answers: 4Kes, I have stopped beating my wife.4 2which entails 4I was beating my wife.43 4<o, I have not stopped beating my wife.4 2which entails 4I am still beating my wife.43 &hus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. ,o, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny at least via the way that the questioner has framed the question. &he fallacy also has a more logical description and this is that two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition. &hus the person hearing the argument is e)pected to either accept or reject both points when it is, in fact, possible to accept one and not the other. 2In logic this is called a 4misuse of the .and. operator4.3 An e)ample of this might be: 4"o you support freedom and the right to bear arms=4 2>ere the proposition 4freedom4 is being touted as equivalent with 4the right to bear arms4 even though one can believe in one without necessarily believing in the other. +ut the question is loaded to try to include both.3 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, always be on the lookout for questions or arguments framed as questions that have unstated questions behind them and that make presuppositions that may not be true. Also look for arguments that seem to have an 4and4 between propositions that are not necessarily dependent or reliant upon each other. When you are presented with a loaded question 2of the 4are you still beating your wife4 variety3, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, reali%e that since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question is not a fallacious argument. 0ather, loaded questions are typically used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. ,o watch for when you are doing this to others by looking at how you frame your questions. /egative 2onclusion from Affirmative Premises &his is a syllogistic fallacy which means, in this case, that it is any form of categorical syllogism with a negative conclusion and affirmative premises. 2It is a fallacy because, by the rules of logic, any validating form of categorical syllogism with both premises affirmative has an affirmative conclusion.3 ,ometimes this fallacy is also referred to as the Illicit 1egative8 ffirmative or "ositive *onclusion81egative "remises, which are just descriptions of how the fallacy manifests. A common e)ample given for this: All mice are animals. All animals are dangerous. &herefore, some mice are dangerous.

CC

o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, one thing you can do is assume that the premises are true but that there are no instances of the category described. ,o, with the above e)ample, assume there are no mice. &his shows the conclusion is false. ;nderstand that we are dealing here with two universal presmises and the idea is that some universal premises need not be instantiated. 2In other words, it may be true that 4all trespassers will be shot4 even if there are no trespassers or it may be true that 4all brakeless trains are dangerous4 even if there are no brakeless trains. "/o rue (cotsman000" &his fallacy is an e)ample of an ad hoc change being used to bolster an argument combined with an attempt to shift meaning of the words used in the original argument. &hus we see this fallacy is actually two other fallacies combined into one: ad hoc and accent. An e)ample of this: 'erson 1: 4<o ,cotsman would put sugar on his porridge.4 'erson 7: 4Well, my friend Angus is ,cottish and he puts sugar on his porridge.4 'erson 1: 4Ah, but no true ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge.4 What happened here is that since the argument was refuted by one simple e)ample 2Angus3, the arguer shifted focus from his original intent and says that a 4true4 ,cotsman does not do this even though the definition of a 4true ,cotsman4 is missing. &his is an e)ample of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words used original assertionA you might call it a combination of fallacies. &he solution to dealing with this is to simply recogni%e that the arguer is changing his terms mid argument. &his usually occurs after an instance of something is found that refutes the original argument. /on 2ausa Pro 2ausa &he #atin may be translated directly as 4non cause for cause4 and we can paraphrase that as 4there is no cause of the sort that has been given as the cause.4 &his is also known as a false cause fallacy. &echnically speaking, two specific forms of non causa pro causa fallacy are the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. &he basic idea is that the fallacy of <on ?ausa 'ro ?ausa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. Another way to look at this is arguing so that a statement appears unacceptable because it implies another statement that is false 2but in reality does not3. ;nderstand that we are here talking about reasoning to conclusions regarding causality. ,ome logicians will describe this as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it is not, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy.s names. >owever, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake and it can be the result of reasoning which is as cogent as is possible, since all reasoning to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. Instead, to be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way. &hus, to understand causal fallacies, we must understand how causal reasoning works, and the ways in which it can go awry. ?ausal conclusions can take one of two forms: &he first such form is called 4individual level4. ,ometimes we wish to know the cause of a particular event. ,pecific events are caused by other specific events, so the conclusion we aim at in this kind of causal reasoning has the form: /vent 2 caused event E. 5istakes about event level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation. /vent 2 may occur at the same time as event E, or just before it, without being the cause of E. It may simply be happenstance that these two events occurred at about the same time. In order to find the correct event that caused an effect, we must reason from a causal law, which introduces the ne)t level of causal reasoning which is called 4type level4. A causal law has the form: /vents of type 2 cause events of type E.

C6

>ere, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. (or e)ample, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. 0ather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer. 5istakes about type level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. &wo types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. !ne common source of non causal correlations between two event types is when both are effects of a third type of event. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc In #atin this fallacy literally means 4after this, therefore because of this4. 2It is also sometimes referred to as coincidental correlation.3 'ut most simply, this fallacy occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event. &his is a type of false cause fallacy. It basically suggests that because one event follows another, the former must have caused the latter, without showing a causal link. &he general form of this fallacy is as such: /vent 2 happened immediately prior to event E. &herefore, 2 caused E. Another way we can look at the form of this is as: /vents of type 2 happen immediately prior to events of type E. &herefore, events of type 2 cause events of type E. It must be reali%ed that it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. 'ost >oc tends to manifest itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences. 'robably the best known e)ample of this are your basic superstitions. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you can try to show that the correlation being put forth in the argument is coincidental by showing that the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not occur or that the effect was caused by something other than the suggested cause. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, try to be certain that any causes you are putting forth as an argument truly did cause the effect you are referencing in your conclusions. 9uoting .ut of 2onte3t ,ometimes people lump this under the fallacy of the ccent but that is technically not true. If anything, this fallacy is a type of ambiguity based on conte)t. &his one is e)tremely obvious: to quote 4out of conte)t4 is to remove a passage from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its meaning. &he conte)t in which a passage occurs always contributes to its meaning, and the shorter the passage the larger the contribution. (or this reason, the quoter must always be careful to quote enough of the conte)t not to misrepresent the meaning of the quote. !f course, in some sense, all quotation is out of conte)t, but the fallacy only comes in with those quotes whose meaning is changed because of a loss of conte)t and which are offered as evidence in an argument. ,uch fallacious quoting can take two distinct forms. !ne of these is the straw man. >ere an opponent is quoted out of conte)t in order to misrepresent their position, thus making it easier to refute. (requently, the loss of conte)t makes the opponent 2or their argument3 sound simplistic or e)treme. &he other form is the appeal to authority, where the arguments from authority often quote the authority as a premise. >owever, it is possible to quote even legitimate authorities out of conte)t so as to misrepresent the e)pert.s opinion. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, make sure you get a citation for the quote. In other words, the author or arguer should be able to show where they got the quote from. Kou can then check if the quote was taken out of conte)t or was used to support an argument whose conte)t is quite different from what the quote was originally applying to.

CF

o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply make sure you do not quote out of conte)t. If you are quoting, either quote enough to indicate the conte)t or make it clear that you are only quoting with respect to certain elements of the conte)t that are applicable to your argument. 1ed Herring &his is an informal type of fallacy, sometimes referred to as the irrelevant thesis or the irrelevant conclusion. What this actually means is that it is a wide class of fallacies that are based on irrelevance. A 4red herring4 argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. In other words, the fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone.s attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion. &his fallacy is often known by the #atin name Ignoratio =lenchi, which translates as 4ignorance of refutation4. &he ignorance here is either ignorance of the conclusion to be refuted 2perhaps even deliberately ignoring it3 or ignorance of what constitutes a refutation, so that the attempt misses the mark. !f course, we have to reali%e that fallacies of ambiguity involve irrelevancy, in that the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, but this fact is disguised by ambiguous language. >owever, logicians tend to say that Ignoratio /lenchi as language independent, which means it is restricted to non linguistic fallacies, e)cluding those disguised by ambiguity or vagueness. >aving said the above, let us keep in mind that logical relevance is itself a vague and ambiguous notion. It is ambiguous in that different types of reasoning involve distinct types of relevance. It is vague in that there is little agreement among logicians about even deductive relevance, with logicians divided into different camps, so called 4relevance4 logicians arguing for a more restrictive notion of logical relevance than so called 4classical4 logicians. Another ambiguity of the term 4relevance4 is that logical relevance can be confused with psychological relevance. &he fact that two ideas are logically related may be one reason why one makes you think of the other, but there are other reasons, and the stream of consciousness often includes associations between ideas that are not at all logically related. 5oreover, not all logical relations are obvious, so that a logical relationship may not cause a psychological relationship at all. #et us consider, as an e)ample, a ?hristian who begins their argument by saying that they will argue that the teachings of ?hristianity are undoubtedly true. If they then argue at length that ?hristianity is of great help to many people, then it is the case that no matter how well they argue that point, they will not have shown that ?hristian teachings are true. ,adly, these kinds of irrelevant arguments are often successful, because they make people view the supposed conclusion in a more favorable light. 'erhaps another e)ample would be a lawyer who, in defending his alcoholic client who has killed three people in a drunken driving accident, argues that alcoholism is a terrible disease and attempts should be made to eliminate it. What that might be true, it is distracting from the true argument: the client who has to be determined innocent or guilty of their actions or, if guilt is assured, then the degree of punishment that should be e)acted. As a testing related e)ample, consider a manager who asks the test lead why the product shipped with so many defects. &he tester then promptly goes into a speech about how much the test team managed to test this time around and how it was much more than in previous test cycles. &he point here is that it is avoiding the question that the manager asked. While it may be true that the test team managed to test more this time around, it still does not answer why the product went out the door with a lot of defects. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, try to show that the conclusion proved by the arguer is not the conclusion that the arguer set out to prove. If you were the manager in my above e)ample, you could tell the tester that while they might have proved they were able to test more, they have not answered why they were not able to test more effectively. o avoid committing t"is fallacy make sure that when you are presenting some sort of conclusion that it actually is a reasonable conclusion to the argument you were responding to. 1eification

CG

&his fallacy is also called hypostati%ation. &his fallacy is encountered when, in an argument, a concept that is abstract is treated as though it were concrete. (or e)ample: 4Kou say you .love. me but you cannot prove your .love. to me so therefore you must not .love. me.4 Anyone who has been in a relationship can relate to this one and here the problem is love: it is an abstract concept. &he only means of 4proving love4 is in actions, but even that only works if one equates 4love4 with certain actions as opposed to an abstract concept. Another e)ample: 4,ome people are described as being .evil. but since no one can point to an .evil. gene or a location in the brain that shows .evil,. we have to conclude that .evil. does not e)ist.4 >ere the problem is evil: it is not being recogni%ed that 4evil4 is a term used to describe certain types of actions or behaviors and not to a particular physical or mental ailment. &he solution here is to recogni%e when a term is being used in a concrete fashion when, by everyday recogni%ed usage, it is not used as such, but rather as a reference to an abstract concept. (cope Fallacy &his is actually a type of amphiboly. &he word 4scope4 in this conte)t is a little bit restricted in its notion. &he common e)ample given to understand this is to consider the phrase: 4All that glitters is not gold.4 &his proposition is ambiguous because the scope of the negation is ambiguous. &here are two possible scopes, and thus two possible interpretations of the saying. !ne is a narrow scope which suggests that the 4not4 negates the predicate 4is gold4, so that the saying is equivalent to: 4All that glitters is non gold.4 &his is the most literal interpretation of the proposition, since the negation actually occurs in the middle of the predicate. >owever, since gold does glitter, this interpretation makes the saying into a false proposition. &he other way to look at this is via broad scope where the 4not4 negates the entire rest of the sentence, that is: 4All that glitters is gold4. In other words, the proposition is equivalent to: 41ot all that glitters is gold.4 &his, of course, is the correct interpretation, meaning that some things which glitter are non gold. #ogical terms such as 4not4 have a scope and this refers to a part of the proposition in which they occur that they affect logically. (or e)ample, 4not4 logically negates some part of the proposition or the proposition taken as a whole, and this is its scope. In the artificial languages of logic, scope ambiguity is avoided by conventions for interpreting propositions and by introducing additional punctuation, usually parentheses, to indicate scope. In natural languages, while there are various grammatical devices to indicate scope, ambiguity is still frequent. !ften, natural language is disambiguated by common sense knowledge that we bring to our interpretations. (or instance, in the e)ample, we automatically reject the first interpretation because that would make the proposition false. &hus, scope ambiguity in natural language is often not obvious until pointed out. With all of this, since this is a type of structural ambiguity, and not equivocation on the meaning of words, scope ambiguity is a type of amphiboly. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you have to note the types of logical and grammatical categories that have scope. &hese are the ones that are most liable to ambiguities of scope. ,o consider, for e)ample, propositional connectives 24not4, 4and4, 4or4, etc3 and /uantifiers 24every4, 4some4, etc3. Kou can also consider modalities, which are things like 4possibly4, 4believes4, 4ought4, etc. It is these kinds of structures that are most likely to contain scope fallacies so when hearing them, you should be watchful. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, try to be watchful of the argument structures you create. #ook if you are using scope categories of grammar or logic and then determine the different interpretations that are possible. !nce you decide on the interpretation you want to convey, make sure you word your argument accordingly. (lippery (lope &his fallacy is of a type of vagueness in the argumentation. ,ometimes this fallacy is called the 4misuse of if then4 and what this means is that an argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. >owever, there is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. &he basic e)ample of this is that in order to show that a proposition P is unacceptable, a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from P. &hat is why a slippery slope is an illegitimate use of the 4if then4 operator. !ne e)ample of this might be something like the following: 4If we pass laws against

C@

fully automatic weapons, then it will not be long before we pass laws on all weapons, and then we will begin to restrict other rights, and finally we will end up living in a communist state. &hus, we should not ban fully automatic weapons.4. !bviously the idea here is that you are presenting an argument that taking one action puts one on a slope that is 4slippery4, meaning you go crashing down. &here are two related types of fallacy that are often subsumed under the common title 4slippery slope4 and we should look at those. &he first of these is a semantic slippery slope. >ere the general form is: A differs from C by a continuum of insignificant changes, and there is no non arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two can be drawn. &herefore, there is really no difference between A and C. &his type plays upon the vagueness of the distinction between two terms that lie on a continuum. As an e)ample, the concepts of 4bald4 and 4hairy4 lie at opposite ends of a spectrum of hairiness. &his continuum is the 4slope4, and it is the lack of a non arbitrary line between hairiness and baldness that makes it 4slippery4. 2&his e)ample is often used because this fallacy is sometimes called, informally, the (allacy of the +eard.3 >owever, we have to reali%e that, with the above, it does not follow from the fact that there is no sharp, non arbitrary line between 4bald4 and 4hairy4 that there really is no difference between the two. A difference in degree is still a difference and a big enough difference in degree can amount to a difference in kind. &he other version of the fallacy is the causal slippery slope. >ere the form is: If A is permitted, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, 2, ..., D, E, eventually C will be too. We should not permit C. &herefore, we should not permit A. &his goes back to the firearm e)ample I gave before. &his is based upon the claim that allowing a controversial type of action will lead inevitably to allowing some admittedly bad type of action. It is the slide from A to C via the intermediate steps B through E that is the 4slope4, and the smallness of each step that makes it 4slippery4. &his type of argument is by no means invariably fallacious but the strength of the argument is inversely proportional to the number of steps between A and C and directly proportional to the causal strength of the connections between adjacent steps. If there are many intervening steps, and the causal connections between them are weak, or even unknown, then the resulting argument will be very weak, if not downright fallacious. &here are many debates in many areas of study over e)actly where to draw the line between concepts that lie on continua. &his leads to the search for a non arbitrary distinction between concepts which lie upon continua in conceptual space. &he logical attitude towards such problems is to avoid them if at all possibleA but if a decision cannot be avoided, then draw an arbitrary line in the gray %one and stick with it. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, identify the proposition being refuted and identify the final event in the series of events. &hen show that this final event need not occur as a consequence of the original proposition. <ote, however, that sometimes certain events do have cascade events that follow from them. ,o it is important to truly consider when an argument is and is not on a slippery slope or, rather, one should consider if the slippery slope is, in fact, a valid probability. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, make sure your understand the set of intermediate steps between your premise and your conclusion and make sure that there is some sort of causal relationship between the final conclusion and where you started from. (tra# &an &he straw man fallacy is the perfect e)ample of the red herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent.s position but instead attacks a position that is actually not held by his opponent. ,o, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the 4straw man4 he has set up. What this amounts to is when an arguer misrepresents someone else.s position so that it can be attacked more easily, then knock down that misrepresented position, and then finally conclude that the original position has been demolished.

68

&his is 2obviously3 a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. An e)ample of this in the testing world might be something like: 4&he developers claim they do not have enough time to do unit testing. &hey obviously do not care about testing at all4 >ere the idea that the developers 4do not care about testing4 is the straw man argument. After all, it may very well be true that the developers do not have enough time to do unit testing. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy you have to reali%e when a 4straw man4 has been set up. &his means making sure that the position being argued against has not, in fact, been misrepresented in some fashion. If you find that this has happened, your best bet is to simply point out that the argument that was refuted was not, in fact, the argument that was originally made. o avoid committing t"is fallacy simply do not misrepresent someone.s argument by using a weaker 2and misrepresented3 version of the argument. "eal with their argument on the grounds with which it was presented. (tyle .ver (u!stance &his kind of fallacy is very often used, many times completely unconsciously. &he idea behind this fallacy is that it is believed that the manner in which an argument 2or arguer3 is presented is taken to affect the likelihood that the conclusion is true. (or e)ample, if we assume a given politician lost the election simply because at one of his debates, he stumbled over his words a couple of times, we might be guilty of this fallacy. #ikewise, a very charismatic speaker may be able to sway a crowd to his or her viewpoint but that does not automatically make the speaker accurate. Another e)ample might be assuming that a salesman, who happens to be very well dressed, must be selling good products. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you have to notice if someone seems to be swayed more by the style of the argument or the arguer rather than its actual substance. &his is not to say that style should not have its place, but if it is the sole reason one accepts the argument or the arguer.s position, regardless of the actual substance of the argument, there is a problem. We have to reali%e that while it is true that the manner in which an argument is presented will affect whether people believe that its conclusion is true, nonetheless, the truth of the conclusion does not necessarily depend on the manner in which the argument is presented. In order to show that this fallacy is being committed, show that the style in this case does not affect the truth or falsity of the conclusion. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, regardless of whether or not you have a certain 4flair4 in your style of argumentation 2such as e)cellent use of vocabularly or e)tended styles of discourse3, reali%e that you should also have actual substance to your argument. u 9uo-ue &his is the famous 4you too4 or 4you also4 fallacy. 2(rom the direct #atin we should probably render it more as 4you are another4. &his is a very common fallacy where someone attempts to defend themselves or someone else from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. &his is basically a type of red herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. >owever, as a diversionary tactic, &u Juoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation. &his is just a short step away from the situation where someone argues that an action is acceptable because their opponent has performed it. (or e)ample: 'erson A: 4Kou are just being stubborn.4 'erson +: 4,o= Kou have been stubborn, too.4 !bviously the implication here is that since 'erson A was stubborn, it is okay for 'erson + to be stubborn as well. In a manner of speaking, as one can see, this is a type of personal attack, albeit a more subtle one in some ways, and is therefore a special case of the fallacy known as the Argumentum ad hominem. &his also sort of falls in line with the thinking that 4two wrongs make a right4. An e)ample: 4Eohn has often been caught eavesdropping on people.s conversations, therefore I should not be condemned for my own

61

eavesdropping.4 We can look at this fallacy in a few different ways as well. !ne e)ample of this kind of fallacy is the act of presenting evidence that a person.s actions are not consistent with that for which they are arguing. >ere is an e)ample: 4Alan preaches that we should not kill people. Ket, he is in prison for killing someone.4 !bviously not killing people is a valid argument, regardless of whether the person who argues for it does not always practice those principles. Another e)ample of this is showing that a person.s views are inconsistent with what they previously believed and therefore assuming one of two things holds true: either 213 they are not to be trusted, andHor 273 their new view is to be rejected. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, notice when someone seems to be hinging their argument on a 4well, you did it too4 approach. (or e)ample, in testing perhaps you once decided against formal test planning because of a time crunch and that ended up hurting your test effort. <ow one of your colleagues is going to skip test planning. When you tell them this is a bad idea, they respond with: 4Well, you did it once, too.4 >ere they are turning the argument back on you instead of defending why they are not going to write a test plan. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, do not relate your argument or its conclusion back to what someone else did unless you are showing that what they did directly speaks to the validity of your conclusion other than that they just happened to do it. (or e)ample, if one of your managers asks you why you are not estimating the time on your test cycles, do not just respond with: 4Well, so and so never does estimates either.4 Instead point out e)actly why you are not doing estimates. 2'erhaps you are not able to or perhaps the environment is in too early of a state.3 #o +rongs &a%e A 1ig"t &his fallacy is quite obvious on the surface: it involves the attempt to justify a wrong action by pointing to another wrong action. !ften, the other wrong action is of the same type or committed by the accuser, in which case it is the subfallacy &u Duo/ue. It is important to distinguish the logical fallacy of &wo Wrongs 5ake a 0ight from the basic notion of retaliation or punishment. &his is important because in the latter case, while we might question on moral grounds we could not really do so on strictly logical grounds. As an e)apmle, when children defend themselves by hitting another child on the grounds of 4they started it4, they may be morally to blame 2if you believe they should have turned the other cheek3, but not logically. &his fallacy is committed when the action being defended is neither retaliatory nor retributive. Attempting to justify committing a wrong on the grounds that someone else is guilty of another wrong is clearly a red herring because if this form of argument were cogent, one could justify anything: murder, terrorism, robbery, adultery, etc. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, pay attention when someone is justifying questionable behavior by using another e)ample of that same kind of questionable behavior. (or e)ample, if someone at your company tells you it is okay for the organi%ation to have illegal copies of certain software because people pirate softare all the time, point out that the fact that people do use pirated software does not serve as an adequate justification 2at least logically3 for the organi%ation doing it. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, just recogni%e that pointing to another instance of a similar activity that is wrong or illegal is not justification for that activity being done by someone else 2such as yourself3. (or e)ample, saying that it is okay for you to cheat at writing your thesis because other students do the same thing is an e)ample of using their wrong behavior 2cheating3 as a justification for your own. 5ndistri!uted &iddle &his fallacy is sometimes referred to as the undistributed middle term. Kou might also here it referred to, generally, as 4A is based on +4 fallacies or even as 4...is a type of...4 fallacies. It is a syllogistic fallacy that applies when any categorical syllogism is put forth where the middle term is not distributed at least once. +asically, the fallacy occurs when an argument is put forth that attempts to show that certain things are similar but does not specify in what way they are similar. In more technical terms, the middle term in the premises of an argument never refers to all the members of a particular category that it is describing. As an e)ample: 4All trespassers are shot, and someone was shot, therefore that someone was a trespasser.4

67

>ere the middle term in the premises is 4shot.4 While it is true that 4someone4 and 4trespassers4 can share the property of being 4shot4 it does not follow that the someone in question was, in fact, a trespasser. Another e)ample: 4Islam is based on faith and ?hristianity is based on faith, so Islam must be a form of ?hristianity.4 >ere the middle term is 4faith.4 While it is true that Islam and ?hristianity are 2to a certain e)tent3 based on faith, it does not follow that both are therefore the same thing or derived from each other. A testing related e)ample might be something like this: 4"efects are entered in the tracking database, change requests are entered in the tracking database, therefore defects and change requests are the same thing.4 With this the middle term is 4entered4 2as in, 4entered in the tracking database43 but just because both entities are entered in the same tracking database 2sharing the property of being entered in3 does not mean that they are the e)act same thing. 2&hat becomes very important because when one reali%es something is not the same thing, it also suggests that perhaps they are not treated in e)actly the same way.3 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, show that the two categories in the conclusion or an argument could be separate groups or totally unrelated even though they do share a common property. In the case of one of my e)amples above, show it is possible for someone other than a trespasser to be shot. With the other e)ample, show that both entities, Islam and ?hristianity, are part of a larger category called 4religion4 and happen to share the property of faith since most religions have a component of faith in them. With the testing e)ample, show that a change request and a defect, while entered into the same database, should be handled somewhat differently. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply work out the logic of your arguments to make sure you are distributing your middle term. As an e)ample, consider that you have an argument such that you say the following: 4All P.s are 9.s.4 4All &.s are 9.s.4 &hen, from that, you draw the conclusion that 4All P.s are &.s.4 ,ubstitute the terms of your argument in place of the letters and see if your conclusion makes sense. As an e)ample, replace P with 4programmers4, replace & with 4testers4, and replace 9 with 4intelligent4. What you get is: 4All programmers are intelligent.4 4All testers are intelligent.4 <ow your conclusion becomes: 4All programmers are testers.4. Is that true in your e)perience= "oes the conclusion hold= 5n-ualified (ource &his fallacy refers to those situations during an argument where someone uses, as support of the argument, a source of authority that is not qualified to provide evidence. !ne should note that this fallacy differs from another fallacy known as nonymous uthorities. In that latter case, the source of authority is not even known. In this case, the source generally is known but is not considered qualified to be used relative to specific points in an argument. As an e)ample, a tester who never worked with a programming language in their life making a lot of 4suggestions4 to developers on how they should code is potentially an unqualified source. #ikewise, a developer that has only a passing familiarity with testing concepts and no familiarity at all with process concepts, would be an unqualified source in terms of arguing for or against a lot of quality related decisions. !ne has to note, however, that it is important to determine if a source is, in fact, qualified to hold their opinion for or against a given argument. (or e)ample, a tester can also be a very efficient programmer and a developer may have a great deal of knowledge regarding various types of processes. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, simply make sure you are aware of the credentials of the sources that

69

are being provided when they are used to bolster the conclusion of an argument. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, make sure that any sources you are using to help you in your arguments are, in fact, qualified sources. Also make sure that they are qualified for the area that you are talking about. Eust as in a courtroom where there are 4e)pert witnesses4, it is reali%ed that they are only 4e)pert4 in their field or area of study. 5nrepresentative (ample &his fallacy is also known as the $iased .ample and is, in form, a type of weak analogy. &his is sort of a statistical fallacy and what it means is that the sample used in an inductive inference is relevantly different from the population as a whole. In general form, we can say this would be an argument of the following form: /: of sample ( has characteristic 2. 2Where ( is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.3 &herefore, /: of population P has characteristic 2. &he strength of a statistical inference like this is determined by the degree to which the sample is representative of the population, that is, how similar in the relevant respects the sample and population are. 2When a sample perfectly represents a population, statistical inferences are actually deductive enthymemes. !therwise, they are inductive inferences.3 &he reason this falls under a type of weak analogy, like I said before, is that since the strength of statistical inferences depend upon the similarity of the sample and population, they are really a species of arguing from an analogy 2which relies on similarities3, and the strength of the inference varies directly with the strength of the analogy. &hus, a statistical inference will commit the fallacy of an unrepresentative sample when the similarity between the sample and population is too weak to support the conclusion. &here are two main ways that a sample can fail to sufficiently represent the population. &he first way is where the sample is simply too small to represent the population, in which case the argument will actually commit the subfallacy of the Hasty %eneralization. &he second way is where the sample is biased in some way as a result of not having been chosen randomly from the population. &he important thing for the sampel is representativeness, not si%e. ,mall samples can be representative, and even a sample of one is sufficient in some cases. A simple e)ample of this might be something like this: 4&o see how Americans will vote in the ne)t election we polled a hundred people in ?hicago. &his shows conclusively that the 0epublican 'arty will sweep the polls.4 >owever, perhaps ?hicago is normally a 0epublican venue and, as such, that kind of small sample, from just one location may not be indicative of how Americans throughout the country will vote. 2It might not even be indicative of how people in Illinois, of which ?hicago is only one city, will vote.3 o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you can try to show how the sample is relevantly different from the population as a whole then show that because the sample is different, the conclusion is at least potentially different. An e)ample of this related to testing might be testing a small subset of an application that was not all that comple), finding no defects, and declaring that because no defects were found in that one area, the application is probably free of defects. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply make sure that the sample you are using to bolster your argument is, in fact, indicative of a true state of affairs and that the sample is not too small and that it was chosen randomly. "efect forecasting relative to test cases is a good e)ample where a subset sample of test cases that is too small will bias the measurements towards the conclusion that there are potentially less defects than their are and a lack of random choosing of sample test cases will not correctly represent various areas that can be tested. >agueness &his is a type of informal fallacy and it is very common. At the simplest level of discussion, vagueness is a characteristic of language, specifically of those terms which classify or qualify objects common nouns and adjectives. ,uch terms divide the world of objects into those the term applies to the extension of the term and those to which it does not. (or e)ample, the common noun 4raven4 divides the world into

6B

ravens and non ravens. What characteri%es a vague term is the e)istence of borderline cases which do not clearly belong or not belong to its e)tension. (or e)ample, consider the familiar concept of 4chair4. ,ome things are clearly chairs and others are clearly not for instance, a horse is not a chair even though you might sit upon one. +ut there are many borderline cases as well, such as stools, beanbag 4chairs4, etc. *agueness is to be distinguished from ambiguity but, with no pun intended, the distinction is vague. An ambiguous term is one with more than one meaning, whereas vagueness is characteristic of a single meaning that has borderline cases. >owever, with that said, it is not unusual for a term to be both ambiguous and vague. *agueness is a pervasive characteristic of language and there is no reason to think that it can or should be eliminated. &his is because many things in the world that we wish to distinguish lie upon qualitative scales rather than strict quantitative scales. 2?onsider the notions of love, justice, and morality as just a few e)amples.3 5oreover, the strict fallacy of vagueness occurs only when the appearance of soundness in an argument depends upon vagueness in its terms. &he mere fact of vagueness is not sufficient to justify an accusation of fallacy but it is sometimes a linguistic boobytrap which can cause the unsuspecting person to fall into fallacious reasoning. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, note when an argument or its conclusion seem to rely on terms within it that are vague to some e)tent. In an e)ample that fits in with the world of quality assurance, consider the statement: 4I am confident that the project will succeed because we will have a quality process in place.4 >ere the conclusion that the project will succeed rests upon the notion of whatever the 4quality process4 is. +ut without further details, that is somewhat vague and certainly is not proof that the project will succeed. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, be aware of vague terms and be on your guard against using them in your own arguments or to offer them as proof of your conclusion. !ftentimes we prefer to just state our overall case rather than go into details which necessarily means a little vagueness. +ut be aware that others will potentially see that vagueness and want more details. >olvo Fallacy At first I was a little hesitant to include this oneA not because what it speaks to is not a type of fallacy, but rather because by this name it is largely unknown. &hen again, there were enough references to it to make me include it, suggesting it is known at least in various circles. In any event, I kept the name as it is. &his kind of fallacy is actually of a type known as the biased sample. &o understand this fallacy, we have to reali%e that people tend to judge the probabilities of certain types of event by using what is called the 4availability4 or 4ease of representation4, heuristic. What this heuristic states is that, all things being equal, the easier it is to remember, or to imagine, a type of event, the more likely it is that an event of that type will occur. #ike all rules of thumb, the ease of remembering or imagining 24representing43a type of event is usually good evidence of the degree of likelihood in ordinary circumstances. Instances of a type of event which we frequently e)perience will be easily remembered so that that type will be correctly judged to be likely by the heuristic. ,imilarly, if there are many ways that a kind of event can come about, then it will be easy to imagine and also likely to happen. 5oreover, if one has a hard time remembering an event of a given sort, then it is probably rare and unlikely. Also, if we cannot even imagine it, then there is probably almost no way for it to occur. >owever, as with all rules of thumb, there are circumstances in which the heuristic leads to false results. After all, unusual events do happen, and if they happen to us then we tend to overestimate their likeliness when using the 4availability heuristic4. &he *olvo (allacy, in particular, occurs when the vividness of a recent memory, or the strikingness of an unusual event, leads one to overestimate the probability of events of that type occurring, especially if one has access to better evidence of the frequency of such events. I am really not sure how this fallacy got its name e)cept from the oft quoted anecdote that goes something like this: 4I have heard that *olvo is a brand of automobile with a reputation for safety. >owever, my neighbor is in the hospital after having a wreck in his brand new *olvo. Kou will not see me buying a *olvo &hey are total pieces of junk4 &his is an e)ample of the fallacy, since the speaker is allowing the vividness in his mind of his neighbor.s recent misfortune to override what he knows about *olvos in general, particularly since nothing is stated to lead one to believe that the accident occurred because of some intrinsic property of the *olvo. As another

6C

common e)ample, ask yourself this: In written /nglish te)t, is the letter < more likely to occur as the first letter or as the third letter in words of more than three letters= Well, in actual fact, the letter < is more frequent in the third position than in the first position in /nglish te)ts. >owever, most people who try to answer this question 2using the aforementioned 4availability heuristic43 rather than counting the occurrences of first and third letter < words in some sample /nglish te)t will come to the reverse conclusion. &his is because it is easier to think of words beginning with a letter than to think of those with that letter in some other position. &hus, first letter words are more cognitively available than are third letter words. ,o, this e)periment shows one way in which cognitive availability can mislead about frequency. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, I guess the best thing to do is recogni%e when someone seems to be inflating a certain claim based on what appears to be a singular instance or a biased viewpoint. (or e)ample, if you have a manager that refuses to allow a separate JA group because 4JA groups that are separate become totalitarian4, find out if this is just based on one e)perience at one company that was particularly bad for this manager. It might be this e)perience that is sticking in his mind, to the e)clusion of other possibilities or other e)periences. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, try to recogni%e when you are judging the likelihood or probablility of an occurrence based on one bad e)perience or event. (or e)ample, let us say that you are telling people to e)pect the ne)t release to be horribly defect ridden because, after all, there was one release before that was real bad. >owever, perhaps you are overlooking other releases that actually went quite smoothly. +ea% Analogy &his is a type of informal fallacy. It is often referred to by different names such as false analogy, faulty analogy, or /uestionable analogy. I placed it under the 4weak4 definition simply because that is how most people tend to use the term. Also it can be argued that the term 4false analogy4 is actually somewhat misleading. Analogies are neither true nor falseA instead they come in degrees from near identity to e)treme dissimilarity. We have to reali%e that no analogy is perfect and there is always some difference between analogs. If this were not the case, they would not be two analogous objects, but only one object and the relation would be one of identity, not analogy. We also have to reali%e that there is always some similarity between any two objects, no matter how different. (or e)ample, #ewis ?arroll once posed the following nonsense riddle: 4>ow is a raven like a writing desk=4 &he real point of the riddle was that they are not alike. 2,ome clever readers would answer this as 4+ecause 'oe wrote on both.43 As another e)ample, consider a putative book of the ?ollected ,tatutes of <ew $ealand and another book on the ?ollected 0ecipes of Eulia ?hilds. Any analogy between these two disparate writings is hard to imagine and yet one could point out 2weakly3 that each has a concern with the integrity of lamb. ,ome arguments from analogy are based on analogies that are so weak that the argument is too weak for the purpose to which it is put. >ow strong an argument needs to be depends upon the conte)t in which it occurs and the use that it is intended to serve. &hus, in the absence of other evidence, and as a guide to further research, even a very weak analogical argument may be strong enough. &herefore, while the strength of an argument from analogy depends upon the strength of the analogy in its premises, it is not solely determined by that strength. ,o, again, the idea here is to look for instances when someone takes two or more objects which are similar in some ways and makes an unwarranted inference about the additional ways in which such objects could be similar. If you want it in strict logical language, two objects 2or events3, A and B, are shown to be similar. &hen it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. &he analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, identify the two objects or events being compared and the property which both are said to possess. ,how that the two objects are different in a way which will affect whether they both have that property.

66

o avoid committing t"is fallacy, simply make sure that if you are using an argument from an analogy, that the argument holds up well under scrutiny. If you are proposing some property that two things have, make sure there is nothing that suggests against both having that property. A simple 2and simplistic3 e)ample might be if you say something like: 4Well, "eveloper -roup A wrote 5odule 1 and we found no errors with it at all. "eveloper -roup A also wrote 5odule 7 and while we have not tested it, it should contain no errors.4. "epending upon how similar 5odule 1 is to 5odule 7, this may not be correct. (or e)ample, perhaps 5odule 7 is much more comple) than 5odule 1. +is"ful "in%ing &his is an e)ample of an emotional appeal. &his fallacy refers to believing something because of a desire 24wish43 to believe it is true. As a logical fallacy, wishful thinking is an argument whose premise e)presses a desire for the conclusion to be true, usually regardless of the evidence. &his fallacy usually takes the form of a bias towards the belief in P, which leads to the overestimating of the weight of evidence in favor of P, as well as the underestimating of the weight of evidence against P. Wishful thinking is often practiced, promoted, and tolerated under names like 4positive thinking4, 4optimism4, and 4faith4. As e)amples of this, religious faith has frequently been claimed to be either a virtue or a duty. As such to believe in the tenets of a faith without evidence, or even despite counterevidence, is sometimes regarded as more admirable than to believe on good evidence. &hat is an e)ample of wishful thinking. !ne can also consider a pragmatic or prudential defense of wishful thinking, which is based on the claim that one stands to gain from such belief and that this is a sufficient reason to believe. &he thing to notice about the pragmaticHprudential defense is that it does not necessarily claim that the statement believed on faith will actually be true or is even li(ely to be true. 0ather the claim is that one can gain in some way by believing something that may be false. In the world of testing and quality assurance we often see wishful thinking employed in a lot of things like scheduling and various types of estimates. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you simply have to point out when a person seems to be biased in favor of a particular conclusion even when there is no evidence for that conclusion or when there is actually evidence that speaks against the conclusion. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, always question your motives for taking on a certain conclusion. 5ake sure you have arrived at a stance on a given conclusion based on a firm understanding of what evidence e)ists for that conclusion, particularly relative to any counterevidence that may be e)tant. +rong Direction &his is an e)ample of a causal fallacy. In a wrong direction fallacy, the relation between cause and effect is reversed. ,ome common e)amples of this would be: 4?ancer causes smoking.4 4&he increase in AI", was caused by more se) education.4

In the first case it is actually the reverse: it is smoking that can potentially cause cancer. In the second case it is, in fact, that the increase and emphasis in se) education was, in part, caused by the spread of AI",. o deal #it" t"is %ind of fallacy, you should try to give a causal argument showing that the relation between cause and effect has been reversed. ,ometimes what is the cause and effect can be somewhat subtle so you have to be sure that what you are seeing is truly a reversal. o avoid committing t"is fallacy, be careful reversing cause and effect. It might seem that this would be easy but, as I said before, some e)tended arguments or situations might have subtle cause and effect situations such that it is possible to see an effect as a cause or a cause as an effect. As an e)ample of a subtlety that may be applicable to the testing and quality assurance world, consider this statement: 4&he act of testing causes one to have a quality mentality.4 !ne could certainly argue that because you could argue that long practice and e)perience with testing gets one to a state of having a quality mentality. >owever, one could equally argue that having a quality mentality is a prerequisite to testing. &he idea

6F

here is that the distinction between cause and effect is blurred. As an additional comment when looking at this sort of fallacy one has to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. (or e)ample, a common argument used is the 4prediction4 of high values of intelligence quotients based on height. &his is not an e)ample of the wrong direction fallacy because, in this case, no claim is being made that height causes high intelligence, but rather that there is a correlation between intelligence and height. An e)ample of this applied to the quality assurance world might be when people discuss how the estimates used caused the project plans to be off from reality when, in fact, the project plans probably are what established some of the estimates in the first place. Ket another e)ample might be that the test team is blamed for the product shipping late when, in fact, the actual problem were delays in getting defects fi)ed so that they could be re tested. ,o there is a correlation between the testing cycles and the late release but that is not the actual cause. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH Fallacies of Distraction (alse "ilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are multiple options (rom Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false ,lippery ,lope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn ?omple) Juestion: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition Appeals to 5otives in 'lace of ,upport Appeal to (orce: the reader is persuaded to agree by force Appeal to 'ity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy ?onsequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences 'rejudicial #anguage: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author 'opularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true ?hanging the ,ubject Attacking the 'erson: 213 the person.s character is attacked 273 the person.s circumstances are noted 293 the person does not practise what is preached Appeal to Authority: 213 the authority is not an e)pert in the field 273 e)perts in the field disagree 293 the authority was joking, sarcastic, or in some other way not being serious ,tyle !ver ,ubstance: the manner in which an argument 2or arguer3 is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion ,nductive Fallacies >asty -enerali%ation: the sample is too small to support an inductive generali%ation about a population

6G

;nrepresentative ,ample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar ,lothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary Fallacy of E3clusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is e)cluded from consideration Fallacies ,nvolving (tatistical (yllogisms Accident: a generali%ation is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an e)ception ?onverse Accident : an e)ception is applied in circumstances where a generali%ation should apply 2ausal Fallacies =oint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause ,nsignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect +rong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed 2omple3 2ause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect &issing t"e Point +egging the Juestion: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises ,rrelevant 2onclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion (tra# &an: the author attacks an argument different from 2and weaker than3 the opposition.s best argument Fallacies of Am!iguity E-uivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations 2ategory Errors 2omposition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property /on (e-uitur Affirming the ?onsequent: any argument of the form: If A then +, +, therefore A

6@

"enying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then +, <ot A, thus <ot + Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true (yllogistic Errors Fallacy of Four erms: a syllogism has four terms 5ndistri!uted &iddle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property ,llicit &a6or: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate ,llicit &inor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject Fallacy of E3clusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises Fallacy of Dra#ing an Affirmative 2onclusion From a /egative Premise: as the name implies E3istential fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises Fallacies of E3planation (u!verted (upport 2&he phenomenon being e)plained doesn.t e)ist3 /on)support 2/vidence for the phenomenon being e)plained is biased3 5ntesta!ility 2&he theory which e)plains cannot be tested3 Limited (cope 2&he theory which e)plains can only e)plain one thing3 Limited Dept" 2&he theory which e)plains does not appeal to underlying causes3 Fallacies of Definition oo Broad 2&he definition includes items which should not be included3 oo /arro# 2&he definition does not include all the items which should be included3 Failure to Elucidate 2&he definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined3 2ircular Definition 2&he definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition3 2onflicting 2onditions 2&he definition is self contradictory3

F8

5n#arranted E3trapolation &he tendency to make huge predictions about the future on the basis of a few small facts is a common logical fallacy. 2see Inductive fallacies, >asty -enerali%ation3 Logical Fallacies Handlist: (allacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is 2a3 unintelligent or 2b3 deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others. arguments so a false line of reasoning won.t fool you. &hink of this as intellectual kung fu: the art of self defense in a debate. (or e)tra impact, learn both the #atin terms and the /nglish equivalents. In general, one useful way to organi%e fallacies is by category. We have below fallacies of relevance, component fallacies, fallacies of ambiguity, and fallacies of omission. We will discuss each type in turn. &he last point to discuss is !ccam.s ra%or. Fallacies .f 1elevance: &hese fallacies appeal to evidence or e)amples that are not relevant to the argument at hand. Appeal to Force 2Argumentum ad baculum or the 45ight 5akes 0ight4 (allacy3: &his argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 7P7MB, an opponent.s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don.t agree with his claim doesn.t change the truth of an issue. #ogically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. &he fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. &he fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash financial, professional, and so on. /)ample: 4,uperintendent, you should cut the school budget by Q16,888. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.4 While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. #obbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators. constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn.t vote the way they want. &eachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers or risk failing the class. <ote that it isnRt a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class. 7enetic Fallacy: &he genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy because of its geographic origin. 4&hat car can.t possibly be any good It was made in Eapan4 !r, 4Why should I listen to her argument= ,he comes from ?alifornia, and we all know those people are flakes.4 !r, 4>a I.m not reading that book. It was published in &ennessee, and we know all &ennessee folk are hillbillies and rednecks4 &his type of fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or personal attack, appearing immediately below. Personal Attac% 2Argumentum ad hominem, literally, 4argument toward the man.4 Also called 4'oisoning the Well 43: Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing the argument itself. &his practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself. &he statement 47P7MB4 is true regardless if is stated by criminals, congressmen, or pastors. &here are two subcategories: 213 A!usive: &o argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they originate with atheists, ?hristians, ?ommunists, capitalists, the Eohn +irch ,ociety, ?atholics, anti

F1

?atholics, racists, anti racists, feminists, misogynists 2or any other group3 is fallacious. &his persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or logic concerning the issue at hand. &his is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti intellectual would argue otherwise. 273 2ircumstantial: &o argue that an opponent should accept an argument because of circumstances in his or her life. If one.s adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. &o argue that, because the reader is a 0epublican or "emocrat, she must vote for a specific measure is likewise a circumstantial fallacy. &he opponent.s special circumstances have no control over the truth of a specific contention. &his is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies. Argumentum ad Populum 2#iterally 4Argument to the people3: ;sing an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An e)ample of this type of argument is ,hakespeare.s version of 5ark Antony.s funeral oration for Eulius ?aesar. &here are three basic approaches: 213 Band#agon Fallacy: S/verybody is doing it.O &his argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. (or instance, SGC: of consumers purchase I+5 computers rather than 5acintoshA all those people canRt be wrong. I+5 must make the best computers.O 'opular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, GC: of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority.s belief didn.t mean the earth really was flat when they believed it Deep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy. 273 Patriotic Approac": 4"raping oneself in the flag.4 &his argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain e)tent. &he best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will e)ercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours. 293 (no! Approac": &his type of argumentum ad populum doesnRt assert Severybody is doing it,O but rather that Sall the best people are doing it.O (or instance, SAny true intellectual would recogni%e the necessity for studying logical fallacies.O &he implication is that anyone who fails to recogni%e the truth of the authorRs assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recogni%e that necessity. In all three of these e)amples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is trueA he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. (or ?hristian students in religious schools like ?arson <ewman, we might add a fourth category, 4?overing !neself in the ?ross.4 &his argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow 4?hristian,4 and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an 4un ?hristian4 or 4godless4 manner. 2It is similar to the patriotic approach e)cept it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism3. /)amples include the various 4?hristian *oting -uides4 that appear near election time, many of them published by non ?hurch related organi%ations with hidden financialHpolitical agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Deep in mind 5oliere.s question in &artuffe: 4Is not a face quite different than a mask=4 ?hristians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it.

F7

Appeal to radition 2Argumentum ad traditio3: &his line of thought asserts that a premise must be true because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: SEefferson ?ity has kept its urban growth boundary at si) miles for the past thirty years. &hat has been good enough for thirty years, so why should we change it now= If it ainRt broke, donRt fi) it.O ,uch an argument is appealing in that it seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. 5ight an alternative policy work even better than the old one= Are there drawbacks to that long standing policy= Are circumstances changing from the way they were thirty years ago= Appeal to Aut"ority 2Argumentum ad verecundium, literally 4argument from that which is improper43: An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. &his fallacy attempts to capitali%e upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individualRs e)pertise is within a strict field of knowledge. !n the other hand, to cite /instein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. &o cite "arwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. &o cite ?ardinal ,pellman on legal problems is fallacious. &he worst offenders usually involve movie stars and psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to +iased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, 4&o determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents.4 !r again, 4&o find out whether or not sludge mining really is endangering the &uskogee salamander.s breeding grounds, we interviewed the supervisors of the sludge mines, who declared there is no problem.4 Indeed, it is important to get 4both viewpoints4 on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments. Appeal to Emotion 2Argumentum ad misericordiam, literally, 4argument from pity43: An emotional appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to reinforce a readerRs sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for the sake of getting the reader to accept a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy. (or e)ample, in the 1GG8s, prosecutors in a *irginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was guilty of murdering his parents with an a). &he defense presented a 4not guilty4 plea for on the grounds that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. &his appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he did the crime.?!5'!</<& (A##A?I/,: ?omponent fallacies are errors in inductive and deductive reasoning or in syllogistic terms that fail to overlap. Begging t"e 9uestion 2also called 'etitio 'rincipii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with ?ircular 0easoning3: If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. &he most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. (or instance, suppose a particular student group states, 4;seless courses like /nglish 181 should be dropped from the college.s curriculum.4 &he members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Kes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. >owever, those students never did prove that /nglish 181 was itself a useless course they merely 4begged the question4 and moved on to the ne)t 4safe4 part of the argument, skipping over the part that.s the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. +egging the question if often hidden in the form of a comple) question 2see below3. 2ircular 1easoning is closely related to !egging t"e -uestion. !ften the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. &he assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. &he speaker or author then tries to 4prove4 his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. 0ichard Whately wrote in /lements of #ogic 2#ondon 1G763: S&o allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the stateA for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each

F9

individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of e)pressing his sentiments.O !bviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the e)ample, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to 4prove4 the first assertion with the second one. A more comple) but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: 4-od e)ists.4 4>ow do you know that -od e)ists=4 4&he +ible says so.4 4Why should I believe the +ible=4 4+ecause it.s the inspired word of -odO &he so called 4final proof4 relies on unproven evidence set forth initially as the subject of debate. +asically, the argument goes in an endless circle, with each step of the argument relying on a previous one, which in turn relies on the first argument yet to be proven. ,urely -od deserves a more intelligible argument than the circular reasoning proposed in this e)ample Hasty 7eneralization 2"icto ,impliciter, also called SEumping to ?onclusions,O 4?onverse Accident43: 5istaken use of inductive reasoning when there are too few samples to prove a point. /)ample: 4,usan failed +iology 181. >erman failed +iology 181. /gbert failed +iology 181. I therefore conclude that most students who take +iology 181 will fail it.4 In understanding and characteri%ing general situations, a logician cannot normally e)amine every single e)ample. >owever, the e)amples used in inductive reasoning should be typical of the problem or situation at hand. 5aybe ,usan, >erman, and /gbert are e)ceptionally poor students. 5aybe they were sick and missed too many lectures that term to pass. If a logician wants to make the case that most students will fail +iology 181, she should 2a3 get a very large sample at least one larger than three or 2b3 if that isn.t possible, she will need to go out of his way to prove to the reader that her three samples are somehow representative of the norm. If a logician considers only e)ceptional or dramatic cases and generali%es a rule that fits these alone, the author commits the fallacy of hasty generali%ation. .ne common type of "asty generalization is t"e Fallacy of Accident. &his error occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable. (or e)ample, in 'latoRs 0epublic, 'lato finds an e)ception to the general rule that one should return what one has borrowed: S,uppose that a friend when in his right mind has deposited arms with me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. !ught I to give the weapons back to him= <o one would say that I ought or that I should be right in doing so. . . .O What is true in general may not be true universally and without qualification. ,o remember, generali%ations are bad. All of them. /very single last one. /)cept, of course, for those that are not. Anot"er common e3ample of t"is fallacy is t"e misleading statistic. ,uppose an individual argues that women must be incompetent drivers, and he points out that last &uesday at the "epartment of 5otor *ehicles, C8: of the women who took the driving test failed. &hat would seem to be compelling evidence from the way the statistic is set forth. >owever, if only two women took the test that day, the results would be far less clear cut. Incidentally, the cartoon "ilbert makes much of an incompetent manager who cannot perceive misleading statistics. >e does a statistical study of when employees call in sick and cannot come to work during the five day work week. >e becomes furious to learn that B8: of office 4sick days4 occur on 5ondays 278:3 and (ridays 278:3 just in time to create a three day weekend. ,uspecting fraud, he decides to punish his workers. &he irony, of course, is that these two days compose B8: of a five day work week, so the numbers are completely average. ,imilar nonsense emerges when parents or teachers complain that 4C8: of students perform at or below the national average on standardi%ed tests in mathematics and verbal aptitude.4 !f course they do &he very nature of an average implies that False 2ause: &his fallacy establishes a causeHeffect relationship that does not e)ist. &here are various #atin names for various analyses of the fallacy. &he two most common include these types: 213 /on 2ausa Pro 2ausa 2#iterally, 4<ot the cause for a cause43: a general, catch all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

FB

273 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc 2#iterally: 4After this, therefore because of this43: &his type of false cause occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that, because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean the first event caused the later one. ,ometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn.t. It is the honest writer.s job to establish clearly that connection, rather than merely assert it e)ists. /)ample: 4A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother had a heart attack. +ecause the first event occurred earlier, it must have caused the bad luck later.4 &his is how superstitions begin. &he most common e)amples are arguments that viewing a particular movie or show, or listening to a particular type of music ScausedO the listener to perform an antisocial act to snort coke, shoot classmates, or take up a life of crime. &hese may be potential suspects for the cause, but the mere fact that an individual did these acts and subsequently behaved in a certain way does not yet conclusively rule out other causes. 'erhaps the listener had an abusive home life or school life, suffered from a chemical imbalance leading to depression and paranoia, or made a bad choice in his companions. !ther potential causes must be e)amined before asserting that only one event or circumstance alone earlier in time alone caused a event or behavior later. (or more information, see correlation and causation. ,rrelevant 2onclusion 2Ignorantio elenchi3: &his fallacy occurs when a rhetorician adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. (or e)ample, when a particular proposal for housing legislation is under consideration, a legislator may argue that decent housing for all people is desirable. /veryone, presumably, will agree. >owever, the question at hand concerns a particular measure. &he question really isn.t, 4is it good to have decent housing,4 the question really is, 4will that particular measure actually provide it or is there a better alternative=4 &his type of fallacy is a common one in student papers when students use a shared assumption such as the fact that decent housing is a desirable thing to have and then spend the bulk of their essays focused on that fact rather than the real question at issue. It.s very similar to begging the question, above. .ne of t"e most common forms of ,gnorantio Elenc"i is t"e "1ed Herring.4 A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side pointA for instance, S,enator Eones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income ta). After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.O Another e)ample: SI should not pay a fine for reckless driving. &here are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent ta) paying citi%en like me.O ?ertainly, worse criminals do e)ist, but that it is another issue &he questions at hand are 213 did the speaker drive recklessly and 273 should he pay a fine for it= Anot"er similar e3ample of t"e red "erring is t"e fallacy %no#n as u 9uo-ue 2#atin for 4And you too43, which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn.t follow it herself. (or instance, 40everend Eeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Eeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child=4 (tra# &an Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to 4prove4 an argument by over stating, e)aggerating, or over simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. ,uch an approach is a building a straw man argument. &he name comes from the idea of a bo)er or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. >is 4victory4 is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each 4fake4 point one by one, he has created a straw man argument. (or instance, one speaker might be engaged in a debate concerning welfare. &he opponent argues, 4&ennessee should increase funding to unemployed single mothers during the first year after childbirth

FC

because they need sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn children.4 &he second speaker retorts, 45y opponent believes that some parasites who don.t work should get a free ride from the ta) money of hard working honest citi%ens. I.ll show you why he.s wrong . . .4 In this e)ample, the second speaker is engaging in a straw man strategy, distorting the opposition.s statement about medical care for newborn children into an oversimplified form so he can more easily appear to 4win.4 >owever, the second speaker is only defeating a dummy argument rather than honestly engaging in the real nuances of the debate. /on (e-uitur ;literally' ",t does not follo#"<: A non sequitur is any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. ;sually what happened is that the writer leaped from A to + and then jumped to ", leaving out step ? of an argument she thought through in her head, but did not put down on paper. &he phrase is applicable in general to any type of logical fallacy, but logicians use the term particularly in reference to syllogistic errors such as the undistributed middle term, non causa pro causa, and ignorantio elenchi. A common e)ample would be an argument along these lines: 4-iving up our nuclear arsenal in the 1@G8.s weakened the ;nited ,tates. military. -iving up nuclear weaponry also weakened ?hina in the 1@@8s. (or this reason, it is wrong to try to outlaw pistols and rifles in the ;nited ,tates today.4 &here.s obviously a step or two missing here. "e "(lippery (lope" Fallacy 2also called 4&he ?amel.s nose fallacy43 is a non sequitur in which the speaker argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. It is also called 4the ?amel.s <ose (allacy4 because of the image of a sheik who let his camel stick its nose into his tent on a cold night. &he idea is that the sheik is afraid to let the camel stick its nose into the tent because once the beast sticks in its nose, it will inevitably stick in its head, and then its neck, and eventually its whole body. >owever, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow that the sheik can.t stop the progression once it has begun and thus the argument is a logical fallacy. (or instance, if one were to argue, 4If we allow the government to infringe upon our right to privacy on the Internet, it will then feel free to infringe upon our privacy on the telephone. After that, (+I agents will be reading our mail. &hen they will be placing cameras in our houses. We must not let any governmental agency interfere with our Internet communications, or privacy will completely vanish in the ;nited ,tates.4 ,uch thinking is fallaciousA no logical proof has been provided yet that infringement in one area will necessarily lead to infringement in another, no more than a person buying a single can of ?oca ?ola in a grocery store would indicate the person will inevitably go on to buy every item available in the store, helpless to stop herself. ,o remember to avoid the slippery slope fallacyA once you use one, you may find yourself using more and more logical fallacies. Eit"er8.r Fallacy ;also called "t"e !lac% and #"ite fallacy" and "false dilemma"<: &his fallacy occurs when a writer builds an argument upon the assumption that there are only two choices or possible outcomes when actually there are several. !utcomes are seldom so simple. &his fallacy most frequently appears in connection to sweeping generali%ations: S/ither we must ban L or the American way of life will collapse.O 4We go to war with ?anada, or else ?anada will eventually grow in population and overwhelm the ;nited ,tates.4 4/ither you drink +urpsy ?ola, or you will have no friends and no social life.4 /ither you must avoid eitherHor fallacies, or everyone will think you are foolish. Faulty Analogy: 0elying only on comparisons to prove a point rather than arguing deductively and inductively. S/ducation is like cakeA a small amount tastes sweet, but eat too much and your teeth will rot out. #ikewise, more than two years of education is bad for a student.O &he analogy is only acceptable to the degree to which a reader agrees that education is similar to cake. As you can see, faulty analogies are like flimsy wood, and just as no carpenter would build a house out of flimsy wood, no writer should ever construct an argument out of flimsy material.

F6

5ndistri!uted &iddle erm: A specific type of error in deductive reasoning in which the minor premise and the major premise of a syllogism may or may not overlap. ?onsider these two e)amples: 213 SAll reptiles are cold blooded. All snakes are reptiles. All snakes are cold blooded.O In the first e)ample, the middle term SsnakesO fits in the categories of both SreptileO and Sthings that are cold blooded.O It is what logicians call a Sdistributed middle term.O 273 SAll snails are cold blooded. All snakes are cold blooded. All snails are snakes.O In the second e)ample, the middle term of SsnakesO does not fit into the categories of both Sthings that are cold bloodedO and Ssnails.O It is an undistributed middle term. ,ometimes, equivocation 2see below3 leads to an undistributed middle term. Fallacies of Am!iguity: &hese errors occur with ambiguous words or phrases, the meanings of which shift and change in the course of discussion. ,uch more or less subtle changes can render arguments fallacious. E-uivocation: ;sing a word in a different way than the author used it in the original premise, or changing definitions halfway through a discussion. When we use the same word or phrase in different senses within one line of argument, we commit the fallacy of equivocation. ?onsider this e)ample: S'lato says the end of a thing is its perfectionA I say that death is the end of lifeA hence, death is the perfection of life.O >ere the word end means 4goal4 in 'lato.s usage, but it means 4last event4 or 4termination4 in the author.s second usage. ?learly, the speaker is twisting 'lato.s meaning of the word to draw a very different conclusion. ?ompare with amphiboly, below. Amp"i!oly 2from the -reek word 4indeterminate43: &his fallacy is similar to equivocation. >ere, the ambiguity results from grammatical construction. A statement may be true according to one interpretation of how each word functions in a sentence and false according to another. When a premise works with an interpretation that is true, but the conclusion uses the secondary 4false4 interpretation, we have the fallacy of amphiboly on our hands. In the command, 4,ave soap and waste paper,4 the amphibolous use of 4waste4 results in the problem of determining whether 4waste4 functions as a verb or as an adjective. 2omposition: &his fallacy is a result of reasoning from the properties of the parts of the whole to the properties of the whole itself it is an inductive error. ,uch an argument might hold that, because every individual part of a large tractor is lightweight, the entire machine also must be lightweight. &his fallacy is similar to >asty -enerali%ation 2see above3, but it focuses on parts of a single whole rather than using too few e)amples to create a categorical generali%ation. Also compare it with "ivision 2see below3. Division: &his fallacy is the reverse of composition. It is the misapplication of deductive reasoning. !ne fallacy of division argues falsely that what is true of the whole must be true of individual parts. ,uch an argument notes that, 45icrotech is a company with great influence in the ?alifornia legislature. /gbert ,mith works at 5icrotech. >e must have great influence in the ?alifornia legislature.4 &his is not necessarily true. /gbert might work as a graveyard shift security guard or as the copy machine repairman at 5icrotech positions requiring little interaction with the ?alifornia legislature. Another fallacy of division attributes the properties of the whole to the individual member of the whole: 4,unsurf is a company that sells environmentally safe products. ,usan Eones is a worker at ,unsurf. ,he must be an environmentally minded individual.4 2'erhaps she is motivated by money alone=3 Fallacies of .mission: &hese errors occur because the logician leaves out necessary material in an argument or misdirects others from missing information. (tac%ing t"e Dec%: In this fallacy, the speaker 4stacks the deck4 in her favor by ignoring e)amples that disprove the point, and listing only those e)amples that support her case. &his fallacy is closely related to hasty generali%ation, but the term usually implies deliberate deception rather than an accidental logical error. ?ontrast it with the straw man argument.

FF

Argument from t"e /egative: Arguing from the negative asserts that, since one position is untenable, the opposite stance must be true. &his fallacy is often used interchangeably with Argumentum Ad Ignorantium 2listed below3 and the eitherHor fallacy 2listed above3. (or instance, one might mistakenly argue that, since the <ewtonian theory of mathematics is not one hundred percent accurate, /insteinRs theory of relativity must be true. 'erhaps not. 'erhaps the theories of quantum mechanics are more accurate, and /insteinRs theory is flawed. 'erhaps they are all wrong. "isproving an opponentRs argument does not necessarily mean your own argument must be true automatically, no more than disproving your opponent.s assertion that 7P7MC would automatically mean your argument that 7P7MF must be the correct one. Appeal to a Lac% of Evidence 2Argumentum Ad Ignorantium, literally 4Argument from Ignorance43: Appealing to a lack of information to prove a point, or arguing that, since the opposition cannot disprove a claim, the opposite stance must be true. An e)ample of such an argument is the assertion that ghosts must e)ist because no one has been able to prove that they do not e)ist. #ogicians know this is a logical fallacy because no competing argument has yet revealed itself. Hypot"esis 2ontrary to Fact 2Argumentum Ad ,peculum3: &rying to prove something in the real world by using imaginary e)amples alone, or asserting that, if hypothetically L had occurred, K would have been the result. (or instance, suppose an individual asserts that /instein had been aborted in utero, the world would never have learned about relativity, or that if 5onet had been trained as a butcher rather than going to college, the impressionistic movement would have never influenced modern art. ,uch hypotheses are misleading lines of argument because it is often possible that some other individual would have solved the relativistic equations or introduced an impressionistic art style. &he speculation might make an interesting thought e)periment, but it is simply useless when it comes to actually proving anything about the real world. A common e)ample is the idea that one 4owes4 her success to another individual who taught her. (or instance, 4Kou owe me part of your increased salary. If I hadn.t taught you how to recogni%e logical fallacies, you would be flipping hamburgers at 5c"onald.s for minimum wages right now instead of taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a lawyer.4 'erhaps. +ut perhaps the audience would have learned about logical fallacies elsewhere, so the hypothetical situation described is meaningless. 2omple3 9uestion ;Also called t"e "Loaded 9uestion"<: 'hrasing a question or statement in such as way as to imply another unproven statement is true without evidence or discussion. &his fallacy often overlaps with begging the question 2above3, since it also presupposes a definite answer to a previous, unstated question. (or instance, if I were to ask you S>ave you stopped taking drugs yet=O my hidden supposition is that you have been taking drugs. ,uch a question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no answer. It is not a simple question but consists of several questions rolled into one. In this case the unstated question is, S>ave you taken drugs in the past=O followed by, SIf you have taken drugs in the past, have you stopped taking them now=O In cross e)amination, a lawyer might ask a flustered witness, SWhere did you hide the evidence=O or 4when did you stop beating your wife=4 &he intelligent procedure when faced with such a question is to analy%e its component parts. If one answers or discusses the prior, implicit question first, the e)plicit question may dissolve. 2omple3 -uestions appear in #ritten argument fre-uently. A student might write, SWhy is private development of resources so much more efficient than any public control=O &he rhetorical question leads directly into his ne)t argument. >owever, an observant reader may disagree, recogni%ing the prior, implicit question remains unaddressed. &hat question is, of course, whether private development of resources really is more efficient in all cases, a point which the author is skipping entirely and merely assuming to be true without discussion. 2ontradictory Premises: /stablishing a premise in such a way that it contradicts another, earlier premise. (or instance, 4If -od can do anything, he can make a stone so heavy that he can.t lift it.4 &he first premise establishes a deity that has the irresistible capacity to move other objects. &he second

FG

premise establishes an immovable object impervious to any movement. If the first object capable of moving anything e)ists, by definition, the immovable object cannot e)ist, and vice versa. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH http:HHwww.geocities.comHquestioningpageH&hreads HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI (o #"y learn logical fallacies at all$ 'ointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. 5uch of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn.t be taken seriously, or whatever. &hat kind of response is fine, e)cept that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it.s important after all. !n the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can.t come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the round. Logic as a form of r"etoric ;nfortunately, the account I have just given is a bit ideali%ed. <ot every judge will immediately recogni%e the importance of the logical fallacy you.ve pointed out in your opposition.s argument. /ven if a logician would immediately accept the accuracy of your point, in a debate round it.s the judge that counts. It is therefore not enough simply to point out a logical fallacy and move onA there is an art to pointing out logical fallacies in your opposition.s arguments. >ere are a few strategies I.ve found useful in pointing out logical fallacies in an effective manner: ,tate the name of the logical fallacy, preferably in both #atin and /nglish, and make sure you use the phrase 4logical fallacy.4 Why= +ecause it is important to impress on everyone that this is no mere counterargument you are making, nor are you just labelling the opposition.s viewpoint as 4fallacious4 for rhetorical effect. ,tating the fallacy.s #atin name helps, because some people just aren.t sure something.s a fallacy unless Aristotle or some other authority called it one. ,ay something like, 4&he opposition points out that the voters supported L by a wide margin in last year.s referendum. +ut this is just the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to public opinion4 &ell everybody what the fallacy means and why it is wrong. +ut be careful you have to do this without sounding pedantic. Kou should state the fallacy.s meaning as though you are reiterating what you assume your intelligent judge already knows. &o continue the e)ample above, say, 4It doesn.t matter how many people agree with you, that doesn.t mean it.s necessarily right.4 &here, now you.ve defined for everyone what.s fallacious about argumentum ad populum. -ive a really obvious e)ample of why the fallacy is incorrect. 'referably, the e)ample should also be an unfavorable analogy for the opposition.s proposal. &hus: 4#ast century, the majority of people in some states thought slavery was acceptable, but that didn.t make it so4 (inally, point out why the logical fallacy matters to the debate round. 4&his fallacious argument should be thrown out of the debate. And that means that the opposition.s only remaining argument for L is....4 "e list of logical fallacies Argumentum ad anti-uitatem 2the argument to antiquity or tradition30 &his is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because 4it.s always been done that way.4 &his is an e)tremely popular fallacy in debate roundsA for e)ample, 4/very great civili%ation in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture4 +ut that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

F@

+ecause an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. +ut if you must make such an argument perhaps because you can.t come up with anything better you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. (or instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in e)isting societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. &his argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone. Argumentum ad "ominem ;argument directed at t"e person<0 &his is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. &he most obvious e)ample of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater 2e.g, 4&he members of the opposition are a couple of fascists43, but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information for e)ample, responding to a quotation from 0ichard <i)on on the subject of free trade with ?hina by saying, 4We all know <i)on was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says=4 rgumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone.s arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate such as +ill -ates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower ta)es, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. +ut there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements 2as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value3 made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that sub<ect without /uestion. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing 45y opponents are fascists4 with 45y opponents. arguments are fascist.4 Argumentum ad ignorantiam ;argument to ignorance<0 &his is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn.t been proven false. (or e)ample, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. +ut failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true. Whether or not an rgumentum ad ignorantiam is really fallacious depends crucially upon the burden of proof. In an American courtroom, where the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, it would be fallacious for the prosecution to argue, 4&he defendant has no alibi, therefore he must have committed the crime.4 +ut it would be perfectly valid for the defense to argue, 4&he prosecution has not proven the defendant committed the crime, therefore you should declare him not guilty.4 +oth statements have the form of an rgumentum ad ignorantiamA the difference is the burden of proof. Argumentum ad logicam ;argument to logic<0 &his is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalidA this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. &his fallacy often appears in the conte)t of a straw man argument. &his is another case in which the burden of proof determines whether it is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to provide sufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should lose the debate, even if there e)ist other arguments 2not presented by the proposing team3 that could have supported the case successfully. 5oreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give no weight to a point supported by an argument that has been proven invalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument the team failed to make that would have supported the same pointA this is because the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that brought up the argument. (or further commentary on burdens of proof, see argumentum ad ignorantium, above. Argumentum ad misericordiam ;argument or appeal to pity<0 &he /nglish translation pretty much says it all. /)ample: 4&hink of all the poor, starving /thiopian children

G8

>ow could we be so cruel as not to help them=4 &he problem with such an argument is that no amount of special pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the e)pensive costless, etc. Argumentum ad nauseam 2argument to the point of disgustA i.e., by repetition<0 &his is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. +ut no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. !f course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and againA what is fallacious is to e)pect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments. <onetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. &he first thing they.ll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should 4&ell .em what you.re gonna tell .em, then tell .em, and then tell .em what you told .em.4 ;nfortunately, some debaters think that.s all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary. &he appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. &he #atin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition.s assertions make you want to do: retch. 4,ir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. +ut this argumentum ad nauseam can.t and won.t win this debate for them, because they.ve given us no justification for their bald assertions4 Argumentum ad numerum ;argument or appeal to numbers<0 &his fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it.s true. +ut no matter how many people believe something, that doesn.t necessarily make it true or right. /)ample: 4At least F8: of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions.4 Well, maybe F8: of Americans are wrong. &his fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between the two, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others 2such as judges3 to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief. &he distinction is a fine one, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debate rounds. 2I.ve found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.3 Argumentum ad populum 2argument or appeal to the public3. &his is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing that the public agrees with you. &his fallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum. Argumentum ad verecundiam ;argument or appeal to aut"ority<0 &his fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no e)pertise in the given area. (or instance, some people like to quote /instein.s opinions about politics 2he tended to have fairly left wing views3, as though /instein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. !f course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose e)pertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote ,tephen >awking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one.s position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. /ven if the person quoted has no particular e)pertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when 2a3 they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other 2qualified3 sources of verification, or 2b3 they imply that some policy must be right simply because so and so thought so. 2irculus in demonstrando 2circular argument3. ?ircular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. >ere is one of my favorite e)amples 2in pared down form3: 45arijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn.t violate the

G1

law. ,ince smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn.t smoke pot. And since you shouldn.t smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop a person from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal4 ?ircular arguments appear a lot in debate, but they are not always so easy to spot as the e)ample above. &hey are always illegitimate, though, and pointing them out in a debate round looks really good if you can do it. &he best strategy for pointing out a circular argument is to make sure you can state clearly the proposition being proven, and then pinpoint where that proposition appears in the proof. A good summing up statement is, 4In other words, they are trying to tell us that L is true because L is true. +ut they have yet to tell us why it.s true.4 2omple3 -uestion0 A comple) question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as 4>ave you stopped beating your wife=4 A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true 2in this case, that you beat your wife3 has not been established. ?omple) questions are a well established and time honored practice in debate, although they are rarely as bald faced as the e)ample just given. ?omple) questions usually appear in cross e)amination or points of information when the questioner wants the questionee to inadvertently admit something that she might not admit if asked directly. (or instance, one might say, 4Inasmuch as the majority of black Americans live in poverty, do you really think that self help within the black community is sufficient to address their problems=4 !f course, the introductory clause about the majority of black Americans living in poverty may not be true 2in fact, it is false3, but an unwary debater might not think quickly enough to notice that the stowaway statement is questionable. &his is a sneaky tactic, but debate is sometimes a sneaky business. Kou wouldn.t want to put a question like that in your master.s thesis, but it might work in a debate. +ut be careful if you try to pull a fast one on someone who is alert enough to catch you, you.ll look stupid. 4&he assumption behind your question is simply false. &he majority of blacks do not live in poverty.4 2um "oc ergo propter "oc ;#it" t"is' t"erefore !ecause of t"is<0 &his is the familiar fallacy of mistaking correlation for causation i.e., thinking that because two things occur simultaneously, one must be a cause of the other. A popular e)ample of this fallacy is the argument that 4'resident ?linton has great economic policiesA just look at how well the economy is doing while he.s in office.4 &he problem here is that two things may happen at the same time merely by coincidence 2e.g., the 'resident may have a negligible effect on the economy, and the real driving force is technological growth3, or the causative link between one thing and another may be lagged in time 2e.g., the current economy.s health is determined by the actions of previous presidents3, or the two things may be unconnected to each other but related to a common cause 2e.g., downsi%ing upset a lot of voters, causing them to elect a new president just before the economy began to benefit from the downsi%ing3. It is always fallacious to suppose that there is a causative link between two things simply because they coe)ist. +ut a correlation is usually considered acceptable supporting evidence for theories that argue for a causative link between two things. (or instance, some economic theories suggest that substantially reducing the federal budget deficit should cause the economy to do better 2loosely speaking3, so the coincidence of deficit reductions under ?linton and the economy.s relative health might be taken as evidence in favor of those economic theories. In debate rounds, what this means is that it is acceptable to demonstrate a correlation between two phenomenon and to say one caused the other if you can also come up with convincing reasons why the correlation is no accident. ?um hoc ergo propter hoc is very similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. &he two terms can be used almost interchangeably, post hoc 2as it is affectionately called3 being the preferred term. Dicto simpliciter 2spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generali%ation3. &his is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and e)pecting it to be true of every specific case in other words, stereotyping. /)ample: 4Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. &herefore women can.t pull their weight in a military unit.4 &he problem is that the sweeping statement may be true 2on average, women are indeed weaker than men3, but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question 2there are some women who are much stronger than the average3.

G7

As the e)ample indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debate rounds. 5ost of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposing debater down for making this fallacy it is enough to point out why the sweeping generali%ation they have made fails to prove their point. ,ince everybody knows what a sweeping generali%ation is, using the #atin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is also important to note that some generali%ations are perfectly valid and apply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit the fallacy of dicto simpliciter 2for e)ample, 4All human males have a K chromosome4 is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct3. /ature' appeal to0 &his is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is 4natural4 or consistent with 4nature4 2somehow defined3 is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. (or e)ample, 4,odomy is unnaturalA anal se) is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. &herefore sodomy is wrong.4 +ut aside from the difficulty of defining what 4natural4 even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit. &he appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. &he argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a 2possibly unspecifiable3 benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a comple) biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. <ote, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival. /aturalistic fallacy0 &his is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good 2that is, about values3 from statements of fact alone. &his is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions 2or a)ioms, or premises3 a statement of value. !nce you have an a)iomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value laden conclusions. (or e)ample, someone might argue that the premise, 4&his medicine will prevent you from dying4 immediately leads to the conclusion, 4Kou should take this medicine.4 +ut this reasoning is invalid, because the former statement is a statement of fact, while the latter is a statement of value. &o reach the conclusion that you ought to take the medicine, you would need at least one more premise: 4Kou ought to try to preserve your life whenever possible.4 &he naturalistic fallacy appears in many forms. &wo e)amples are argumentum ad antiquitatem 2saying something.s right because it.s always been done that way3 and the appeal to nature 2saying something.s right because it.s natural3. In both of these fallacies, the speaker is trying to reach a conclusion about what we ought to do or ought to value based solely on what is the case. "avid >ume called this trying to bridge the 4is ought gap,4 which is a nice phrase to use in debate rounds where your opponent is committing the naturalistic fallacy. !ne unsettling implication of taking the naturalistic fallacy seriously is that, in order to reach any conclusions of value, one must be willing to posit some initial statement or statements of value that will be treated as a)ioms, and which cannot themselves be justified on purely logical grounds. (ortunately, debate does not restrict itself to purely logical grounds of argumentation. (or e)ample, suppose your opponent has stated a)iomatically that 4whatever is natural is good.4 Inasmuch as this statement is an a)iom rather than the conclusion of a logical proof, there can be no purely logical argument against it. +ut some nonetheless appropriate responses to such an absolute statement of value include: 2a3 questioning whether anyone you, your judge, or even your opponent himself really believes that 4whatever is natural is good4A

G9

2b3 stating a competing a)iomatic value statement, like 4whatever enhances human life is good,4 and forcing the judge to choose between themA and 2c3 pointing out logical implications of the statement 4whatever is natural is good4 that conflict with our most basic intuitions about right and wrong. Non Sequitur 24It does not follow43. &his is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises. (or e)ample, 40acism is wrong. &herefore, we need affirmative action.4 !bviously, there is at least one missing step in this argument, because the wrongness of racism does not imply a need for affirmative action without some additional support 2such as, 40acism is common,4 4Affirmative action would reduce racism,4 4&here are no superior alternatives to affirmative action,4 etc.3. <ot surprisingly, debate rounds are rife with non se/uitur. +ut that is partly just a result of having to work within the time constraints of a debate round, and partly a result of using good strategy. A debate team arguing for affirmative action would be foolish to say in their first speech, 4We also believe that affirmative action does not lead to a racist backlash,4 because doing so might give the other side a hint about a good argument to make. A better strategy 2usually3 is to wait for the other team to bring up an argument, and then refute itA that way, you don.t end up wasting your time by refuting arguments that the opposition has never made in the first place. 2&his strategy is not always preferable, though, because some counterarguments are so obvious and important that it makes sense to address them early and nip them in the bud.3 (or these reasons, it is generally bad form to scream 4non sequitur4 just because your opposition has failed to anticipate every counterargument you might make. &he best time to point out a non se/uitur is when your opposition is trying to construct a chain of causation 2A leads to + leads to ?, etc.3 without justifying each step in the chain. (or each step in the chain they fail to justify, point out the non se/uitur, so that it is obvious by the end that the alleged chain of causation is tenuous and implausible. Petitio principii 2begging the question<0 &his is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove. (or all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishable from circular argumentation. &he main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term 4begging the question4 has a very specific meaning. It is common to hear debaters saying things like, 4&hey say pornography should be legal because it is a form of free e)pression. +ut this begs the question of what free e)pression means.4 &his is a misuse of terminology. ,omething may inspire or motivate us to ask a particular question without begging the question. A question has been begged only if the question has been asked before in the same discussion, and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the question having been answered. If somebody said, 4&he fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free e)pression. And since it.s free e)pression, it shouldn.t be banned,4 that would be begging the question. Post "oc ergo propter "oc ;after t"is' t"erefore !ecause of t"is<0 &his is the fallacy of assuming that A caused + simply because A happened prior to +. A favorite e)ample: 45ost rapists read pornography when they were teenagersA obviously, pornography causes violence toward women.4 &he conclusion is invalid, because there can be a correlation between two phenomena without one causing the other. !ften, this is because both phenomena may be linked to the same cause. In the e)ample given, it is possible that some psychological factor say, a frustrated se) drive might cause both a tendency toward se)ual violence and a desire for pornographic material, in which case the pornography would not be the true cause of the violence. "ost hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propter hoc. 1ed "erring0 &his means e)actly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand. (or e)ample, 4&he opposition claims that welfare dependency leads to higher crime rates but how are poor people supposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help=4

GB

It is perfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, but to pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading to crime is fallacious. 2&here is also an element of ad misericordiam in this e)ample.3 It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the e)ample given, concern about providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns about crime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. &his is a debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one. &he term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind of diversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportant arguments that will use up the other debaters. speaking time and distract them from more important issues. &his kind of a red herring is a wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should be familiar. (lippery slope0 A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the conse/uent policies. A popular e)ample of the slippery slope fallacy is, 4If we legali%e marijuana, the ne)t thing you know we.ll legali%e heroin, #,", and crack cocaine.4 &his slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legali%ation of one thing leads to legali%ation of another. &obacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal. &here are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid 2or at least plausible3 argument. All you need to do is provide some reason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption of another. (or e)ample, you could argue that legali%ing marijuana would cause more people to consider the use of mind altering drugs acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drug policies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slope argument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by your opposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if we don.t like those other policies, we should question whether we really buy those principles. (or instance, if the proposing team argued for legali%ing marijuana by saying, 4individuals should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies,4 the opposition could point out that that principle would also justify legali%ing a variety of other drugs so if we don.t support legali%ing other drugs, then maybe we don.t really believe in that principle. (tra# man0 &his is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or e)treme version of somebody.s argument, rather than the actual argument they.ve made. !ften this fallacy involves putting words into somebody.s mouth by saying they.ve made arguments they haven.t actually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiled version of argumentum ad logicam. !ne e)ample of a straw man argument would be to say, 45r. Eones thinks that capitalism is good because everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this is clearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes,4 when in fact 5r. Eones had not made the 4earnings4 argument and had instead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive to work and save. &he fact that some arguments made for a policy are wrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong. In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. A carefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice an unsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he would not have tried to defend otherwise. +ut this strategy only works if the straw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent has actually made, because a really outrageous straw man will be recogni%ed as just that. &he best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical e)tension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made. Tu quoque ;"you too"<0 &his is the fallacy of defending an error in one.s reasoning by pointing out that one.s opponent has made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it. (or e)ample, 4&hey accuse us of making unjustified assertions. +ut they asserted a lot of things, too4 Although clearly fallacious, tu /uo/ue arguments play an important role in debate because they may help establish who has done a better job of debating 2setting aside the issue of whether the proposition is true

GC

or not3. If both teams have engaged in ad hominem attacks, or both teams have made a few appeals to pity, then it would hardly be fair to penali%e one team for it but not the other. In addition, it is not fallacious at all to point out that certain advantages or disadvantages may apply equally to both positions presented in a debate, and therefore they cannot provide a reason for favoring one position over the other 2such disadvantages are referred to as 4non unique43. In general, using tu /uo/ue statements is a good way to assure that judges make decisions based only on factors that distinguish between the two sides. .HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH http:HHwww.esalenctr.orgHdisplayHsurvival.cfm/salen ?enter http:HHwww.ni%kor.orgHfeaturesHfallaciesH http:HHwww.fallacyfiles.orgHinde).html(allacy files. http:HHwww.ramdac.orgHfallacies.php=fallacyMAd:78>ominem ,nformal Fallacies Appeal to (ympat"y0 (allacy of supporting a view on the basis of an irrelevant appeal to emotions or pity. /)ample: If I donRt get an A in this class I wonRt get into medical school. ,o I should get an A in this class. Bald Assertion H 5n6ustified (tatement0 (allacy of drawing a conclusion without any premises. /)amples. &his movies sucks, period. War is just simply wrong. Begging t"e 9uestion0 (allacy of sneaking the conclusion of an argument into its premises. When this fallacy is committed the conclusion just restates the premises. /)ample: 5atter is all around us. &herefore matter is real. 2"anging t"e (u!6ect 8 &issing t"e Point0 (allacy of failing to address your opponentRs argument. /)ample: 4Abortion is wrong because it involves killing a living being, a fetus.4 4Well, if you outlaw abortion it will go underground.4 T<ote that the response misses the point, because it doesnRt address the issue of killing living beings.U False .pposition0 (allacy of assuming there are only two positions to take on some issue, with no middle ground or other possibilities. /)ample: KouRre either with us or against us. Kou complained at the meeting yesterday, so therefore youRre against us. 7enetic Fallacy0 (allacy of drawing a conclusion about something based on irrelevant consideration of its history. /)ample: &he bible is old therefore the bible is true. E-uivocation. (allacy of using one word to mean more than one thing, where this will cause confusion. /)ample: ,pam is better than nothing. <othing is better than chocolate. &herefore ,pam is better than chocolate. Fallacy of 2omposition0 (allacy of concluding that a property applies to a whole because it applies to the parts. &hat is, wrongly reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole.

G6

/)ample: All the team members are strong, so the whole team is strong as well. Fallacy of Division0 (allacy of concluding that a property applies to the parts of a whole because it applies to the whole. &hat is, wrongly reasoning from the properties of the whole to the properties of the parts. /)ample: &his is a great team, so every player on the team is great as well. (lippery (lope0 (allacy of assuming one event will lead to another, when there is a long, complicated, and unjustified sequence of events connecting them. /)ample: If you outlaw handguns then no one will be able to protect themselves and pretty soon weRll be in a state of lawless war. (tra# &an0 (allacy of attacking a flimsy 2easy to attack3 mis representation of your opponentRs view. /)ample: /volutionary theorists think that we are all brothers of worms. ,o evolutionary theory is wrong. Deductive Fallacies Affirming t"e conse-uent: (allacy of arguing from p / and / to p.

/)ample: If I drink coffee I get wired. I get wired. &herefore I drank coffee. "enying the antecedent: (allacy of arguing from p / and Vp to V/.

/)ample: If I drink coffee I get wired. I donRt drink coffee. &herefore I donRt get wired. ,nductive Fallacies Hasty 7eneralization: (allacy of wrongly inferring the properties of a population from the properties of a sample. &here are two types of hasty generali%ation: 213 -enerali%ation from an inadequate sample, 273 -enerali%ation from biased sample. /)ample of generali%ation from inadequate sample: >alf of the four people I talked to were friendly. &herefore C8: of all people are friendly. /)ample of generali%ation from biased sample: G8: of &e)ans support the death penalty. &herefore roughly G8: of Americans support the death penalty. (uppressed Evidence: (allacy of drawing an inductive inference without mentioning premises which weaken that inference. (or our purposes this applies mainly to statistical syllogisms. /)ample: 5ost students drink. Eane is a student. &herefore Eane drinks. TEane is a 5ormon.U +ea% analogy: (allacy of arguing from analogy in spite of relevant disanalogies and Hor counter e)amples. /)ample: +oth 5ars and /arth circle the sun and are made of rock. /arth supports life, so I see no reason 5ars couldnRt support life as well. T<ote the important disanalogy here: /arth has an atmosphere, 5ars doesnRt.U +ea% or ,rrelevant Appeal to Aut"ority0 (allacy of supporting a view on the basis of an appeal to some unreliable or irrelevant authority. ?an occur because 213 no evidence of authority is presented, 273 because the authority in question is unreliable, or 293 because the authority is reliable on some irrelevant topic.

GF

/)ample of 1: Angel says this movie is great so this movie is great. /)ample of 7: Angel says this movie is great, and hey, heRs taken a class on movie criticism, so this movie is great. /)ample of 9: Angel says this movie is great, and he is a four star chef. ,o this movie is great. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI "e #o Logical >irtues For 7ood Arguments A< &rue reasons. &his is an ideal, and for serious real life arguments it usually can only be appro)imated. Appro)imations might be: the reasons are plausible although not certainA or, to the best of our knowledge there are no serious objections to them. B< 0easons are properly related to conclusions. &here are two kinds of proper relations between reasons and conclusions: a< *alidity: If the reasons were true 2regardless of whether they really are true3, then the conclusion would necessarily have to be true also. In other words, the reasons, if they were true, would absolutely guarantee the truth of the conclusion. !< ,trength: If the reasons were true 2regardless of whether they really are true3, then the conclusion would not necessarily have to be true, but it would probably be true. ,trength is a matter of degrees, and it applies to arguments that are not valid. Arguments can be very strong, medium strength, weak, very weak, etc. 5ost serious real life arguments are not valid, but have some degree of strength 2or weakness3. &hese two logical virtues are independent of each other. *alid arguments and strong arguments can and often do have false reasons, and arguments with true reasons are often invalid and also weak. A Practical >irtue For 7ood Arguments: Persuasiveness A good argument should be persuasive for the intended audience. A persuasive argument is one that does in fact succeed in convincing the audience that the conclusion is at least probably true. #ogically !ad arguments are sometimes very persuasive And logically good arguments can fail to be persuasive In other words, this 2practical3 virtue, like the two logical virtues, is independentA it may be present 2or absent3 regardless of whether either of the two logical virtues is present 2or absent3. A really good argument, one that fulfils its function well, possesses all three virtues Whether an argument is persuasive depends a great deal on the audience to which it is directed. A logically naive audience, or a prejudiced audience, can often be persuaded by a logically bad argumentA and logically good argument may fail to persuade even an open minded or sophisticated audience. Logically 7ood !ut not Persuasive: >ow might an argument be logically good, but not persuasive= >ere are some ways: "ull and boring. 'oorly organi%ed. &oo complicated for the audience.

GG

Includes remarks offensive to the audience. &he audience will not listen, is not open minded. &hough the reasons are 2probably3 true, the audience doesn.t know or doesn.t believe that they areA they need to be given reasons for the reasons

&he ideal is an argument that has both the two logical virtues and the practical virtue of being persuasive for the intended audience. &he ideal is difficult to achieve, and this is largely due to the fact that there is so much variation among audiences. A logically good argument may persuade some people but not others. An argument that is boring for one audience may be interesting to another. ,ome audiences are pretty open minded, others aren.t. What is too comple) for some people is just right for others. And so on. When designing and organi%ing how to present an argument, it is important to assess the nature of the audience Persuasive !ut Bad: &here are many arguments that are persuasive but bad 2in that they lack at least one of the two logical virtues3. Why might a persuasive argument be logically bad= &here are just two main possibilities 2which can occur together3: &he reasons aren.t true, but the audience is unaware of this. &he reasons and conclusion aren.t properly related, but the audience thinks they are.

&here are some general types or patterns of arguments that have a definite tendency to fool and mislead people, and thus to be logically bad but nonetheless persuasive: fallacious arguments. Fallacious Arguments A fallacious argument is one that meets two conditions: A< It lacks at least one of the two logical virtues. &hus fallacious arguments are often divided into two kinds: those that are mistaken because they don.t meet the truth of reasons requirement 2or, virtue3, and those that are mistaken because they don.t meet the properly related to conclusion requirement 2or, virtue3. B< It is of a fairly commonplace type. ,ome persuasive but bad arguments involve mistakes in reasoning that are somewhat unusual. ,uch arguments are not often categori%ed as fallacious. (allacies involve mistakes in reasoning that are more or less everyday occurrences, because they have a definite tendency to fool people.

E3plaining Fallacies When you critici%e an argument by saying that it involves a fallacy, you should be able to give a good explanation of why that fallacy is present in the argument. If you merely say that an argument involves a certain fallacy, but you don.t give a good e)planation why that fallacy is present, the suspicion arises that you.re just guessing. ,o, for each fallacy below, there will be both a discussion of what the fallacy is, and some comments on how to give a good e)planation that will show that the fallacy is present in a particular argument. Five "ings A!out Fallacies:

G@

A<It is quite possible for an argument to have more than one fallacy in it. &his is different from argument forms, for an argument does not at the same time fit more than one of the argument forms presented earlier. B<,ometimes fallacious arguments are 4borderline cases4 they could just about equally well be classified as involving either of two different fallacies. (allacies aren.t as neat and precise as the argument forms. F<&here are two ways for an argument to be bad: false 2or suspicious3 reasons, and improper relation between reasons and conclusion. All but one of the fallacies below involve improper reason to conclusion relations. In other words, they are about arguments that #ould !e !ad even if t"e reasons were true 2the one e)ception is the (alse Alternatives fallacy3. G<Important issues are often complicated. (allacious reasoning is typically an attempt to resolve a comple) issue quickly and simply. ,ometimes a simple argument that is fallacious can be e)panded into a good argument by the provision of additional reasonsA and sometimes it can.t be. &he only way to find out is to consider the complications. H<,howing or giving a good e)planation why an argument is fallacious does not show that the argument has a false conclusion. (allacious arguments, which are almost always invalid arguments, may well have true conclusions. (allacious arguments fail to prove that their conclusions are true 2or, probably true3.&hat.s very different from positively proving that their conclusions are false Eig"t Fallacies Affirming t"e 2onse-uent ;A2< and Denying t"e Antecedent ;DA< Arguments that fit these two invalid argument forms are considered fallacious, because they each meet the two main requirements for a fallacy: 13 &hey are commonplace types of reasoning, and 73 they are likely to fool people. Kou are likely to be fooled by A? 2which is invalid3 because if you aren.t careful you will mistake it for AA 2which is valid3. And you are likely to be fooled by "A 2also invalid3 because if you aren.t careful you will mistake it for "? 2which is valid3. When you encounter an A? or "A argument, to e)plain how you know it is fallacious, draw the diagram, correctly identify the argument form, write 4fallacy invalid,4 and then describe circumstances that would make the reasons both true but the conclusion false. (or A? and "A you should always be able to do this /ote0It is quite possible for A? or "A to be parts of a longer, more detailed argument that is not fallacious, and that is actually a very strong argument 2although it wouldn.t be valid3. +ut if an argument consists of nothing but a simple "A or A? argument, with no further information or qualifications, it.s fallacious. Fallacy of Hasty 7eneralization ;H7< &erminology: A generali%ation is a statement about a lot of things. &he more things the statement is about, the more general it isA the fewer things it is about, the more specific it is. "onRt confuse generality with vagueness. *agueness contrasts with precision, not with specificity. &he law of gravity is about a lot of things 2all massive objects3, and it also provides a very precise formula for calculating the force with which massive objects attract each other. ,o the law of gravity is both very general and very precise <ow consider this statement: EoeRs new pickup truck is awfully big and heavy. &his is a very specific statement because it.s about just one thing, Eoe.s truck. +ut it.s also very vague 2imprecise3: just how big, and how heavy is his truck= "efinition of >-: A conclusion about a population 2a large group of things3 is reached on the basis of a sample 2a subgroup of the large group3 which is 'way too small. &ypically the fallacy involves a subgroup of only one to three things.

@8

/)ample >- argument: /D; students are all so friendly and helpful. I.m sure of this because just last week I got lost on the campus and a very helpful and friendly student got me all straightened out. /)planation: >- because just one student who happens to be helpful and friendly is used as a basis 2a sample3 for concluding that all /D; students are helpful and friendly. &hat.s a sample of one student out of thousands, which .way too few to support the conclusion. /ote A0In an >- argument the reason2s3 are about the sampleA the conclusion is about the population. If the conclusion isn.t about a lot of things, >- cannot be present /ote B0,ome sample type arguments are good, strong 2but invalid3 arguments. >- is only present when the sample is much too small. Fallacy of False Alternatives "efinition of (A: &he reasons of an argument mention two 2sometimes, more than two3 alternatives, but there is pretty obviously at least one other alternative that the arguer should have considered, but didn.tA this failure to consider a plausible alternative produces an incorrect conclusion. &erminology: In an (A argument, it is false that the alternatives mentioned in the reasons are the only alternatives. &his is the only one of the fallacies presented here in which the mistake is that the argument has a false reason. (or all of the other fallacies considered here, it doesn.t matter whether the reasons are true or false, because the problem is with the relationship between the reasons and the conclusion. /)ample (A argument: ,enator +lather was either telling the truth, or he was lying, and we know that what he said wasn.t true. &herefore he was lying. /)planation: (A because telling the truth and lying are not the only two alternatives that should have been considered. &he ,enator might have made an honest mistake 2which isn.t lying because lying has to be deliberate3, or he might have been misinformed by his staff. (A e)planations: &o give an acceptable e)planation of why an argument involves the (A fallacy, you must include the following: 13 state the two 2or more3 alternatives are that are mentioned in the argument, and 73 say that there is another alternative that should have been considered, and describe that missing alternative !f course the missing alternative is not in the argument you are critici%ing you have to think it up for yourself. It should be a reasonable, plausible alternative, not a wild or e)tremely unlikely one. If you can.t write out a reasonable missing alternative, then you have no basis for saying that the (A fallacy is present. /ote0 A often fits the "" argument form, and in such cases it is valid &he mistake in (A arguments of the "" form is that they have an obviously false reason due to omitting one or more alternatives from the 4or4 reason. ,o, sometimes a fallacious argument can be valid. Fallacy of False 2ause &erminology: A causal ;not casual< statement is simply a statement that says that one type of event causes another to happen. &he word 4false4 in 4false cause4 should not be taken literally. It doesn.t mean that any statement is literally false. It just means that the 2causal3 conclusion has been derived incorrectly. "efinition of (?: A causal conclusion is reached on the basis of very inadequate reasons. &here are two common ways of giving inadequate reasons for causal conclusions, and so there are two main versions of the (? fallacy: 1. &he Post Hoc version of (alse ?ause &he fallacious reasoning goes like this: one event happened soon after another event. &herefore, the first event caused the second one to occur.

@1

/)ample 'ost >oc (? argument: &he farm bankruptcy rate reached 78: just two years after 0eagan became 'resident. &hus, this high bankruptcy rate among farmers was due to 0eagan being 'resident. /)planation: (? because merely pointing out that the high farm bankruptcy rate occurred after 0eagan became 'resident is inadequate for concluding that his election is what caused the rate to reach 78:.!ther things that occurred before the rate got so high may have been what caused it, such as: low prices for farm products, or high prices for farm supplies, or high interest rates for loans to farmers. <ote that the e)planation mentions other possible causes &hat second sentence in the e)planation is needed for the e)planation to be adequate 7. &he Association version of the (? fallacy: &he fallacious reasoning goes like this: &wo types of events are associatedA that is, they frequently occur together. &herefore, one of them causes the other to occur. /)ample: All the really prosperous countries in the world are democratic. ,o, their prosperity resulted from democracy. /)planation: (? because merely noting that democracy and prosperity occur together 2are associated3 is inadequate for concluding that democracy causes prosperity. 5aybe some countries were prosperous before they were democratic, in which case being democratic couldn.t have caused their prosperity. !r more likely, there are many factors that cause a country to become prosperous: good natural resources, staying out of wars, other countries wanting to buy their products, and so on. 2<ote the mention of other possible causes, which is needed for a good e)planation3 /ote A0(or (? to be present, the conclusion of the argument must be a causal statementA it must say that one thing, A, causes 2or caused3 another thing, +. 0emember that words like 4produce4, 4result from4, 4bring about4, 4leads to4, 4due to4, etc. are often used to e)press causal statements. /ote B0,ome arguments with causal conclusions are good arguments, and they completely avoid both of the versions of (?. &hey have reasons which give more information than merely saying that one thing happened before another, or merely saying that two things are associated. If the reasons of a causal argument mention 4happened before4 or association along with some other information, then think carefully it may not be fallacious Fallacy of Argument from ,gnorance &erminology: &he root meaning of the word 4ignorance4 is 4I don.t know.4Ignorance M lack of knowledge.&hus the name 4Argument from Ignorance4 means 4an argument based on lack of knowledge4. "efinition of I-:?oncluding that something is true, merely because it hasn.t been proved 2or known, or shown, etc.3 that it is falseA or, concluding that something is false, merely because it hasn.t been proved 2or known, or shown, etc.3 that it is true. It is obviously stupid to reason like this:I don.t know whether L is true or falseA therefore, I conclude that L is true.It would be just as stupid to conclude that L is false.If you don.t know, then you don*t %no# whether L is true or not+ut when someone says 4It has not been proved that L is true,4 that is just a way of saying that 4We don.t know whether L is true or not.4 /)ample I- argument:<o one has proved that metal amalgam dental fillings are dangerous to your healthA therefore, they are safe. /)planation:I- because the mere failure to prove that metal amalgam fillings are dangerous is inadequate for concluding that they aren.t dangerous 2i.e. that they are safe3.It may be that no one has even investigated whether they are dangerous.

@7

/ote A0&he key point about I- is that merely failing to prove 2or know, etc.3 that L just leaves you ignorant of whether L is true or false, so it does not enable you to correctly conclude anything about L.s opposite. /ote B0(or I- to be present, the reason2s3 must explicitly say 4it has not been proved 2or shown, etc.3 that T. . L . .U 4.In other words, the arguer must explicitly use ignorance as a reason /ote F0&he word 4merely4 is important.If an arguer provides other reasons in addition to failure to know 2or show, etc.3, then the argument may not be fallacious.(or e)ample, if the above argument had added the information that there have been e)tensive tests of the safety of metal amalgam fillings, then the fallacy would not be present.#ooking carefully for evidence and not finding any is very different from simply not having any evidence Fallacy of Ad Hominem ;AH< &erminology: 4Ad >ominem4 is an old #atin phrase which literally means 4against the person4.&he basic idea is that an arguer is presenting reasons which are aimed at 24against43 a '/0,!<, when the arguer should be presenting reasons that are aimed at 24against43 a '!,I&I!< or a *I/W'!I<&. +ackground: !ften arguments have conclusions which say that some position or viewpoint is mistaken, or should be rejected.In order to support such a conclusion, the reasons should point out some problem2s3 with that position they should be reasons aimed against that position 2and <!& against a person who holds that position3.(or instance, if an argument.s conclusion is that a ,enator.s ta) policy is no good, then the reasons should be criticisms of 2against3 the ,enator.s ta) policy 2and <!& criticisms aimed at the ,enator himself3. "efinition of A>:An argument which has a conclusion in which some position is rejected and which has reasons which are <!& aimed against that position at all, but which instead are aimed against some person2s3 who accepts that position.&his is bad reasoning because it is merely a way of diverting attention from the proper issues. /)ample A> argument:&he people who favor the ta) increase bill will give you lots of reasons why they think it should be passed.+ut in fact it is a lousy bill which should be defeated, for the simple reason that it is supported by ,enator Whitney +erton. Kou know him the guy who is widely suspected of being guilty of ta) evasion /)planation: A> because the arguer rejects the ta) increase bill merely on the basis of a criticism 2that he is suspected of ta) evasion3 of ,enator +erton, who supports the bill. It gives no information at all about the strong or weak points of the bill itself. ,enator +erton.s ta) proposal might be a good idea even though he himself is a crook, and it might be a bad idea even though he himself has never violated any law. >is proposal should be evaluated on its merits, not on the basis of the ,enator.s personal life. &his argument has a reason that critici%es a person 2,enator +erton3, when it ought to have reasons that critici%e the ,enator.s position concerning increased ta)es. <otice that this argument says absolutely nothing about the pros and cons of the ta) increase proposal itself /ote A0In an A> argument the conclusion is that some 4position4 or 4viewpoint4 is false, or should be rejected. ,o A> arguments have 4negative4 conclusions. ,ometimes the personal criticism stated in the reasons is very obvious, sometimes it is rather indirect. A common variety of A> is to critici%e someone for 4not practicing what he preaches4 and then rejecting what he preaches. /ote B0If the conclusion of an argument is about a person2s3 character, then personal criticisms may be appropriate, and then A> would not be present. (or instance, if in court a lawyer critici%es a witness for having a history of lying and concludes that the jury shouldn.t believe the witness, then the lawyer has not committed the A> fallacy. A witness.s character is a very relevant and important consideration in court.

@9

/ote F04'ersonal criticism4 means 4a criticism directed at a person 2or group of people3 by the arguer4. It does not simply mean 4a personal opinionO. It is, either directly or indirectly, a criticism of someone.s character. /ote G0&here could be a 4positive4 version of A>: a position or viewpoint is correct because someone who holds that position is a good person. &his is also fallacious reasoning, but it is not nearly so common as the negative version e)plained above. Fallacy of E-uivocation ;E9< &erminology: 4equi4 means 4equal4.4voca4 means 4callO. &o e/uivocate literally means to say 2to call3 that two things are equal, when in fact they are <!& equal. &hus it is to deceive or to mislead to say what isn.t so ,ometimes an arguer will use the same word 2or phrase3 to mean two different things sometimes deliberately, sometimes without even reali%ing it. In other words, there is a change in the meaning of a word or phrase within an argument. In good arguments, key words and phrases should be used with the same meaning throughout. If you, the reader or listener, do not notice the change in meaning, then you can be misled or deceived into thinking that a bad argument is a good one. "efinition of /J: An argument has an incorrect conclusion due to some word or phrase in the argument being used to mean two different things. ;sually the same word or phrase will be used two 2or more3 times in the argument but with different meanings. Kou should be especially careful to think about the meanings of words that are used for comparing things 24relative terms43 words like: big, small, rich, smart, important, e)pensive, short, old, etc. /)actly what they mean depends on what is being used for comparison. Is 5ontana a +I- state= Well, it depends. "o you mean big in total area, in population, in tobacco production, in wilderness areas, or what= /)ample /J argument: All men are rational beings, and no man is a womanA thus no woman is rational. /)planation: /J because the meaning of 4manHmen4 shifts from 4human4 2in the first reason3 to 4male4 2in the second reason3. <ote: /J e)planations should include the two different meanings which are present in the argument. 'ut quote marks around your two different meanings. &he argument itself will not say what the two meanings are. Kou have to supply them for yourself A!out ,nconsistency Inconsistency is a relation2ship3 between or among statements 2not arguments3.;sually when discussing inconsistency we have only two statements under consideration, but occasionally there are more. Definition0 &wo 2or more3 statements are inconsistent with each other when it is impossible 2unimaginable, inconceivable3 that they could both 2or, all3 be true together.O &ogether4 means at the same time or place, or in the same circumstances, or with reference to the same people or things. When it is possible that they could be true together, they are consistent. <ote that consistencyHinconsistency concerns how statements relate to each other, not how they relate to the world, or to 4facts.O When statements clash with each other, they are inconsistent with each other. If they don.t clash with each other, they are consistent with each other. E3amples0 13 &oday is ,aturday. &oday is ,unday. ?omment: &hese statements can.t both be true together, so they are inconsistent. If you.re reading this on a weekend, then one of them is literally trueA otherwise, both of them are false. +ut when consistencyH inconsistency is the issue, whether the statements are literally true is not very relevantA it.s how they relate to each other that counts

@B

73&his year is 1@@C.&his year is 1@@6. ?omment: !bviously these are inconsistent, and they are both literally false. 93&his year is 1@@C.<e)t year will be 1@@6. ?omment: &hese are also both literally false, but they are consistent. &hey don.t clash with each other, although they both are literally false. ,o, false statements can be either consistent or inconsistentA it depends on how they relate to each other. B3 ?hina is in Asia. &wo multiplied by seven is fourteen. ?omment: &hese are both actually true, so of course it is possible that they could both be true, because they are true ,o they are consistent, they do not clash with each other. 4+ut they aren.t even related4 &rue, they aren.t. ;nrelated statements are always consistent with each other, and so are any statements that are literally true. +ecause 4inconsistent4 means 4can.t both be true.O If they both are true, then they can.t be inconsistent If they are unrelated, then they can.t clash with each other C3 ,am is taller than 5ary. 5ary is taller than ,u%ie. ,u%ie is taller than ,am. ?omment: Any two of these could be true, but there.s no way all three could be true together. ,o this is an inconsistent trio of statements. 63 If it.s snowing, then the weather is cold. &he weather is warm. ?omment. &hese are consistent. &he conditional statement doesn.t say that it really is snowing, nor does it say that the weather is really cold. &he if then could quite well be true even when the weather is actually warm. F3If it.s raining, the streets are wet. &he streets are wet. It isn.t raining. ?omment: A consistent trio of statements. ?ould be the streets are wet because it.s recently been raining, or snow has just melted, etc. G3If it.s raining, the streets are wet.&he streets are dry, and it.s raining. ?omment:An inconsistent trio.&hink about it.<o way these could all be true together. @3If she studies the night before, she.ll get an A on the test.If she doesn.t study the night before, she.ll get an A on the test. ?omment:A consistent pair of conditional statements.It might be that she.ll get an A whether she studies or not, so it.s possible they could both be true. .verall0?onsistencyHinconsistency concerns how statements relate to each other.If you can imagine some way in which they could both 2or, all3 be true together, then they are consistent.If they are so inter related that they can.t possibly both 2or, all3 be true, then they are inconsistent. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHI Logical Fallacies' Formal and ,nformal #ogic, which provides the principles of correct reason, does not ensure we will use those principles correctly, and it is easy to suppose we are being logical, while making subtle mistakes in our reasoning that are not easy to detect. /)planations are necessary and important, but e)amples frequently make obvious what e)planations fail to make clear. &his list of fallacies can help sharpen our mind.s eye in detecting logical errors in our own and other.s reasoning. It is especially important today that we be able to detect the spurious and fallacious arguments that eminate in a continuous stream from the media, our educators, political leaders, and so called intellectuals. 5any of the false arguments accepted without question by the gullible masses are only the result of poor reasoning, but many more are intentional and designed to promote various political and

@C

social agendas. &hese intended fallacies are very subtle and difficult to detect. It is hoped this list of fallacies will also help make such intended obfuscations of truth more obvious. rut" and Fallacy &he word fallacy is sometime used to mean 4untrue,4 but every untrue statement is not a fallacy. If my wife asks me if the cat has gotten into the armoire again and I say, 4no,4 and my wife gives me that, well watch this look, opens the armoire door and kitty jumps out, I am surprised and my 4no4 turns out to be untrue, but it is not a fallacy. If, on the other hand, I had argued, 4well I just saw 5iss 'uddens downstairs, so she cannot possibly be in the armoire,4 the argument would have been fallacious, as well as, untrue. (allacies pertain specifically to 4arguments,4 or that form of reasoning we use when attempting to lay the ground or rational basis for a view or opinion. If our arguments are correct, they will conform to the principles of sound reason, for which logic provides the formal rules. If our arguments are logically incorrect, either because we violate a formal rule of logic, or include false ideas, our arguing is fallacious, and our conclusions will be false. ,deas' rut"' and Logic 4What is truth=4 We presume to answer 'ilot.s famous question.1 ,imple ideas, in themselves, are neither true or false. (or e)ample, automobile, o)ygen, phlogiston, justice, combustion, ?upid, 0andolph Eefferson, are 4simple4 ideas, which in logic are called 4terms.4 While each term or simple idea has a specific meaning, none of them are either true or false until we say something about them. ?onsider: 0andolph Eefferson drives an automobile. 2(alse3 0andolph Eefferson was the brother of &homas Eefferson. 2&rue3 'hlogiston was once believed to be released during combustion. 2&rue3 !)ygen is the modern name for phlogiston. 2(alse3 !)ygen supports combustion. 2&rue3 ,ome automobiles have internal combustion engines. 2&rue3 ?upid drives an automobile. 2(alse3 ?upid is a fictional character associated with love and *alentines. 2&rue3 Eustice demands all men receive equal incomes. 2(alse3 Eustice demands all men receive morally equal treatment under the law. 2&rue3

It is apparent we can say something true or false about any simple idea. &he truth or falsehood is determined by whether what we say about an idea is correct 2true3 or incorrect 2false3. &ruth, then, is a quality that pertains to statements that assert or deny something and such statements have the quality true when what is stated is correct, and do not have the quality true 2are false3 when what is stated is incorrect. In logic, statements which assert or deny something are called propositions. In classical formal logic, propositions are further classified into premises and conclusions. (or e)ample: 4All men were once boys,4 is a premise. 4&herefore, some boys will become men,4 is a conclusion. While this is not an e)ample of a

@6

logical argument in the classical sense, it does illustrate what all logic is about, which is reasoning correctly to arrive at conclusions which are true. TWe have intentionally omitted any full discussion of classical logic 2e.g. apprehension, term, judgement, inference, deduction, syllogism, etc.3 or any of several versions of symbolic logic, which are very large subjects deserving very broad treatment.U Pro!lems of Formal Logic (ormal logic defines, in rigid terms, the e)act form in which statements must be made and arranged to lead to conclusions which are true. In, 4real life,4 almost none of our thinking takes the strict form which formal logic describes. While almost all reasoning can be reduced to those strict logical forms, it is a tedious chore none of us are inclined to. In some cases, however, that is e)actly what we must do to insure our reasoning is correct. <evertheless, most errors in thinking and the origin of most fallacies are not as likely to be the result of violating logical rules as are mistakes in our original assumptions or premises. &wo of the most common contributors to these mistakes are confusion of conte)t and vagueness of meaning. &he meanings of words, the appropriateness of actions, and the nature of consequences, e)cept for certain absolutes, all vary depending on the conceptual and material conte)t in which they occur. Ignoring or evading conte)ts nearly always results in a fallacy. &he richness and idiomatic nature of the /nglish language, 2and many other languages, as well3, allows for great variation in the precise intent and meaning of both specific words and phrases. When the precise intended meaning of such words and phrases are accidentally or intentionally obscured, a fallacy is likely. !ddly, there is a fallacy arising out of formal logic itself 2especially symbolic logic3 which is a result of both these types of confusion. (or e)ample, the following is a valid argument in formal logic: 2I is the common symbol for 4therefore.43 All men are green. 'aul is a man. I 'aul is green.Is this a valid argument= &o the logician, the answer is yes, because it is made according to the rules of logic. ;nfortunately, there is among logicians a view that a, 4formally valid,4 argument, that is, one that does not violate any rule of logic, being without 4formal4 fallacy, is therefore true. &his is partly due to those ideas arising from +oolean Algebra and other forms of symbolic logic, where the word, 4true,4 is defined to mean a specific 4logical state.4 +ut the view is a fallacy, however, for the same reason the 4green man4 e)ample is a fallacy, one of the premises 2all men are green3 is untrue. &he false premise the logicians hold is the result of both a confusion of conte)t 2kind of logic3 and vagueness of meaning 2how truth is defined3. We call this particular kind of fallacy, the 4formally correct,4 or 4according to the rules,4 fallacy. Formal Fallacies Formal fallacies are arguments 2called syllogisms3 that fail to result in the truth because they violate the formal rules of logic. (ormal fallacies assume the premises are true, so the fallacy results from drawing a conclusion, 2an inference3 not supported by the premises, even when the premises are true.

@F

Four terms fallacy 2quaternio terminorum3 &he formal syllogism specifies that e)actly three and only three 4unambiguous categorical terms4 be used in the argument. A term is what we called a 4simple idea.4 In the argument: All cats are mammals 'uddens is a cat. I 'uddens is a mammal. &he three terms are cat, mammal, and 'uddens. If there are more than three 4significant4 terms 2terms actually used in the argument3 the argument commits a formal fallacy. (or e)ample: All cats are mammals 'uddens is our pet. I !ur pet is a mammal. is fallacious because it has four terms, cat, mammal, 'uddens, and pet. In this case the fallacy is obvious. &he arguer assumes 'uddens is a cat, but for all anyone else knows, 'uddens might be a kangaroo. &he fallacy in this case is obvious, but it is not always. (or e)ample: All roses have thorns. 5y favorite shrub is the rose of ,haron I 5y favorite shrub has thorns. &he four terms in this argument are rose, thorns, shrub, and rose of ,haron, because the rose of ,haron is not a rose, 2and does not have thorns3. While this is technically a fallacy because it violates the three term rule, it is the result of a confusion in the meaning of the words, in this case, between rose, and rose of sharon. ;ndistributed middle fallacy &his fallacy is impossible to describe without knowing what is meant by 4middle,4 and 4distributed.4 ?onsider this e)ample: All humans are mortal 5organ is human. I 5organ is mortal &he terms in this argument are humans, mortal, and 5organ. &here are two terms in the conclusion 2the third or 4I4 proposition3 of any argument, the subject term 2in this case 5organ3 and the predicate term 2in this case mortal3. ,ince there are only three terms in any argument of formal logic, the third term, which is never in the conclusion, must be in both premises 2in this case, humans3. &he third term is called the 4middle term,4 because it logically lies in the middle, as a connector, between the subject and predicate terms. <ow, what does 4distributed,4 mean= In classical logic, the two words 4distribution,4 and 4e)tension,4 mean almost the same thing. &hey both refer to that aspect of an idea 2concept3 that we variously call its referents, particulars, or, in Ayn 0and.s epistemology, units.

@G

&he 4distribution4 of 4e)tension4 of the concept, 4mankind,4 for e)ample, means all possible humans, past, present, and future, and every human being is a 4unit4 or 4particular4 of the concept 4mankind.4 &he concept, 4dog,4 as another e)ample, means all possible dogs, of all possible .breeds. past, present, and future, and every dog that has ever been or ever will be is a 4unit4 or 4particular4 of the concept dog. In our e)ample, the 4middle4 term, humans is 4distributed4 because the premise, 4all human beings are mortal4 indicates 4mortal4 is a quality or characteristic of all the concept.s particulars or units 2all humans3. In other words, there is something stated in some premise about the middle term 2human3 that is true of 2distributed to3 every possible e)ample of what the middle term designates, which in this case is every possible human. &his e)ample illustrates the fallacy of an undistributed middle: All dogs are mammals. ,ome mammals are whales. I ,ome dogs are whales. While the falseness of this argument may be obvious, the reason it is false is not so obvious. <otice the middle term mammals is not distributed because there is nothing stated in either premise about the middle term that is true 2distributed to3 every possible e)ample of what the middle term designates 2every possible mammal3. ,llicit ma6or and illicit minor fallacies &his fallacy is impossible to describe without knowing what is meant by 4major,4 and 4minor4 terms. 0epeating the e)ample used to e)plain 4middle,4 and 4distributed4: All humans are mortal 5organ is human. I 5organ is mortal &he subject of the conclusion, 2in this case 5organ3 is called the minor termA the predicate of the conclusion, 2in this case mortal3 is called the major term. &he premise that contains the major term is called the major premise. 2While, in classical logic, the major premise is always stated first, it is not logically required to be first.3 &he premise that contains the minor term is called the minor premise. If either the major or minor premise identifies the middle term with only some of the major or minor term.s 4units4 or particulars, no valid conclusion can be supported about all of that terms 4units4 or particulars. In this e)ample of an illicit major: All dogs are mammals <o cats are dogs. I <o cats are mammals. ...only some mammals 2major term3 are identified with the middle term, dogs. In this e)ample of an illicit minor: All poodles are mammals All poodles are pets I All pets are mammals. ...only some pets 2minor term3 are identified with the middle term, poodles. @@

E3clusive Premises Fallacy A premise that asserts a negative identity between the major or minor term and the middle term is called a negative premise. If both premises are negative, no valid conclusion can be drawn, because each premise e)cludes any identity with the other, as in this e)ample: <o fish are mammals. <o whales are fish. I,ome whales are not mammals. 2&his fallacy is e)tremely rare.3 "rawing an affirmative conclusion from negative premises fallacy If either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative or is invalid. &his is true because when the minor premise is negative it says something negative about the subject of the conclusion and if the major premise is negative it says something negative about the predicate of the conclusion, which makes either the subject or predicate of the conclusion, and thus the whole conclusion negative, as in this valid e)ample: All fish are aquatic animals. ,ome fish have no scales. I,ome aquatic animals have no scales. ...or, in this e)ample of the fallacy: All fish are aquatic animals. ,ome aquatic animals have no scales. I,ome fish have scales.

&hough the conclusion makes a true statement, that truth is not established by the argument, as illustrated in the following: All sharks are aquatic animals. ,ome aquatic animals have no scales. I,ome sharks have scales.

&he fallacy is apparent in this e)ample, because sharks do not have scales. E3istential fallacy &he logical rule this fallacy violates says, 4if both premises are universal, the conclusion must be universal.4 +ut what does universal mean= In the proposition 4all dogs are mammals,4 the term 4dog4 is used 4universally,4 because it refers to every actual or possible dog. +ut universal does not mean, 4collective,4 that is, the universal concept 4dog4 is not just a term for the collection of all possible dogsA it means that nature which is common to all dogs as dogs, or the qualities that differentiate all dogs from all other e)istents, and therefore refers to all possible e)istents with that nature or those qualities. 2/very concept includes in its comprehension, all qualities and characteristics possible to any unit of the concept, both those which are 4essential4 Twithout which an e)istent could not be a unit of the conceptU, all

188

those that are possible Twhich any unit may have but no unit must haveU and e)cludes all those that are impossible Tthose which are incompatible with the essential qualities, which, if any e)istent has, it cannot be a unit of the conceptU.3 If both premises of an argument are universal, it is the concepts themselves that is meant by the major and minor terms, and not any specific particulars or units of those concepts. (or e)ample: All fish are aquatic animals. All animals are sentient. IAll fish are sentient. In this valid argument, the conclusion is not about any particular fish, and even if there were no fish, the conclusion would still be valid. In the following, however, the conclusion is invalid: All trespassers will be shot. All survivors will be prosecuted. I,ome trespassers will be prosecuted. If the two premises were on a sign, its purpose would be to ensure there are no trespassers, and to indicate, if there are, they will be dead. 2We assume the shooter does not miss.3 ,ince the intent is that there be no trespassers, or at least no live ones, the conclusion about 4some4 of them cannot be valid. &he universal premises includes all possible trespassers and survivors, whether or not there ever are any trespassers. &he particular conclusion, 4some4 refers to actual trespasser, of which the premises assume there will not be any. 2<ote: ,ome might question how the following can be a fallacy: All dogs are mammals. All mammals are animals. I,ome dogs are animals. ,ince the correct conclusion, 4All dogs are animals,4 means every possible dog, certainly some dogs are animals. +ut, 4some,4 in logic is ambiguous, meaning what is true of 4some4 might not be true of 4some others.4 In this case, the conclusion appears true, but is invalid. &he formal logic fallacies indicate those forms that always or sometimes lead to wrong conclusions, and therefore, can never be depended on to produce correct conclusions, even if they sometimes do. ,nformal Fallacies We noted, most of or our thinking, reasoning, and arguing seldom resembles the neatly ordered syllogisms of classical logic. !ur thinking is both more comple), often involving many terms and many propositions, and more casual, where terms and propositions are often assumed. ,ince our natural way of reasoning and arguing is much richer and more interesting than the dry and formal methods of classical logic, it is not surprising, the fallacies of informal argument are also richer and more interesting, and that there are great many more of them.

181

!ver time, logicians and philosophers have identified many informal fallacies. <o list of such fallacies, however, is e)haustive. We have attempt to include as many as possible of those any of us are likely to encounter. Accident fallacy 2,ee ?onverse accident fallacy3 Applying a general rule or principle to particular cases the generality does not cover or applying a general statement to cases it was not intended to include. /)amples: 4,ince freedom of speech means everyone has the right to say whatever they want, if I want to yell, 4fire4 in a crowded theater, I have the right to do so.4 We include this dubious e)ample because, as it is generally understood, it illustrates that a general principle 2free speech3 does not apply to all cases 2as when harmful to others3, and because, the 4general understanding,4 itself, is an e)ample of the ?onsensus gentium fallacy.7 4,ince you promised to always keep your cats indoors when you adopted them from the >umane ,ociety, you must not install a cat door or allow them out, even if your house is on fire.4 Assumes one should never break a promise, even if it requires violating the purpose of the promise. Ad anti-uitam Fallacy 2Appeal to the old3 Asserting something is more correct or better simply because it is older. 2,ee Ad novitam, 2opposite3, and Ad verecundiam, 2similar3, fallacies.3 /)ample: 4&he problem with America is that the older /uropean sense of community and cohesiveness has been destroyed by that divisive independent spirit spawned by the capitalist mentality.4 It is true, Americans do not like communes. Ad !aculum fallacy 2argument from power or force.3 2&he #atin means, 4according to the stick,4 or 4by means of the rod.43 from intimidation fallacy3 Arguing to gain acceptance or agreement by a threat, or use of force. ,ince the use of force essentially ends logical argument, some might doubt this is a fallacy, but frequently force or the threat of it, is used in conjunction with 4reason4 2if people don.t comply, we have to use force for their own good3 convincing people that something quite false is true. /)ample: 4&hese new speed limits will make our highways safer.4 Where the agents of force are ubiquitous, such as the police, and people are accustomed to arbitrary rules being enforced by them, e)plicit threats of force are not necessaryA they are understood. 5ost people will drive within the new speed limits, convinced they are only doing it because it is right and it is, 4safer,4 when in fact, if they knew they would never be stopped by the police, they would drive at the old speed limits which they formerly never thought were unsafe. &hey only way they are actually safer, if they drive within the new speed limits, is the reduced risk of having their money e)torted by means of a speeding ticket. Ad crumenam fallacy 2,ee the opposite Ad la%arum fallacy3 2Appeal to wealth3 +asing an argument on the principle that having money is a criterion of correctness or that the rich are more likely to be right. 2<ote: If the issue is about how to get or keep money, the rich are more likely to be right.3 /)ample: 4!f course we ought to join the club. &om +rook is the richest man in 'lainville, and he belongs.4 ,ince there is almost never a good reason to join anything, this argument is no sillier than any other.

187

Ad ignorantiam fallacy 2argument from ignorance3. Asserting the truth of any proposition on the basis that what is asserted has never disproved or what is denied has never been provedA or that there is no evidence for the thing denied, or, against what is asserted. "ebate about the mystic, paranormal, or occult proceed largely by arguing ad ignorantiam. &he fallacy also forms the basis for most medical quackery tricked up with a lot of medical jargon. /)amples: 4It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance does not e)ist, therefore, it must e)ist.4 4It has never been proved, nor can it be, that clairvoyance e)ists, therefore, it cannot e)ist.4 4,tudies show that many people using fibrilopymesium hypochloride recover completely from their diseases. <o study has ever failed to show this.4 &here is no proof it doesn.t work, therefore it must work. 4,tudies show that some people using fibrilopymesium hypochloride never recover from their diseases. /very study shows this.4 &here is no proof it does work, therefore, it must not work. Ad lapidem fallacy 2&hrow stones3 "ismissing an argument as absurd or false without demonstrating it is false, often with ridicule or in a bullying manner. /)amples: 4It.s not the ta)es. >e.s just another ignorant farmer who can.t see, .what.s so important about education,. because he hasn.t any. !f course he.s against this school appropriation bill.4 Ad hominem is frequently combined with Ad lapidem, as in this e)ample. 4&he oversimplified view that everyone can and therefore must be responsible for their own choices is childish and ridiculous.4 ?ertainly, in some ways, it is oversimplified, childish, and even ridiculous, but, nevertheless, it is true. Ad lazarum fallacy 2,ee the opposite Ad crumenam fallacy3 2Appeal to poverty3 +asing an argument on the principle that the poor are more likely to be right or virtuous than the wealthy. /)ample: 4!f course we ought to join the club. &om +rook.s family is the poorest in 'lainville, and they belong.4 ,ince there is almost never a good reason to join anything, this argument is no sillier than any other. Ad misericordiam fallacy 2argument or appeal to pity3. Attempts to reinforce or gain acceptance for an argument by appealing the people.s sympathies or pity. &he word, 4compassion,4 is a frequent component of this fallacy, but more often, none of these words 2pity, compassion, etc.3 are used, rather the, 4plight,4 or 4tragedy,4 or 4disaster,4 that will presumably result if the argument is not accepted are described in heart wrenchingly pathetic terms. &his fallacy is e)tremely effective. It is the indispensable tool of defense lawyers, charitable organi%ations, fund raisers, and politicians campaigning for increases in social welfare or more foreign aid, for e)ample. &he term for the everyday use of this fallacy, at school, work, and home, is 4manipulation.4 &his fallacy, like the intimidation fallacy, is a variation of the ad personam fallacy. /)ample: 4,hould this young women.s single mistake be allowed to ruin her entire life and the lives of all those who depend on and love her= &hat is what a long sentence would do. ,houldn.t we rather rescue a life, than ruin one=4 ?ompassion is not only misplaced, 2no mention is made of how the victim.s life may have been ruined3, it is irrelevant.

189

Ad novitam Fallacy 2Appeal to the modern3 Asserting something is more correct or better simply because it is newer. 2,ee the opposite Ad antiquitam fallacy3 /)ample: 4&he old fashioned idea that only families could properly raise children has been replaced with the more enlightened, modern view, that rearing children is best accomplished by the community.4 <o doubt the community will be just as successful raising children as it has been educating them. Ad personam fallacy 2appeal to personal interest3 ;sually described as appealing to the personal likes 2preferences, prejudices, predisposition3 in order to have an argument accepted, but includes appeals to anything that is not, 4rational,4 such as feelings, sense of honor, pride, reputation, habits, and most frequently fears, which of course are all personal interests. Arguments employing this fallacy frequently start like this: 4"o you want people to think ... you are stupid= you hate children= you are a nerd= you are poor= you are a snob= you despise your country=4 or, 4If you really cared..., loved me..., wanted what was best for me, ...your children, ...your family, ...your country ..., then you would 2whatever is being argued for3.4 &he intimidation and ad misericordiam fallacies are variations of this fallacy. Ad populum fallacy 2to the people3. 2Also, appeal to the gallery, appeal to the majority, appeal to what is popular, appeal to the multitude, appeal to the mob3. Attempting to arouse popular acceptance of an idea by appealing to the emotions, biases, prejudices, enthusiasms, attitudes, popular opinion, moods, or fears of the multitude rather than rational arguments. &his fallacy is sometimes equated with demagoguery, and is frequently the tool of propaganda and advertising. 4*ote. It is your right. ;se it or loose it. And remember, it is the ... 2"emocratic, 0epublican, ,ocialist, #ibertarian, etc.3 party that fights for your rights.4 Ad populum is not the same as either the "emocratic or ?onsensus gentium fallacies, which attempt to prove something is true 2or right3 based on the number of people who already agree with, desire, or choose it. Ad populum is the attempt to make a view or idea 4popular,4 to win acceptance for it. Ad verecundiam fallacy 2to authority or veneration3. &he appeal to authority rather than logical argument and verifiable evidence to support an idea. Authorities include: e)perts, teachers, leaders, customs, traditions, institutions 2religions or ideologies3, individuals holding respected positions in government, business, or other organi%ations, or any individuals or groups whose opinions are regarded as authoritative. ;sing authority in argument or reason is not itself a fallacy, it is when authority is used instead of reason, or when the supposed authority is not a valid one, that a fallacy is committed.9 &he most common version of this fallacy is the appeal to 4vague authority.4 ;nspecified e)perts, masters, sages, adepts, studies, research, or documents are cited as though they were generally known and universally accepted. Always implicit in this version of the fallacy is the idea that anyone who does not know and accept the cited authority is stupid, ignorant, or 4out of touch4. !f course, if the authority is so well known, the arguer should have no trouble identifying it. /)amples: 4,cientists say that drilling for oil in Alaska will be an environmental disaster.4 What scientists, in what field, and did they say it as scientists or as socialists=

18B

4'sychologist.s studies show that home schooling for children whose parents are never home may not be successful.4 &his e)ample only seems ludicrous to those who are not familiar with recent psychologistRs studies. /vidence from such 4e)pert studies4 are routinely used to repudiate facts. In this case, it would take the form, 4'sychologist.s studies show that home schooling for children ... may not be successful.4 #ook for this headline in any liberal newspaper or maga%ine. Alternative syllogism fallacy 2,ee disjunctive syllogism fallacy3 Implying that two possible characteristics of a thing are mutually e)clusive, when the premises only require at least one of the characteristics to be true, without e)cluding the possibility the other also being true. In classical logic, 4A is either + or ?4 is not the same as 4A is either + or ? but not both4 2alternatively, 4A is either + and not ? or ? and not +43 &he fallacy is an argument that implies 4A is either + or ? but not both4 when the premises only support 4A is either + or ?4 2because it A could be both3. /)amples: 4If you are patriotic you will not be against this war,4 or 4if you are patriotic, you will oppose this war.4 +eing patriotic and being for or against any particular war cannot logically be mutually e)clusive. 4If you really care about our children.s future you will support this school appropriations bill.4 &here is no doubt truth in the opposite of this, but if stated in this form, it would still be a fallacy. Am!iguity fallacy An argument that has at least one ambiguous word or statement which leads to a false conclusion. 2When this is done intentionally, it is called, obfuscation.3 &here are many varieties of ambiguity. &he most common are these: 'rocess product, ,emantical, &ype token, and Amphiboly 2syntactical3. 2<ote: &he e)amples of ambiguity that follow are called, 4fallacies,4 but are only specific ways ambiguities arise. &hey do not become fallacies until they are actually used in an argument producing an incorrect or false conclusion. &his is true for most of the other 4fallacies4 in this list.3 Am!iguity' process)product &he ambiguity resulting from a statement could refer to either a process or to its product and it is unclear from the conte)t which of the two is intended. /)ample: 4Eohn is checking the new employee.s work.4 &he word work can refer to act of working 2a process3 or to the completed work 2a product3. Am!iguity' semantical An ambiguity that results from using a word or words which can have more than one meaning in a statement when the intended meaning is in doubt. /)ample: 4'aul rented two rooms.4 It is unclear if 'aul rented two rooms for himself 2from someone else3, or 'aul rented two of his own rooms 2to someone else3. Am!iguity' syntactical 2,ee Amphiboly3 Am!iguity' type)to%en When a word can refer to either a type 2tiger, lion, leopard3 or token 2any cats3 is used in way that makes it unclear which it refers to, the statement is ambiguous.

18C

/)amples: Interviewer: 4>ow many cats do you have in your %oo=4 $oo spokesman: 4At the moment, only two.4 Which means they have only two animals 2tokens3 of the feline persuasion, possible two lions, or one tiger and one leopard, but could also mean two types of cats, ten tigers and five lions, in which case the tokens would total fifteen. Instructions: 4'lease write the names of twenty cities in ;tah on the board.4 ,tudents action: T&o be on the safe side, since the instructions said cities, the student writes, 4+eaver,4 and, 4+ullfrog,4 ten times each on the board. ,ince +eaver and +ullfrog are the names of cities in ;tah, and they are each written ten times, that is certainly twenty names 2tokens3 of cities in ;tah. If, as we suspect, the instructions meant twenty different 2types3 cities, the enterprising student might not quite have complied with the instructions. Amp"i!oly ;syntactical am!iguity3 2-k. amphibolos, 4not regular speech,4 or 4a sentence whose meaning is doubtful or confusing43 An amphiboly results whenever incorrect grammar or synta) makes the meaning of a statement unclear. /)amples: Amphibolies abound, especially in newspaper headlines: 45an captured by police while running naked through the park,4 2dangling participial3 and regularly in news stories and commentaries, 4'oliticians deceive their constituents who do not tell the whole truth.4 2Ambiguous antecedent.3 2/ven though we know, it is not clear from the sentence which do not tell the whole truth, the politicians or the constituents.3 Amp"i!olies can result from misplaced modifiers, loosely applied adverbs, elliptical constructions, omitted punctuation, and almost any other violation of the rules of grammar, synta), and construction. 2&he first requirement for sound reason and clear thinking is a thorough command of one.s own language.3B Anecdotal evidence fallacy 2?onfabulation fallacy3 Attempts to establish a proposition as fact or as a universal principle based solely on anecdotes, personal e)perience, and testimony, where no other evidence for the assertion or way to test it e)ists. /)ample: 4We could not be certain there are ;(!s if so many people had not seen and described them, and if those who have actually been inside them had not provided us so many wonderfully detailed descriptions. We are thankful for this irrefutable evidence.4 Well all that is evidence of something, but it is more likely to be dementia than ;(!s. 2<ote: ,ometimes anecdotes and common e)perience are evidence for something real. &he so called 5urphy.s #aw, 2whatever can go wrong, will, and at the worst possible moment3, has some basis in a real law of physics called the second law of thermodynamics.C It is generally conceded what we call 5urphy.s #aw is the working out of this law of physics in the e)perience of our everyday lives. ,o the anecdotes and e)periences of things 4going wrong,4 are evidence of something factual.3 Argument from intimidation fallacy 2,ee Ad +aculum3 +oth Ad +aculum and argument from intimidation use a combination of threat and 4reasoning4 to put over an argument. In Ad +aculum, the source of the threat is the arguer. Argument from intimidation always points to some other agency or 4situation4 as the threat, and often the whole argument is an attempt to prove a threat e)ists, is grave, and requires immediate action 2is an emergency that justifies the required action3. /)amples:

186

4We must immediately outlaw the use of 2some substance or action3, because our environment is on the verge of being destroyed by 2some presumed but totally unproven disaster3.46 In a variation of this fallacy the threat is more personal, such as to an individual.s reputation, prestige, or their concern about the views and opinion of others. 4If you support this bill, people will believe you hate children 2or, despise the poor, don.t care about the elderly, cheat on your wife, or hate your mother3, for e)ample. &his version of the fallacy is the converse or the ad personam fallacy. Argumentum ad nauseam fallacy Asserting something is true based on how often it is asserted or promoting the assertion by continuous repetition. 2&his fallacy is the basis of the Adolph >itler theory, that if you repeat a lie loud enough, long enough and often enough people will believe it. A theory proven by history.3 /)amples: 4!f course the environment is in danger and it is getting warmer. &here is not a single source that does not say so.4 !ne hears almost nothing else, it is true. &hat it is only an oft repeated lie, is also true. <evertheless, it is widely believed. 4-uns kill, we must ban all guns -uns kill, we must ban all guns -uns kill, we must ban all guns -uns kill, we must ban all guns -uns kill, we must ban all guns ... ad nauseam.4 ,o, naturally, the gullible public believes, 4-uns kill, we must ban all guns,4 because, that.s all they hear. Beard fallacy "iscounting an argument or evidence on the basis that small or minor differences are not significant, or debating about degree, number, or severity of something that must be reached before it can be identified as that thing. /)amples: 4I.m not really bald. I still have hair.4 (our hairs, to be e)act. 4I.m not stealing, I.m sampling. !ne grape isn.t stealing. ,tealing would be taking the whole bunch.4 &his is possibly the most common rationali%ation by which dishonest people convince themselves they are moral. 4What harm can one ... 2drink, fling, night out, piece of candy, more Tof anythingU3 do=4 (requently, one does no harm at all, but frequently one is the first of many, and every one is only one. 4A mere three percent is far from an oppressive ta).4 All ta)es are oppressiveA and just what percentage of ta)es is the three percent being added to= 40equiring people to have a license 2I" card, government issued number3 to drive 2own a gun, open a bank account3 are not really limits on individual freedom.4 &hen what, e)actly, is a limit on individual freedom=

18F

Begging t"e -uestion fallacy Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. 2,ometimes called circular reasoning.3 /)amples: 4+y universe we mean everything. /verything has a cause. &herefore, the universe, has a cause.4 &his very subtle argument includes both begging the question 2must everything have a cause=3 and equivocation, because the meaning of 4everything4 is shifted from, 4all that is, as it is4 2in 4by universe we mean everything43 to, 4every single thing,4 2in 4everything has a cause43A in other words, it includes, as a member of the collection, every single thing that has a cause, the collection, itself, as a thing that needs a cause. 4A recent panel of e)perts in the field of personal relationships discussed the question of what one should and should not say in a social conte)t. &hey concluded that telling the truth sometimes hurts. &o avoid hurt, therefore, it is sometimes better to tell a lie. &he behaviorists on the panel pointed out that feelings are really an illusion, that pain is only a reaction, and, therefore, to say someone hurts, is itself a lie. &he post modernists on the panel emphasi%ed the fact that truth is relative, and one man.s lie is another man.s truth. In the words of one panelist, .we concluded it is probably better not to say anything because, whatever you say, it is going to be wrong. !n the other hand, if everything you say is going to be wrong anyway, why not say it, if you feel like it= /veryone else does..4 &his is a typical and lovely bouquet of fallacies, including ad misericordiam, Ignoratio elenchi, Ad verecundiam, 'lurium interrogationum, 'ragmatism, and begging the question. Blac%)and)#"ite fallacy 2,ee -reyness fallacy3 5aking sharp distinctions between entities, events, or ideas on the basis of non essential differences, treating some point between to e)tremes as one of the e)tremes, or treating a number of classes as though there were only two. 2&his final form usually sets off one class from all the rest which it treats as a single class, 2e.g. as in greyness fallacy3, thus setting up a false alternative.3 /)amples: 4Anyone who does not like opera, does not like music.4 As though there were only two classes, opera, the only real music, and everything else which goes by the name, but is really ersat% music.F 4Kou are either a 0epublican or a socialist,4 and 4Kou are either a "emocrat or a fascist.4 In spite of the fact that many people make these arguments, and some even believe them, they are nevertheless, fallacies. 4&here are only two classes of people, teetotallers and alcoholics.4 ?ommon argument of those who never heard of moderation. 2<ote: In fact, everything is black and white, and all 4greyness4 is a mi)ture of the two. +oth this fallacy and the greyness fallacy result from a failure to analy%e comple)ities into their black and white components or intentionally blurring distinctions and mi)ing black and white to produce a grey fog.3 2omple3 "ypot"esis fallacy 2violating the principle of !ccam.s 0a%orG3 An argument defending an overly comple) e)planation or an additional hypothesis for something which can be or is already e)plained more simply. 4Well the accident was caused buy that guy in the sports car not stopping for the red light. >e just plowed into the back of my car. +ut, the real reason it happened is because I am a ,agittarian, and today my planet Eupiter is blocked by 5ars, so I was bound to have something bad happen.4 &wo completely

18G

different causes for the same event. >ow is it possible to determine which is the true cause= #et.s see, if there were no cars, there could be no car accidents. If there were no Eupiter or 5ars, there could still be car accidents. It.s tough to decide, though. 4,omebody must have done something to break it. It always worked before.4 It always worked before is itself a fallacy, because it is true of everything that breaks or wears out. /verything always works until it stops working, and noting the fact is irrelevant. In this case, the addition of the hypothesis, 4somebody must have broken it,4 is unwarranted when there is no reason to doubt the simple e)planation the mechanism wore out or broke on its own. 2omple3 -uestion fallacy 2#oaded question3. Asking questions for which either a yes or no answer will incriminate the respondent. &he desired answer is tacitly assumed in the question. Asking questions that imply or suggest attitudes or assumptions, often asked in a way that elicits agreement with its implications. /)amples: 4>ave you discontinued the use of drugs=4 /ither yes or no admits the use of drugs. 4When are you going to give up that impractical political ideology about personal individual liberty and join the party to accomplish something real=4 &o answer this question either in the positive, 4I.m considering joining the party,4 or the negative, 4I.ll never join that party,4 implies agreement with the premise that 4personal individual liberty4 is an impractical political ideology. 2omposition fallacy Attributing qualities or characteristics of parts of a whole to the whole itself, or attributing qualities or characteristics of some parts of a whole to all parts. 2&his is the converse of the "ivision fallacy.3 /)amples: 4America enjoys the greatest prosperity of any country in the world.4 <o matter how much prosperity how many Americans enjoy, America is not an entity that can, 4enjoy,4 anything. 2&his is also an e)ample of the >ypostati%ation fallacy3. 4Americans enjoys the greatest prosperity of any citi%ens of any country in the world.4 (or most Americans this is true, even for the poorest of them, but it is a fallacy to say each and every American is more prosperous than the average citi%en of /ngland, for e)ample. While this e)ample is not a serious fallacy, since most people understand what is intended, it illustrates the nature of the fallacy. 2<ote: &his is one of the fallacies at the heart of all collectivist and statist social theory. !nly individuals have 4purposes,4 4values,4 4importance.4 <one of these attributes can be e)tended 4collectively4 to societies or states. &he value of societies or states can only be determined by their value to each individual as an individual. If a society consists of 188 people, and @@ are employed, and one is not, you do not have @@: employment, you have 188: employment for @@ citi%ens, and 8: employment for one of them. &o have @@: employment, every citi%en would have to be employed @@: of the time.3 2onsensus gentium fallacy 2see "emocratic fallacy3 Arguing that an idea is true on the basis that the majority of people believe it or that it has been universally held by all men, in all places, at all times. /)ample: 4-od e)ists because all cultures always have some concept of -od.4@ ,ince, at one time, all cultures and most people believed the world was flat and earth was the center of the universe, those concepts must have been true and some colossal event must have, in the meantime, turned the earth into a sphere, and downgraded her to a retrograde planet in a backwater gala)y.

18@

2<ote: In general, ?onsensus gentium considers only what most people believe or have always believed and is narrower in scope than the democratic fallacy which takes any majority belief, desire, or opinion, as a legitimate evidence of what is true.3 2ontrary)to)facts "ypot"esis fallacy 2,peculative or 4what if4 fallacy3 Arguing by means of a hypothesis contrary to a fact, that some phenomenon or virtue dependent on the fact, would or would not e)ist without it. /)amples: 4What if 5arconi had not invented the radio= Wireless communication would be impossible and the world would be a jungle of telephone and telegraph wires.4 5arconi was not the first to design a working wireless radio, nor the last. >e was the first to get the invention patented. 2&here is no intention, here, to minimi%e the genius or importance of 5arconi or the honor he deserves.3 4>ad (lorence <ightingale not formed the 0ed ?ross, millions of disaster victims would not be taken care of today.4 Actually, they might be taken care of better and more efficiently, and certainly less e)pensively. Who knows what good things might have happened if there had never been a 0ed ?ross= 2onverse accident fallacy 2,ee Accident fallacy3 Applying as a general rule or principle, qualities or characteristics of some particulars which are unusual or e)ceptional. /)ample: 4,ome people have found that standing on their heads thirty minutes a day helps them to be more alert and to think more clearly. !bviously, standing on one.s head thirty minutes a day is something we all must learn to practice.4 2orrelation fallacy 2,ee <on causa pro causa fallacy3 Asserting a causal connection between things because there is a statistical correlation between them. /)ample: 4,tudies have determined that there is a link between consuming protein and the incidence of cancer. In all studies so far, all cancer patients have a history of consuming protein. It is also known that those who do not consume protein do not get cancer.4 &his is true, because human beings cannot live without protein, so those who do not consume protein do not get cancer, because they are dead. /qually 4valid studies,4 are the basis for the vilification of cigarettes 2cause cancer3, the condemnation of high protein and fat diets 2cause heart disease and stroke3, and the forbidding of a host of chemicals and substances 2dangerous to people or environment3 all e)amples of how effective the correlation fallacy is. 2um "oc ergo propter "oc fallacy 2,ee <on causa pro causa3 2With this, therefore because of this3 Asserting that one thing is the cause of another because that thing is always accompanied by its presumed cause. /)ample: 4/very time there is a 20epublican, "emocrat3 as president, the economy 2improves, gets worse3.4 Democratic fallacy 2see ?onsensus gentium fallacy3 attempts to prove something is true 2or right3 based on the number of people who agree with, desire, or choose it. &o take a census and conclude more people prefer product A to product + is not a fallacy. &o further conclude, because more people prefer product A to product +, A is the objectively superior product, is a fallacy. 2If inferiority or superiority of 4salability4 however, is being considered, the 4superiority4 conclusion based on consensus would be valid.3@

118

/)ample: 4'olls show that the president has an G9: approval rating, so we know he is doing the right thing.4 If most people approve of what anyone is doing, it is almost certain they are doing the wrong thing. Dis6unctive syllogism fallacy 2,ee alternative syllogism 2opposite3 and false alternative 2similar3 fallacies.3 Arguing that one of two mutually e)clusive characteristics of a thing must be true, when the actual e)istence or reality of the thing is not established. In classical logic, 4A is either + or ? but not both4 2alternatively, 4A is either + and not ? or ? and not +43, means if A, then it is either + or ?, but not both. +ut neither + or ? can be established as facts independently of A. (irst you must have A. /)amples: Waiter: 4...and would you like soup with that=4 Kou: 4<o, thank you.4 Waiter: &he menu says the meal comes with soup or salad. What dressing would you like on your salad=4 Kou: 4I do not care for any salad, thank you.4 Waiter: ,o, you.ve changed your mind. "o you want the minestrone or the chowder=4 Kou: 4Well neither, actually, thank you just the same.4 Waiter: 4I.m sorry sir, the menu says the meal comes with soup or salad. Would you like for me to choose for you=4 Kou: 4!h yes, please do.4 After all, you don.t have to eat it. 'robably, but you might want to check the fine print on the menu. 4If you don.t make plans for your children.s education today, they will end up among the uneducated, competing with those college graduates whose parents planned ahead.4 As though, the only way anyone goes to college is if the parents foot the bill, or the only way to be educated is by going to college. In fact, going to college and getting an education are not equivalent, they are not even similar. Division fallacy Attributing qualities or characteristics of the whole to some or all of the parts of the whole. 2&his is the converse of the ?omposition fallacy.3 /)ample: 4<orth Dorea is a communist country, therefore, everyone in <orth Dorea is a communist,4 or, 4Dim Eang Dwan, must be a communist because he lives in <orth Dorea.4 E-uivocation fallacy An argument in which a word, phrase, or statement is used with one meaning 2or sense3 in one part of the argument and with different meaning in another part of the argument. /)amples: 4&his is supposed to be a free country, but nothing is free, in fact nothing is even cheap. (ar from being free, this is the most e)pensive country in the world.4 <ew >ampshire.s motto, 4#ive free or die,4 does not mean everyone is supposed to be on welfare. 4All things governed by laws, are subject to the laws of some lawmaker. &he natural world is governed by laws, therefore it is subject to the laws of some lawmaker.4 &he confusion is between things decided and things discovered.

111

4Kour views are either from right thinking, or they are from the left,4 or 4If you do not drive on the right side of the road, you drive on the wrong side, as they do in /ngland.4 In both these cases, it is not the same word that is used equivocally, but a word.s antonym. False analogy fallacy 2(alse metaphor3 ;sing a rhetorical device as an illustration or e)ample of a quality, or aspect of something which does not have those characteristics. /)amples: 4&he company depends on every employee doing their job. #ike a chain, it is only as strong as the weakest link. /ach of you is a link in that chain. "on.t be the weakest link.418 &his typical corporate rah rah rah, includes the ubiquitous 4weakest link4 clichW, an analogy which is almost never true. Any company, the fate of which depended on any single employee, would not be in business very long. &he chain or weakest link analogy implies that every employee is indispensible, and if only one employee fails, the company fails. ;tterly absurd. 4<o man is an island.4 +ut of course that is e)actly what every man is. &his analogy is almost always used to put over some collectivist or socialist view or agenda. Falsifia!ility fallacy fallacy #ately we have seen the notion of falsifiability represented as a fallacy. &his is itself, a fallacy. &he concept of falsifiability is a greatly misunderstood but legitimate part of the scientific method 2a rigorous application of reason to evidence3. ?onsider this statement made as an objection to falsifiability, 4(alsifiability can be a valuable intellectual tool: it can help you to disprove ideas which are incorrect. +ut it does not enable you to prove ideas which are correct.4 In fact, that is e)actly what 4falsifiability4 does do, and without it, no scientific hypothesis can be proven. In science, a proposed hypothesis is not considered valid if there is no e)periment that can be performed that would, if the hypothesis is incorrect, fail. If such an e)periment can be performed, and it 4fails to fail,4 it is proof 2or at least very good evidence3 the hypothesis is correct. <o doubt the prejudice against this very useful objective method lies in the name, 4falsifiability.4 It does not mean the scientist must attempt to prove a hypothesis false, but the very opposite. 4(alsifiability,4 is the method by which a hypothesis may be proven true. It also does not mean that a hypothesis must be assumed correct until it is falsified. &he idea of falsifiability protects the field of science from being obliged to entertain as, 4possible,4 any wild hypothesis on no other basis than it cannot be disproved. If a hypothesis is correct, there will always be a test or e)periment that it would fail, if it is incorrect, which when performed proves the hypothesis correct by not failing 2or incorrect by failing3. If no test can be devised for testing a hypothesis, it means the hypothesis has no consequence, that nothing happens or doesn.t happen because of it and nothing depends on it being right. If this were not true, whatever depended on the hypothesis could be tested. &here is absolutely no reason to entertain a notion that has neither purpose or consequence. 4+ut why not perform e)periments to verify rather than falsify=4 In fact, all e)periments performed to test a hypothesis are attempts to verify it. If such a test could 4pass4 even if the hypothesis were incorrect, passing the test would prove nothing. 'assing a test is only, 4proof,4 if passing is only possible when the hypothesis is true, which means the test must fail 2the hypothesis will be falsified3 when the hypothesis is untrue. A test which cannot falsify a hypothesis, if it is incorrect, cannot prove it, if it is correct.

117

&o say a hypothesis is not falsifiable means that it cannot be proved 2or disproved3, and, therefore, is unacceptable as a scientific theory. It is very unfortunate that this concept is misunderstood by many who are otherwise quite rational and objective. &he principle not only applies to science, but almost all comple) or abstract concepts. &he attempt to verify any conjecture by means of a method that cannot discriminate between those conjectures which are true and those which are false can never discover the truth. !nly a method which distinctly demonstrates a conjecture is false, if it is, can verify those conjectures that are true. &he concept of falsifiability sweeps away mountains of irrational rubbish masquerading as science, philosophy, ideology, and religion. !ne question that must be asked about any doubtful proposition or conjecture is, 4how can this be disproved if it is false=4 If there is no way to test if the proposition is false, there are no rational grounds whatsoever for assuming the proposition to be true. (loating abstraction fallacy A concept that is disconnected from reality. /ven our most abstract concepts are connected with reality if the chain of rational abstraction and integration by which the concept is derived can be traced back to those first facts of immediate conscious perception and the a)ioms of e)istence on which it is based. If that logical connection to reality cannot be made, however plausible or 4substantial4 a concept seems, it is floating abstraction. (loating abstractions are always synthetic constructs consisting of qualities and characteristics abstracted from legitimate concepts and artificially integrated into an imaginary or invented conceptsA just as winged is a quality of the legitimate concept birds, and elephant is a legitimate concept for that large mammal, but winged elephant is a chimera e)isting only in the hallucinations of the dipsomaniac. /)ample: 4&here are demons in the world, which many have seen, but, strangely, they only appear to those who believe in them.4 <ot so strange, actually. 2<ote: Ayn 0and originally identified the three fallacies, ,tolen concept, (loating abstraction, and (ro%en abstraction.3 Formally correct fallacy 2According to the rules, fallacy3 Asserts that an action or statement is right or true because it conforms to formal or official rules, laws, standards, protocols, or procedures, when the specific case being argued is an e)ception or not specifically covered. /)amples: 4It.s not my fault the car is smashed up. I saw the truck coming, but I had a green light.4 >ow many people are disappointed to discover a green light is not a substitute for good judgement. 4I.d give you a larger raise, /lmer, if I could, but company policy sets the limits and I cannot go against company policy.4 (ortunately, company policy does not preclude /lmer from seeking employment where, 4company policy4 2or managers intelligent enough to ignore it3 ensure employees are payed according to their performance, not according to some arbitrary 4rules4. Frozen a!straction fallacy ,ubstituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs or substituting a single unit or subset of units for the entire set of units belonging to a concept.

119

/)amples: 4/thics teaches us there is something more important than our own selfish interests, and that we must be willing to sacrifice ourselves for more important universal values, like the good of mankind.4 It is altruism, not ethics, that teaches 4self sacrifice.4 &here are many ethical theories, including instrumentalism, hedonism, stoicism, and, egoism, for e)ample. Altruism is only one of many wrong theories of ethics, but widely substituted for ethics itself. 4&he .<o ?hild #eft +ehind,. program will ensure no American child fails get the education they have a right to.4 ,ince the 4program,4 only applies to government schools, it equates 4education by the state4 with education. (ortunately, those not 4educated,4 2since they go to private school or are home schooled3, while they will be 4left behind,4 will, nevertheless, be much better equipped to live their lives happily and successfully. 2<ote: Ayn 0and originally identified the three fallacies, ,tolen concept, (loating abstraction, and (ro%en abstraction.3 7am!ler*s fallacy Asserting that a normally random event, because it has recently followed a pattern, it is due or about to break that pattern. /)amples: 4&his penny has fallen heads the last ten times. It is certain to fall tails this time.4 If a penny falls heads every time, it may be a 4bad penny.4 &hat is, it may be 4loaded.4 2&his is the meaning of the play on words e)pression, 4like a bad penny, he keeps turning up.43 4&here has not been an airline fatality for the entire year, therefore, a major airline disaster is imminent.4 Ironically, this actually happened. &here was not a single airline fatality for the entire year of 7887, but a major airline crash, killing 71 people, happened on the eighth day of 7889. <evertheless, this is still a fallacy, and these events mere coincidence, since the fatal accident was really the first fatal commercial airlines crash in 1B months.

7enetic fallacy Identifying something as being the same, in nature, as its origin or cause, or that its nature or character is determined by its origin or cause, or impugning something on the basis of its origin or cause. 4,he.s no good. All that kind are no good. We know where she came from.4 !f course, this kind of argument is almost never heard, but if it were, it would be fallacious. 4&he reason he is a thief is because he ... 2came from a broken home, was abused as a child, lived in a tough neighborhood, was poor, was a spoiled rich kid3,4 but, it might have said, 4the reason he is a good teacher is because he knows what life is likeA he ...2same list.34 &ry this, 4&he reason he is ...2take your choice3, is because that is what he chose to be. 7reyness fallacy 2,ee +lack and white fallacy3 &he fallacy results when disparate, incongruent, or incommensurate, entities, situations, or e)amples are indiscriminately mi)ed and treated as though there were no essential differences between them. &his fallacy always results in vagueness 2greyness3 which is used to support almost anything, but fails to support any true conclusion. /)amples: 4All wars cause harm.4 2&rue, by definition.3 4/veryone who participates in war is evil because they intend to do harm.4 "isregards differences in participants Tsome may be are doctors tending to the woundedU or to whom or what they intend to do harm Tsuch as cruel aggressors who will destroy and kill everyone if not stopped.U

11B

4&here is value in all art.4 What kind of art= What kind of value= 4We only carry the best products.4 +ut, they have shoes which sell for twenty dollars, eighty dollars, and two hundred dollars. ?an they really all be the best= 4/veryone is important.4 A meaningless e)pression attributing an undefined quality to an indiscriminate collection without regard to significant differences in individuals 2character, morality, ability3 or the nature of the importance 2in what way= to whom= for what=3. Hasty generalization fallacy A conclusion or generali%ation inferred from limited information, inadequate evidence, or a limited sampling. /)amples: 4>ow do you know 5r. Adams shot the landlord.4 4>e has a gun and I always thought he would shoot somebody some day.4 ,omewhat limited information, but probably good enough for the police to make an arrest. 4&his is the hottest summer in 7F years which proves global warming is a fact.4 4&his is the coldest winter in 7F years which proves global cooling is a fact.4 &here is some kind of evidence for anything you want to believe if you are not too interested in the truth. 4I called our usual vendors and both quoted the same price for the part, so that.s the best price we can get.4 ,eems like a larger sampling might have produced different results and this company should be looking for a new buyer.

Hypostatization fallacy 2 ,ee 0eification.3 Attributing actual e)istence or qualities of actual e)istents to something that is only a name, a relationship, or abstractionA or attributing qualities of one kind of e)istents to a different kind of e)istents, 2e.g. personification3. 2Also described as attributing concreteness to the abstract.3 &he hypostati%ation fallacy is very subtle and easily misunderstood. &he description of hypostati%ation applies to rhetorical devices, as well, such as metaphor and personification, which are not fallacies at all, but important and useful tools of language in literature and poetry. &he distinction between treating abstractions as material e)istents rhetorically or using them in arguments that result in false conclusions, is often difficult to detect, or even to describe, especially when the fallacious use is intentional. >ypostati%ation 2together with the closely related fallacy of reification3 may be the most common of all fallacies. Whole systems of philosophy, politics, religion, science, and social theories are built on or supported by this fallacy.11 /)amples: 4<ature.s purposes are always pure, therefore we should always accede to her.4 <ature has no purposes. 4&he only just laws are those that relieve a society.s suffering.4 #aws do not 4relieve4 anything, and 4societies,4 do not suffer. 4Industry is a danger to both nature and society.4 >ere are three hypostati%ed abstractions, industry, nature, and society. Industry is not a 4thing4 that does anything, and neither nature or society are things to

11C

which anything is done. ,ome industries might do something that is harmful to some natural things or some persons in some society, but treating any of these as entities, even collective entities, is fallacious. 4What are personal considerations in the face of the needs of society, the fate of the nation, the preservation of culture=4 ,ince, society has no needs, nations do not have fates, and there is no such thing as culture to preserve, personal considerations are all that are left. 45y fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.4 2Eohn (. Dennedy3 !bviously rhetorical, and therefore, all the more subtle. +ehind the rhetoric is the insidious concept that citi%ens e)ist for the sake of a country 2state or government3, the opposite of the intention of the American ?onstitutional that government e)ists for the sake of the citi%ens. "e pat"etic fallacy is a su!set of t"is fallacy. Ignoratio elenchi fallacy 2irrelevant conclusion3 An argument that is irrelevantA that argues for something other than that which is to be proved and thereby in no way refutes 2or supports3 the points at issue. Ignoratio elenchi is sometimes considered the general category of all 4irrelevant4 argument fallacies, including Ad baculum, Ad hominem, Ad misericordiam, Ad populum, Ad verecundiam, and ?onsensus gentium. /)ample: #awyer defending a client who killed three people in the process of robbing a liquor store: 4,he was abused from the time she was four. (rom the age of thirteen she had to support herself. ,he has never known anything but the streets, and crime, and violence.4 ,o what= ,mpossi!le conditions fallacy Arguing that some condition 2the state of mankind, the world, the government, or the economy, for e)ample3 must be changed before proposed solutions to a problem can be considered, especially when such change is practically impossible. /)ample: 4We cannot possibly consider reducing property ta)es until the problems of poverty and homelessness in our city have been solved.4 ;nless you have unlimited funds for property ta)es, a move to another city is recommended, since these 4problems4 will never be 4solved.4 ,nconsistency fallacy Arguing from inconsistent statements, or to conclusions that are inconsistent with the premises. 2,ee &u quoque fallacy3 /)amples: 4Kou can.t sue me for the damage to the car for three reasons: (irst, I never borrowed the car, second, it was already damaged, and third, it was in perfect condition when I returned it.4 &his may seem funny, but when a politician makes the same kind of argument: 45y opponents accusations that our policies have damaged the economy are entirely false. &he economy has never been stronger. !ur aid packages are providing decent food, shelter, clothing, and medical care for more people than ever before. !ur new total employment bill will provide jobs for every citi%en who has lost a job over the last four years.4 +ut if the economy has never been stronger, why ... oh never mind. ,rrelevant purpose fallacy Arguing against something on the basis it has failed to fulfill its purpose, when the supposed failed purpose was never the intended one.

116

/)ample: 4&he fact that there is still great disparity in wages and wealth in ;nited ,tates is proof the American form of government is a failure.4 &he purpose of the American form of government is to secure individual freedom. /galitarianism is the object of socialism, not a ?onstitutional republic, at least not this one. ",s" to "oug"t" fallacy Arguing from premises that have only descriptive statements 2is3 to a conclusion that contains an ought, or a should. <ote: We have included >ume.s 4is4 to 4ought4 fallacy, to show what is wrong with it, but have not included 5oore.s related naturalistic fallacy, which is hopelessly confused. &his supposed fallacy was originally identified by >ume. #ike most of >ume.s philosophy, the definition is self contradictory. Assumed in logic is the 4ought4 that one should reason correctly. ;sing logic ensures Tis the discipline that defines the rules ofU correct reason. ?orrect reason is required to understand truth. I#ogic ought to be used to understand truth. We ought to be very wary of this supposed fallacy, because, in fact, all teleological concepts 2purpose, ends, meaning, etc.3 are determined by the nature of those things to which purpose and ends pertain, therefore, what is does determine what ought to be.17 What is not correct is the false assumption that whatever is also ought to be, simply because it is. &he fact that ignorance, sickness, and death are does not mean they ought to be. If this fallacy were understood in this way, it would useful, but as it is usually defined, it is itself fallacious. &he following e)ample illustrates a correct use of this fallacy. /)ample: 4/veryone ought to pay their ta)es. It is the law.4 &he is does not determine the ought in a moral sense. -enerally you ought to pay your ta)es, because it is less troublesome, so long as you pay as little as possible. #imited or false alternatives fallacy 2,ee +lack and white and "isjunctive syllogism fallacies.3 "efining alternatives as the only possible choices when other choices are possible, or defining alternatives as though they are mutually e)clusive when they are not. /)ample: 4If we do not pass these laws, the environment will be destroyed.4 &here is always another way. !f course, the environment may be destroyed even if the laws are passed. It is presumptuous to believe any government regulations could either save or destroy the environment. #ip service fallacy *erbal agreement unsupported in action or true conviction. 2>ypocrisy, itself is not a fallacy, e)cept when it is used to influence the course of an argument.3 /)amples: 4I.m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on here....4 2?asablanca3 &he 4argument4 would be, .I have to close this place because it is harboring an illegal activity,. while he gladly receives his share of the loot from it. 40emember, .money is a root of all evil,. and unless you use it the way -od says to use it, it will be a source of evil in your life. ?onsider that when you make out your gift check to the !ld &ime 0eligion >our.4 &his .evil. money, why is it bad for the people who earn it, but good for the !ld &ime 0eligion >our=4

11F

5isleading conte)t fallacy !mitting, switching, or misrepresenting the conte)t of a word, phrase, or proposition, which distorts, changes, or evades the meaning of an argument in an unintended or deceptive way. &he meaning and intent of words, phrases, even whole arguments are usually determined by the conceptual framework or conte)t within which they are stated. Arguments that shift, drop, ignore, or imply 2without intending3 a conte)t are both deceptive and fallacious. While conte)t confusion is usually associated with the meaning of words and statements, the larger aspect of this fallacy is the fact the everything has a conte)t, and any discussion or assertion that does not recogni%e, identify, or allow for every pertinent aspects of that conte)t is deceiving. &he most common version of this fallacy simply drops all conte)t, treating every situation, action, or policy as though whatever is currently being discussed e)ists in a vacuum, without consequence, cost, or relationship to anything else, especially anything in the future. It is the reason almost all government policies and actions are disastrous. /)amples: 45y grandmother is great. ,he loves to rock.4 We suspect grandmother rocks in a way somewhat different from the way this young person has in mind. &hese quips about light:19 4when light does light it is very light, but no longer light.4 or 4there is nothing lighter than light,4 refer to rest mass of a photon being %ero. /ven within the conte)t, they may seem confusing. 4&his bill is necessary to protect the jobs of 1C8,888 American steel workers which are threatened by the rising tide of steel imports. 5ore than 18,888 jobs have already been lost. &he tariffs and quotas in this bill will ensure no more jobs are lost.4 +ut, since 1@G8, employed steelworkers dropped 68:, from B88,888 to 168,888, not because of import competition, but improved productivity. &o produce a ton of steel required 18 hours of labor in 1@G8A today it is less than four. &ariffs and quotas will increase the price of steel, affecting every industry that uses steel with millions of employees 2fabricators 1,988,988P, machines and tools 1,G88,88P, electronic equipment 1,B88,888P, cars and trucks 1,F88,888P, instruments and controls G88,888P31B, affecting their wages or employment. &he price of all steel products will also increase, affecting the price of products, sales, more jobs, and eventually the demand for steel itself. &his is some of the conte)t that is dropped. &isuse of averages fallacy Arguing that a situation or condition is good or acceptable on the basis that the mean or average value of all cases is within acceptable limits. /)amples: 4>e has one foot in boiling water and the other on dry ice, so on average he is comfortable.4 In this case it is the subjective judgment of the one actually feeling the conditions that must be consulted to determine whether he is actually comfortable or not. 'oliticians and sociologist frequently talk about people.s personal welfare as though it were subject to national averages or a sum of e)periences. 4&here is no e)cuse for your son being bored. !ur program determines the average I.J. of each class and provides activities and projects to challenge the interests and abilities of every child in that class.4 /very average child, that is, and if the child happens to be e)ceptional, that is too bad, because she is not supposed to be. !nly average is good. /)ceptional means troublesome.

11G

/on causa pro causa fallacy 2&here is no cause of the sort which has been given as the cause.3 Asserting something is the cause of an effect when there is no true evidence it is the cause or asserting something is false because it implies something else that is false. "e Post "oc' ergo propter "oc' 2um "oc' ergo propter "oc' and 2orrelation fallacies are all versions of /on causa pro causa fallacy0 /)amples: 4>e prayed for rain and I prayed for draught. It didn.t rain, so my prayers were answered, and his weren.t.4 Assumes you know what he really prayed for, or, maybe it was going to rain anyway. 4<ine out of ten people who use ,am.s ,nail ,alve on their cuts and scrapes are completely healed.4 <ine out of ten people who do not use ,am.s ,nail ,alve on their cuts and scrapes are completely healed too. 4,aying people are safer with guns then without them is like saying if there are guns in the house, no one will ever be shot in the house.4 ,ubtley implies guns are the 4cause4 of shootings. /on)se-uitur fallacy 2"oes not follow3 An argument in which the conclusion has no apparent connection to the reasons or premises. /)amples: SKou donRt love me or youRd buy me that bicycle.O &he childish argument seems silly, but adults make similar arguments. &here is obviously no 4logical4 connection between a parents love and the fulfilling of a child.s whims. 4If you loved this country you would defend it.s president.4 !f course, the fact they love the country might be the very reason they castigate the president, but in fact, confusing love of country and allegiance to those who presume to speak for it is a just another fallacy. /o true (cotsman fallacy An argument based on the assertion that individuals of a certain category only truly belong to that category if they e)hibit certain specific qualities or behavior. 2<ote: &he power of this fallacy lies in the fact that the argument itself is sometimes true. <o completely honest man ever steals, because, stealing is dishonest. &he argument is fallacious, however, when the quality or characteristic insisted on is not essential to members of the the category.3 &he classic e)ample: (irst ,cotsman: 4<o ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge.4 ,econd ,cotsman: 45y friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge.4 (irst ,cotsman: 4Ah yes, but no true ,cotsman puts sugar on his porridge.4 Pat"etic fallacy Incorrectly projecting or attributing human emotions, feelings, intentions, thoughts, traits to events or objects or phenomena which do not have such qualities. 2Also called personification or anthropomorphism, it as wonderfully useful rhetorical device in literatureA it is a disaster in logic.3

11@

,ee >ypostati%ation fallacy of which this fallacy is a subset, for e)amples. Persimple3 responsum fallacy 2,ee 'lurium interrogationum fallacy3 2*ery simple answer3 'roviding a single and simple answer to a question which requires a series of answers or requires answers to other questions before the original question can be answered. /)ample: 4&he solution to the unemployment problem is for the federal government to provide financing to more small businesses that hire unskilled and unprofessional help.4 &his is an e)ample of the fundamental 4simple answer4 government gives to all questions, 4spend more money.4 <o attempt is made to answer the question of why unemployment is rampant or how much previous government programs to solve the problem have actually e)acerbated it. Plurium interrogationum fallacy 2,ee 'ersimple) responsum fallacy3 25any questions3 "emanding a single and simple answer to a question which requires a series of answers or requires answers to other questions before the original question can be answered. /)ample: 4>ow do we solve the unemployment problem=4 Well, what is the unemployment problem= Who is it a problem for= Who should solve the problem= What caused it= Post "oc ergo propter "oc fallacy 2,ee <on causa pro causa fallacy3 2After this therefore because of this.3 Asserting that one thing is the cause of another thing because it precedes it in time. /)ample: 4I.m not going to wash the car anymore because it rains every time I do.4 Although it has not been proven, the conviction that washing cars makes it rain is difficult to deny. Pragmatic fallacy Asserting something is true or preferable because it has practical effects upon people, making them happier, more cooperative, moral, faithful, dependable, or stable. /)ample: 4'ublic education is necessary because it produces useful, cooperative citi%ens who are more likely to do productive work, be honest, and remain loyal to their country.4 &his is the argument for government youth training camps called public schools. It is a fallacy. Pre6udice fallacy ;sing premises in an argument which are biased or preconceived ideas based only on tradition, cultural views, feelings and emotions, or unquestioned conformance to ideologies, doctrines, or institutional 2company, government, fraternity3 teachings and policies. /)amples: 4It is wrong to eat pork 2Doran, !&3, beef 2>indu teaching3 or beans 2'ythagoras3.4 If someone should banish from their diet everything any religion, ideology, or popular food fad banned, they would starve to death in three days. 4>ow would he know what.s right or wrong. >e.s an ... 2atheist, 5uslim, communist, republican, Eew, 5e)ican, car dealer3.4 (ortunately, this kind of prejudice is unknown. 4&he teacher e)plained to 5elissa, the reason it is wrong to wear the tee shirt with a picture of a pistol and the logo, .(ight 0ape and Abuse of Women,. is because it is against school policy.4 +ut the question was, why does the school committee believe it is wrong, in other words, why is it against school policy= &he answer, of course, is because it is against school policy.

178

'roving a premise from a conclusion fallacy &his odd but very common fallacy presumes to prove an argument must be correct, since the conclusion is true, but the truth of the conclusion is known on grounds other than the argument itself. /)amples: 4All beliefs are learned from parentsA everyone has beliefsA therefore, everyone has parents.4 It is true everyone has parents but it cannot be known to be true from either of the premises, the first of which is false and the second true in only a limited sense. 4/ighty years ago there was no television. When there is no television, there is less crime. &herefore, eighty years ago there was less crime.4 &he argument is 4valid4 and the conclusion is true. It is implied, therefore, that the minor premise, 4where there is no television, there is less crime,4 is true. &his may or may not be the case, but nothing in this argument proves it either way. 1ed "erring fallacy "eflecting a criticism or ignoring a problem with one.s argument by redirecting attention to another subject. /)ample: 4Kou are recommending the e)tension of the hunting season. "on.t you own a chain of hunting lodges you rent out every hunting season=4 ,omeone owns hunting lodges and will probably for e)tending the hunting season for that reason. Why anyone wants the hunting season e)tended, however, is irrelevant to whether or not it ought to be e)tended. 1eification fallacy 2 ,ee >ypostati%ation.3 2Also concretism.3 &reating abstractions as actual e)isting entities or regarding them as causally efficacious and ontologically prior and superior to their referents. ,imilar to hypostati%ation, e)cept the kinds of abstractions involved are usually philosophical or ideological, such as 4universals,41C 4e)istence,4 4good,4 and 4justice.4 /)ample: 4-ood and evil are the two forces ruling the universe.4 +ut, good and evil are qualities, not forces. 1elativism fallacy "enying that any objective truth can be established for some category of concepts, it is asserted the truthfulness of any propositions within that category of concepts is totally relative and dependent on the subjective views of each individual or group. /)ample: 45oral values can never be discovered by reason. 5oral values are not objective, they are entirely relative and allowances must be made for the differences in moral values of each culture.4 >ow is it determined 4allowances must be made4 for differences in moral values, since objective reason is rejected= 45ust4 sounds an awful lot like a moral imperative. 2A similar e)ample is also used for the stolen concept fallacy which e)plains how the relativism fallacy is pulled off.3 ("ifting t"e !urden of proof Arguing in defense of a proposition by demanding a contrary proposition be proved rather than presenting arguments in defense of the original proposition. /)ample: 4It is obvious the accused is guilty. ,he has no alibi for the night of the crime.4 &he burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused. What is the evidence that the accused might have committed the crime= !nly if there is such evidence does she even need an alibi. (lanting fallacy "eliberately including and emphasi%ing points in favor of an argument while omitting and glossing over points against an argument, to hide or evade important and relevant information.

171

/)amples: 4&hree demonstrators were injured by police.4 <ot mentioned is the fact the three demonstrators were in the process of beating a woman and turned on the policeman who came to her rescue. 45ayor 5ike pointed out that crime statistics for the city had declined during the last three years of his administration.4 <ot mentioned is the fact crime statistics formerly based on arrests, are now based on convictions. ,lippery slope fallacy 2"omino theory3 Asserting that certain events, actions, or policies must initiate an inevitable series of more or less well defined events where there is no physical or logical necessity for such events to occur. (or e)ample: 4If we legali%e marijuana, we will have to legali%e crack, then heroin until we have a nation full of drug addicts on welfare. We must not legali%e marijuana.4

,pecial pleading fallacy Accepting 2or rejecting3 an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent.s argument but rejecting 2accepting3 it when applied to one.s own argument. /)ample: 4Kou.re just opposed to this bill that will help the needy because you don.t have any needs. !f course you don.t need help, you.re ... 2rich, educated, advantaged, healthy, intelligent, one of the elite3.4 !nly those selected by the arguer deserve consideration or sympathy. >e can argue his point based 4people.s needs,4 but you may not. (tolen concept fallacy 2,muggled concept3 ;sing a concept to support an argument while denying a concept which the supporting concept logically depends on. 2<ote: &his fallacy is called a 4stolen4 or 4smuggled4 concept, because an asserted concept includes in its meaning an unnamed concept 2so is smuggled in3, which is directly, or by implication, denied by the argument. &he fallacy is put over by ignoring or evading recognition of the smuggled concept.3 /)amples: 4It is impossible to know with certainty, any philosophical proposition.4 +ut this is a philosophical proposition which is presumed to be known with certainty, so the possibility of knowing with certainly is 4smuggled in.4 45oral values can never be discovered by reason. 5oral values are not objective, they are entirely relative, and every individual must discover for themselves what their moral values are.4 +ut, if moral values are not objective and cannot be discovered by reason, what method does each individual use to discover their moral values, and how will they know them when they have been discovered= /ven in the grossest versions of subjectivism, such as this e)ample, the fact that reason is the only faculty humans have for discovering and identifying truth cannot be evaded. 2A similar e)ample is used for the relativism fallacy. It is the stolen concept fallacy that allows the relativism fallacy to be pulled off.3 4>ow do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming you are a man=4 It is mind boggling that those who call themselves philosophers are taken in by this kind of sophistry. It is an e)ample of conceptual grand

177

theft. If a question means anything, one must know what the words the question is comprised of mean. It is assumed 2smuggled in3 one knows what a man is, what a butterfly is, what a dream is, and what knowing is. If all of these are known, there is no questionA if any of these are not known, the question has no meaning. 2<ote: Ayn 0and originally identified the three fallacies, ,tolen concept, (loating abstraction, and (ro%en abstraction.3 2,ee <athaniel +randen.s article on the ,tolen ?oncept.3

(tra# man fallacy 'resenting an opponent.s position in a weak, misrepresented, or totally false way, which is absurd or easily refuted. /)ample: 4Individualists believe whatever an individual wants is right and the desires and welfare of others is none of their concernA so, to individualists, there is nothing an individual does for their own benefit, no matter how much it harms others, that is wrong.4 &he view presented is not individualism, but subjectivism. &his fallacy is the usual argument against rational egoism, a first principle of which rejects 4harm4 to others as immoral. (u!6ectivism fallacy Asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true or possible. ,ubjectivism is anything a conviction or assertion of truth is based on other then objective evidence or reasoning from objective evidence. Alternatives to reason include feelings, desires, 4faith,4 4superstition,4 habit, and impressions, for e)ample, as well as most of the fallacies described in this article. /)amples: 4America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. All other forms of government are 4ruled by men.4 A constitutional republic is based on the principle of rule by law, not by men.4 ?ertainly the intention and wish of the founders of the American system was to establish this principle by means of the ?onstitution. &he disturbing fact is, all government is 4rule by men.4 &he functions of any government can only be carried out by human beings. <o law does anything. If laws are enforced, it is people who must enforce them. If laws are conformed to, it is people who must conform to them. <o piece of paper and no law ever did nor can compel anyone to do anything. &o believe that a constitution, or any written laws, will prevent those who hold political power from violating or simply ignoring what is written, is gross subjectivism. /ven a casual acquaintance with past and recent history of the American government ought dissuade anyone from this delusion. u -uo-ue fallacy 2Kou also.3 Impugning an argument by presenting evidence that a person.s actions or former beliefs and views, are not consistent with their argument. /)amples: 4Kou say you are opposed to animal cruelty but you eat meat and wear leather clothing.4 #ife is tough. We neither can nor ought to eliminate from it everything that is unpleasant. We cannot deny facts, or ignore them, no matter how much we dislike or are opposed to them.

179

4Kou preach non agression, then spank your children.4 <on agression pertains to the relationship between civili%ed adults, the relationship between adults and children is between civili%ed adults and uncivili%ed heathens. 4Kou used to be a socialist, but now you are arguing for individual freedom and laisse% faire capitalism. >ow can your arguments be right if you keep changing them=4 If you correct a mistake or learn anything new, this is the argument that will be used against you. &here are very subtle forms of this fallacy. Within the course of an argument, such questions as, 4>ow would you like it if ...=4 or 4Kou mean you never did ...=4 are attempts to impugn an argument by implying if the arguer personally does not like something related to what they are arguing for it, cannot be true, or, if the arguer ever did the thing they are now arguing against, their argument is invalid. &his version combines ad hominem with tu quoque to imply, for e)ample, if a drug addict argues that taking drugs is wrong, the argument is invalid because it is a drug addict, after all, that is making it. &his fallacy is sometime confused with the &wo wrongs make a right fallacy.

#o #rongs ma%e a rig"t fallacy 20evenge fallacy3 Arguing that inflicting harm on an agent 2person, institution, country3 which is equal or similar to harm the agent itself inflicted, cancels or corrects that harm or is in some way beneficial. 2<ote: &his fallacy is not about either the deterrence of harm or defense against aggression by the use of force or threat of harm.3 /)amples: 4An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.4 /)actly how putting out the eye of someone who has put out the eye of someone else improves the situation of the one who lost an eye, or anyone else, is never e)plained. &his and similar views are clearly sanctioned revenge, sanctimoniously euphemi%ed as 4retribution.4 4&his man.s actions have caused the death of eleven people. >e clearly deserves to die.4 If he murdered eleven people, one wonders how he lived long enough to do it. >e should have been eliminated from civili%ed society after the first murder. !ften, these kinds of arguments are not about murderers, however, but those whose actions may or may not have actually caused other.s deaths. 2If you sell cigarettes or guns, beware.3 /ven if one.s actions do result in other.s deaths, if that was not the intention, and was unforeseeable, another death is certainly not going to make anything better. ;nfortunately, this fallacy lies at the heart of most criminal justice theory and practice.16 &his fallacy is sometimes confused with the tu quoque fallacy 5n-ualified source fallacy ;sing as support in an argument a source of authority that is not qualified to provide evidence. /)ample: 2Astrology comes to mind.3 5ntesta!ility fallacy 2,ee (alsifiability fallacy fallacy3 2Also argument to the future3 Argument based on assertions which cannot or cannot now be tested or verified by reason or evidence. /)amples:

17B

4Kou.ll understand when you have children of you own.4 &hose of us with children frequently yield to the temptation to use this spurious argument and, just as usually, are uncomfortably aware it 4proves4 nothing. 4&here is no way to prove there is a hell, but there is no way to prove there is not a hell. It is safer to believe there is a hell, and to avoid itA because, one day we will know there is a hell, but then it will be too late to avoid it.4 &his argument can be used for anything, and has been: 4&here is no way to prove if you eat tomatoes you will die, but there is no way to prove you won.t. It is safer to believe tomatoes are poisonous and avoid them, because, if you eat them and they are poisonous, it will be too late and you will die.4 &his is a wonderfully useful argument. It is one of the favorites of environmentalists, for e)ample. &o use it yourself, just substitute the item you wish to 4prove4 ought to be avoided or embraced, such as, sugar, fat, protein, not eating protein, drugs 2the one you hate or love the most3, or just about anything else, then pick some unpreventable or undiscoverable disaster or benefit as the 4reason4 for the argument. +ic%ed alternative Attempting to support one proposition by denouncing another which is not opposite of the first. /)ample: 4We support these new tougher regulations controlling drugs. We are against doctors turning patients into drug addicts.4 Well of course, since it is well known most doctors are just champing at the bit waiting for an opportunity to turn all their patients into drug addicts. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH Ad Hominem 2Argument &o &he 5an3: attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. (or e)ample, 4*on "aniken.s books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embe%%ler.4 2Which is true, but that.s not why they.re worthless.3 Another e)ample is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan &uring.s homose)uality: &uring thinks machines think. &uring lies with men. &herefore, machines don.t think. 2<ote the equivocation in the use of the word 4lies4.3 A common form is an attack on sincerity. (or e)ample, 4>ow can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes=4 &he two wrongs make a right fallacy is related. A variation 2related to Argument +y -enerali%ation3 is to attack a whole class of people. (or e)ample, 4/volutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of ,ecular >umanism.4 ,imilarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing 4All the scientists were drunk.4 Another variation is attack by innuendo: 4Why don.t scientists tell us what they really knowA are they afraid of public panic=4 &here may be a pretense that the attack isn.t happening: 4In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent.s drinking problem.4

17C

,ometimes the attack is on intelligence. (or e)ample, 4If you weren.t so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view.4 !r, dismissing a comment with 4Well, you.re just smarter than the rest of us.4 2In +ritain, that might be put as 4too clever by half4.3 &his is related to <ot Invented >ere, but perhaps it is more connected to "ismissal +y "ifferentness and ?hanging &he ,ubject . Ad >ominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. (or instance, the argument may depend on its presenter.s claim that he.s an e)pert. 2&hat is, there is an Argument (rom Authority.3 &rial judges allow this category of attacks. <eedling:

simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. ,ometimes this is a delaying tactic. <eedling is also As >ominem if you insult your opponent. Kou may instead insult something the other person believes in 24Argumentum Ad Kour 5omium43, interrupt, clown to show disrespect, be noisy, fail to pass over the microphone, and numerous other tricks. All of these work better if you are running things for e)ample, if it is your radio show, and you can cut off microphones. A compliant host or moderator is almost as good. (tra# &an ;Fallacy .f E3tension<:

attacking an e)aggerated or caricatured version of your opponent.s position. (or e)ample, the claim that 4evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat.4 Another e)ample: 4,enator Eones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can.t understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.4 !n the Internet, it is common to e)aggerate the opponent.s position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and >itler. ,nflation .f 2onflict:

arguing that scholars debate a certain point. &herefore, they must know nothing, and their entire field of knowledge is 4in crisis4 or does not properly e)ist at all. (or e)ample, two historians debated whether >itler killed five million Eews or si) million Eews. A >olocaust denier argued that this disagreement made his claim credible, even though his death count is three to ten times smaller than the known minimum. ,imilarly, in 4&he 5ythology of 5odern "ating 5ethods4 2Eohn Woodmorappe, 1@@@3 we find on page B7 that two scientists 4cannot agree4 about which one of two geological dates is 4real4 and which one is 4spurious4. Woodmorappe fails to mention that the two dates differ by less than one percent. Argument From Adverse 2onse-uences ;Appeal o Fear' (care actics<:

saying an opponent must be wrong, because if he is right, then bad things would ensue. (or e)ample: -od must e)ist, because a godless society would be lawless and dangerous. !r: the defendant in a murder trial must be found guilty, because otherwise husbands will be encouraged to murder their wives. Wishful thinking is closely related. 45y home in (lorida is si) inches above sea level. &herefore I am certain that global warming will not make the oceans rise by one foot.4 !f course, wishful thinking can also be about positive consequences, such as winning the lottery, or eliminating poverty and crime. (pecial Pleading ;(tac%ing "e Dec%<:

176

using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against. ;ri -eller used special pleading when he claimed that the presence of unbelievers 2such as stage magicians3 made him unable to demonstrate his psychic powers. E3cluded &iddle ;False Dic"otomy' Faulty Dilemma' Bifurcation<:

assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. (or e)ample, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to (undamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot. ("ort erm >ersus Long erm:

this is a particular case of the /)cluded 5iddle. (or e)ample, 4We must deal with crime on the streets before improving the schools.4 2+ut why can.t we do some of both=3 ,imilarly, 4We should take the scientific research budget and use it to feed starving children.4 Burden .f Proof:

the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true 2or vice versa3. /ssentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can.t make a strong enough case. &here may be three problems here. (irst, the arguer claims priority but why is it him who wins by default= ,econd, he is impatient with ambiguity, and wants a final answer right away. And third, 4absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.4 Argument By 9uestion:

asking your opponent a question which does not have a snappy answer. 2!r anyway, no snappy answer that the audience has the background to understand.3 Kour opponent has a choice: he can look weak or he can look long winded. (or e)ample, 4>ow can scientists e)pect us to believe that anything as comple) as a single living cell could have arisen as a result of random natural processes=4 Actually, pretty well any question has this effect to some e)tent. It usually takes longer to answer a question than ask it. *ariants are the rhetorical question, and the loaded question, such as 4>ave you stopped beating your wife=4 Argument !y 1"etorical 9uestion:

asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer. (or e)ample, 4When are we going to give the old folks of this country the pension they deserve=4 &he speaker is leading the audience to the answer 40ight now.4 Alternatively, he could have said 4When will we be able to afford a major increase in old age pensions=4 In that case, the answer he is aiming at is almost certainly not 40ight now.4 Fallacy .f "e 7eneral 1ule:

assuming that something true in general is true in every possible case. (or e)ample, 4All chairs have four legs.4 /)cept that rocking chairs don.t have any legs, and what is a one legged 4shooting stick4 if it isn.t a chair= ,imilarly, there are times when certain laws should be broken. (or e)ample, ambulances are allowed to break speed laws.

17F

1eductive Fallacy ;.versimplification<:

over simplifying. As /instein said, everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. 'olitical slogans such as 4&a)ation is theft4 fall in this category. 7enetic Fallacy ;Fallacy of .rigins' Fallacy of >irtue<:

if an argument or arguer has some particular origin, the argument must be right 2or wrong3. &he idea is that things from that origin, or that social class, have virtue or lack virtue. 2+eing poor or being rich may be held out as being virtuous.3 &herefore, the actual details of the argument can be overlooked, since correctness can be decided without any need to listen or think. Psyc"ogenetic Fallacy:

if you learn the psychological reason why your opponent likes an argument, then he.s biased, so his argument must be wrong. Argument .f "e Beard:

assuming that two ends of a spectrum are the same, since one can travel along the spectrum in very small steps. &he name comes from the idea that being clean shaven must be the same as having a big beard, since in between beards e)ist. ,imilarly, all piles of stones are small, since if you add one stone to a small pile of stones it remains small. >owever, the e)istence of pink should not undermine the distinction between white and red. Argument From Age 2Wisdom of the Ancients3:

snobbery that very old 2or very young3 arguments are superior. &his is a variation of the -enetic (allacy, but has the psychological appeal of seniority and tradition 2or innovation3. 'roducts labelled 4<ew Improved4 are appealing to a belief that innovation is of value for such products. It.s sometimes true. /ot ,nvented Here:

ideas from elsewhere are made unwelcome. 4&his Is &he Way We.ve Always "one It.4 &his fallacy is a variant of the Argument (rom Age. It gets a psychological boost from feelings that local ways are superior, or that local identity is worth any cost, or that innovations will upset matters. 'eople who use the <ot Invented >ere argument are often accused of being stick in the mud.s. ?onversely, foreign and 4imported4 things may be held out as superior. Argument o "e Future:

arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will 2then3 support your point. Poisoning "e +ells:

discrediting the sources used by your opponent. &his is a variation of Ad >ominem. Argument By Emotive Language<: ;Appeal o "e People

17G

using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience.s sentiments instead of their minds. 5any emotions can be useful: anger, spite, condescension, and so on. (or e)ample, argument by condescension: 4,upport the /0A= ,ure, when the women start paying for the drinks >ah >ah4 ?liche &hinking and Argument +y ,logan are useful adjuncts, particularly if you can get the audience to chant the slogan. 'eople who rely on this argument may seed the audience with supporters or 4shills4, who laugh, applaud or chant at proper moments. &his is the live audience equivalent of adding a laugh track or music track. <ow that many venues have video equipment, some speakers give part of their speech by playing a prepared video. &hese videos are an opportunity to show a supportive audience, use emotional music, show emotionally charged images, and the like. &he idea is old: there used to be professional cheering sections. 25onsieur $ig $ag, pictured on the cigarette rolling papers, acquired his fame by applauding for money at the 'aris !pera.3 If the emotion in question isn.t harsh, Argument by poetic language helps the effect. (lattering the audience doesn.t hurt either. Argument By Personal 2"arm:

getting the audience to cut you slack. /)ample: 0onald 0eagan. It helps if you have an opponent with much less personal charm. ?harm may create trust, or the desire to 4join the winning team4, or the desire to please the speaker. &his last is greatest if the audience feels se) appeal. Appeal o Pity ;Appeal to (ympat"y' "e 7alileo Argument<:

4I did not murder my mother and father with an a)e 'lease don.t find me guiltyA I.m suffering enough through being an orphan.4 ,ome authors want you to know they.re suffering for their beliefs. (or e)ample, 4,cientists scoffed at ?opernicus and -alileoA they laughed at /dison, &esla and 5arconiA they won.t give my ideas a fair hearing either. +ut time will be the judge. I can waitA I am patientA sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of &I5/.4 &here is a strange variant which shows up on ;senet. ,omebody refuses to answer questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker is mean and has hurt their feelings. !r, that the question is personal. Appeal o Force:

threats, or even violence. !n the <et, the usual threat is of a lawsuit. &he traditional religious threat is that one will burn in >ell. >owever, history is full of instances where e)pressing an unpopular idea could you get you beaten up on the spot, or worse. Begging "e 9uestion ;Assuming "e Ans#er' autology<:

reasoning in a circle. &he thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. (or e)ample: 4We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime4. 2&his assumes it discourages crime.3 !r, 4&he stock market fell because of a technical adjustment.4 2+ut is an 4adjustment4 just a stock market fall=3 (tolen 2oncept:

17@

using what you are trying to disprove. &hat is, requiring the truth of something for your proof that it is false. (or e)ample, using science to show that science is wrong. !r, arguing that you do not e)ist, when your e)istence is clearly required for you to be making the argument. &his is a relative of +egging &he Juestion, e)cept that the circularity there is in what you are trying to prove, instead of what you are trying to disprove. It is also a relative of 0eductio Ad Absurdum, where you temporarily assume the truth of something. Argument From Aut"ority:

the claim that the speaker is an e)pert, and so should be trusted. &here are degrees and areas of e)pertise. &he speaker is actually claiming to be more e)pert, in the relevant subject area, than anyone else in the room. &here is also an implied claim that e)pertise in the area is worth having. (or e)ample, claiming e)pertise in something hopelessly quack 2like iridology3 is actually an admission that the speaker is gullible. Argument From False Aut"ority:

a strange variation on Argument (rom Authority. (or e)ample, the &* commercial which starts 4I.m not a doctor, but I play one on &*.4 Eust what are we supposed to conclude= Appeal o Anonymous Aut"ority:

an Appeal &o Authority is made, but the authority is not named. (or e)ample, 4/)perts agree that ..4, 4scientists say ..4 or even 4they say ..4. &his makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn.t know who the e)perts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor. &he situation is even worse if the arguer admits it.s a rumor. Appeal o Aut"ority:

4Albert /instein was e)tremely impressed with this theory.4 2+ut a statement made by someone long dead could be out of date. !r perhaps /instein was just being polite. !r perhaps he made his statement in some specific conte)t. And so on.3 &o justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an e)act quote. It.s more convincing if the quote contains conte)t, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from. Appeal o False Aut"ority:

a variation on Appeal to Authority , but the authority is outside his area of e)pertise. (or e)ample, 4(amous physicist Eohn &aylor studied ;ri -eller e)tensively and found no evidence of trickery or fraud in his feats.4 &aylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of the kind used by stage magicians. &aylor later admitted -eller had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how. A variation is to appeal to a non e)istent authority. (or e)ample, someone reading an article by ?reationist "mitri Du%netsov tried to look up the referenced articles. ,ome of the articles turned out to be in non e)istent journals. Another variation is to misquote a real authority. &here are several kinds of misquotation. A quote can be ine)act or have been edited. It can be taken out of conte)t. 2?hevy ?hase: 4Kes, I said that, but I was singing a song written by someone else at the time.43 &he quote can be separate

198

quotes which the arguer glued together. !r, bits might have gone missing. (or e)ample, it.s easy to prove that 5ick Eagger is an assassin. In 4,ympathy (or &he "evil4 he sang: 4I shouted out, who killed the Dennedys, When after all, it was ... me.4 (tatement .f 2onversion:

the speaker says 4I used to believe in L4. &his is simply a weak form of asserting e)pertise. &he speaker is implying that he has learned about the subject, and now that he is better informed, he has rejected L. ,o perhaps he is now an authority, and this is an implied Argument from authority. 4L4 has not actually been countered unless there is agreement that the speaker has that e)pertise. In general, any bald claim always has to be buttressed. (or e)ample, there are a number of ?reationist authors who say they 4used to be evolutionists4, but the scientists who have rated their books haven.t noticed any e)pertise about evolution. Bad Analogy:

claiming that two situations are highly similar, when they aren.t. (or e)ample, 4&he solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbitA so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also.4 !r, 45inds, like rivers, can be broad. &he broader the river, the shallower it is. &herefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is.4 !r, 4We have pure food and drug lawsA why can.t we have laws to keep movie makers from giving us filth=4 E3tended Analogy:

the claim that two things, both analogous to a third thing, are therefore analogous to each other. (or e)ample, this debate: 4I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it.4 4,uch a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported 5artin #uther Ding.4 4Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for +lack liberation= >ow dare you4 A person who advocates a particular position 2say, about gun control3 may be told that >itler believed the same thing. &he clear implication is that the position is somehow tainted. +ut >itler also believed that window drapes should go all the way to the floor. "oes that mean people with such drapes are monsters= Argument From (purious (imilarity:

this is a relative of +ad Analogy. It is suggested that some resemblance is proof of a relationship. &here is a WW II story about a +ritish lady who was trained in spotting -erman airplanes. ,he made a report about a certain very important type of plane. While being qui%%ed, she e)plained that she hadn.t been sure, herself, until she noticed that it had a little man in the cockpit, just like the little model airplane at the training class. 1eifying:

191

an abstract thing is talked about as if it were concrete. 2A possible +ad Analogy is being made between concept and reality.3 (or e)ample, 4<ature abhors a vacuum.4 False 2ause:

assuming that because two things happened, the first one caused the second one. 2,equence is not causation.3 (or e)ample, 4+efore women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons.4 !r, 4/very time my brother +ill accompanies me to (enway 'ark, the 0ed ,o) are sure to lose.4 /ssentially, these are arguments that the sun goes down because we.ve turned on the street lights. 2onfusing 2orrelation And 2ausation:

earthquakes in the Andes were correlated with the closest approaches of the planet ;ranus. &herefore, ;ranus must have caused them. 2+ut Eupiter is nearer than ;ranus, and more massive too.3 When sales of hot chocolate go up, street crime drops. "oes this correlation mean that hot chocolate prevents crime= <o, it means that fewer people are on the streets when the weather is cold. &he bigger a child.s shoe si%e, the better the child.s handwriting. "oes having big feet make it easier to write= <o, it means the child is older. 2ausal 1eductionism ;2omple3 2ause<

trying to use one cause to e)plain something, when in fact it had several causes. (or e)ample, 4&he accident was caused by the ta)i parking in the street.4 2+ut other drivers went around the ta)i. !nly the drunk driver hit the ta)i.3 2lic"e "in%ing:

using as evidence a well known wise saying, as if that is proven, or as if it has no e)ceptions. E3ception "at Proves "e 1ule:

a specific e)ample of ?liche &hinking. &his is used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn.t always work. &he cliche rebuttal is that this is 4the e)ception that proves the rule4. 5any people think that this cliche somehow allows you to ignore the e)ception, and continue using the rule. In fact, the cliche originally did no such thing. &here are two standard e)planations for the original meaning. &he first is that the word 4prove4 meant test. &hat is why the military takes its equipment to a "roving %round to test it. ,o, the cliche originally said that an e)ception tests a rule. &hat is, if you find an e)ception to a rule, the cliche is saying that the rule is being tested, and perhaps the rule will need to be discarded. &he second e)planation is that the stating of an e)ception to a rule, proves that the rule e)ists. (or e)ample, suppose it was announced that 4!ver the holiday weekend, students do not need to be in the dorms by midnight4. &his announcement implies that normally students do have to be in by midnight. >ere is a discussion of that e)planation. In either case, the cliche is not about waving away objections.

197

Appeal o +idespread Belief ;Band#agon Fallacy' Peer Pressure' Appeal to 2ommon Practice <:

the claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or used to believe it, or do it. If the discussion is about social conventions, such as 4good manners4, then this is a reasonable line of argument. >owever, in the 1G88.s there was a widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness. All of these people were not just wrong, but horribly wrong, because in fact it made people sicker. ?learly, the popularity of an idea is no guarantee that it.s right. ,imilarly, a common justification for bribery is that 4/verybody does it4. And in the past, this was a justification for slavery. Fallacy .f 2omposition:

assuming that a whole has the same simplicity as its constituent parts. In fact, a great deal of science is the study of emergent properties. (or e)ample, if you put a drop of oil on water, there are interesting optical effects. +ut the effect comes from the oilHwater system: it does not come just from the oil or just from the water. Another e)ample: 4A car makes less pollution than a bus. &herefore, cars are less of a pollution problem than buses.4 Another e)ample: 4Atoms are colorless. ?ats are made of atoms, so cats are colorless.4 Fallacy .f Division:

assuming that what is true of the whole is true of each constituent part. (or e)ample, human beings are made of atoms, and human beings are conscious, so atoms must be conscious. 2omple3 9uestion ; ying<

unrelated points are treated as if they should be accepted or rejected together. In fact, each point should be accepted or rejected on its own merits. (or e)ample, 4"o you support freedom and the right to bear arms=4 (lippery (lope Fallacy ;2amel*s /ose<

there is an old saying about how if you allow a camel to poke his nose into the tent, soon the whole camel will follow. &he fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right ne)t to something that is wrong. !r, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong. (or e)ample, 4Allowing abortion in the first week of pregnancy would lead to allowing it in the ninth month.4 !r, 4If we legali%e marijuana, then more people will try heroin.4 !r, 4If I make an e)ception for you then I.ll have to make an e)ception for everyone.4 Argument By Pig"eadedness ;Doggedness<:

refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. (or e)ample, there are still (lat /arthers. Appeal o 2oincidence:

199

asserting that some fact is due to chance. (or e)ample, the arguer has had a do%en traffic accidents in si) months, yet he insists they weren.t his fault. &his may be Argument +y 'igheadedness. +ut on the other hand, coincidences do happen, so this argument is not always fallacious. Argument By 1epetition ;Argument Ad /auseam<I

if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it. &here are some net.kooks who keeping reposting the same articles to ;senet, presumably in hopes it will have that effect. Argument By Half rut" ;(uppressed Evidence<:

this is hard to detect, of course. Kou have to ask questions. (or e)ample, an ama%ingly accurate 4prophecy4 of the assassination attempt on 'resident 0eagan was shown on &*. +ut was the tape recorded before or after the event= 5any stations did not ask this question. 2It was recorded afterwards.3 A book on 4sea mysteries4 or the 4+ermuda &riangle4 might tell us that the yacht ?onnemara I* was found drifting crewless, southeast of +ermuda, on ,eptember 76, 1@CC. <one of these books mention that the yacht had been directly in the path of >urricane Iona, with 1G8 mph winds and B8 foot waves. Argument By (elective .!servation:

also called cherry picking, the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher (rancis +acon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses. (or e)ample, a state boasts of the 'residents it has produced, but is silent about its serial killers. !r, the claim 4&echnology brings happiness4. 2<ow, there.s something with hits and misses.3 ?asinos encourage this human tendency. &here are bells and whistles to announce slot machine jackpots, but losing happens silently. &his makes it much easier to think that the odds of winning are good. Argument By (elective 1eading:

making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent.s arguments was the best he had. ,uppose the opponent gave a strong argument L and also a weaker argument K. ,imply rebut K and then say the opponent has made a weak case. &his is a relative of Argument +y ,elective !bservation, in that the arguer overlooks arguments that he does not like. It is also related to ,traw 5an 2(allacy !f /)tension3, in that the opponent.s argument is not being fairly represented. Argument By 7eneralization:

drawing a broad conclusion from a small number of perhaps unrepresentative cases. 2&he cases may be unrepresentative because of ,elective !bservation.3 (or e)ample, 4&hey say 1 out of every C people is ?hinese. >ow is this possible= I know hundreds of people, and none of them is ?hinese.4 ,o, by generali%ation, there aren.t any ?hinese anywhere. &his is connected to the (allacy !f &he -eneral 0ule. ,imilarly, 4+ecause we allow terminally ill patients to use heroin, we should allow everyone to use heroin.4 It is also possible to under generali%e. (or e)ample,

19B

4A man who had killed both of his grandmothers declared himself rehabilitated, on the grounds that he could not conceivably repeat his offense in the absence of any further grandmothers.4 4'orts !f ?all4 by Eack *ance Argument From (mall /um!ers:

4I.ve thrown three sevens in a row. &onight I can.t lose.4 &his is an Argument +y -enerali%ation , but it assumes that small numbers are the same as big numbers. 2&hree sevens is actually a common occurrence. &hirty three sevens is not.3 !r: 4After treatment with the drug, one third of the mice were cured, one third died, and the third mouse escaped.4 "oes this mean that if we treated a thousand mice, 999 would be cured= Well, no. &isunderstanding "e /ature .f (tatistics:

'resident "wight /isenhower e)pressed astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans had below average intelligence. ,imilarly, some people get fearful when they learn that their doctor wasn.t in the top half of his class. 2+ut that.s half of them.3 4,tatistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive.4 Wallace Irwin. *ery few people seem to understand 4regression to the mean4. &his is the idea that things tend to go back to normal. If you feel normal today, does it really mean that the headache cure you took yesterday performed wonders= !r is it just that your headaches are always gone the ne)t day= Fallacy of ,nconsistency:

for e)ample, the declining life e)pectancy in the former ,oviet ;nion is due to the failures of communism. +ut, the quite high infant mortality rate in the ;nited ,tates is not a failure of capitalism. &his is related to ,nternal 2ontradiction. /on (e-uitur:

something that just does not follow. (or e)ample, 4&ens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. &he e)istence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty4 Another e)ample: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. &hen, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true. !r: 4+ill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large.4 &eaningless 9uestions:

irresistible forces meeting immovable objects, and the like. Argument By Poetic Language:

if it sounds good, it must be right. ,ongs often use this effect to create a sort of credibility for e)ample, 4"on.t (ear &he 0eaper4 by +lue !yster ?ult. 'olitically oriented songs should be taken with a grain of salt, precisely because they sound good. Argument By (logan:

19C

if it.s short, and connects to an argument, it must !e an argument. 2+ut slogans risk the 0eductive (allacy.3 +eing short, a slogan increases the effectiveness of Argument +y 0epetition. It also helps Argument +y /motive #anguage 2Appeal &o &he 'eople3, since emotional appeals need to be punchy. 2Also, the gallery can chant a short slogan.3 ;sing an old slogan is ?liche &hinking. Argument By Prestigious =argon:

(or e)ample, crackpots used to claim they had a ;nified (ield &heory 2after /instein3. &hen the word Juantum was popular. #ately it seems to be $ero 'oint (ields. Argument By 7i!!eris" 2+afflement3:

this is the e)treme version of Argument +y 'restigious Eargon. 0 An invented vocabulary helps the effect, and some net.kooks use lots of ?A'ita#I$ation. >owever, perfectly ordinary words can be used to baffle. -ibberish may come from people who can.t find meaning in technical jargon, so they think they should copy style instead of meaning. It can also be a 4snow job4, ADA 4baffle them with +,4, by someone actually familiar with the jargon. !r it could be Argument by poetic language. E-uivocation:

using a word to mean one thing, and then later using it to mean something different. (or e)ample, sometimes 4(ree software4 costs nothing, and sometimes it is without restrictions. ,ome e)amples: 4&he sign said .fine for parking here., and since it was fine, I parked there.4 4?onsider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three lefts do.4 4"eteriorata4, <ational #ampoon Eup"emism:

the use of words that sound better. &he lab rat wasn.t killed, it was sacrificed. 5ass murder wasn.t genocide, it was ethnic cleansing. &he death of innocent bystanders is collateral damage. 5icrosoft doesn.t find bugs, or problems, or security vulnerabilities: they just discover an issue with a piece of software. &his is related to Argument +y /motive #anguage, since the effect is to make a concept emotionally palatable. +easel +ording:

this is very much like /uphemism, e)cept that the word changes are done to claim a new, different concept rather than soften the old concept. (or e)ample, an American 'resident may not legally conduct a war without a declaration of ?ongress. ,o, various 'residents have conducted 4police actions4, 4armed incursions4, 4protective reaction strikes,4 4pacification,4 4safeguarding American interests,4 and a wide variety of 4operations4. ,imilarly, War "epartments have become "epartments of "efense, and untested medicines have become alternative medicines. &he book 41@GB4 has some particularly good e)amples. Error .f Fact:

for e)ample, 4<o one knows how old the 'yramids of /gypt are.4 2/)cept, of course, for the historians who.ve read the records written by the ancient /gyptians themselves

196

Lies: intentional /rrors of (act. If the speaker thinks that lying serves a moral end, this would be a 'ious (raud. Hypot"esis 2ontrary o Fact:

arguing from something that might have happened, but didn.t. ,nternal 2ontradiction:

saying two contradictory things in the same argument. (or e)ample, claiming that Archaeoptery) is a dinosaur with hoa)ed feathers, and also saying in the same book that it is a 4true bird4. !r another author who said on page C@, 4,ir Arthur ?onan "oyle writes in his autobiography that he never saw a ghost.4 +ut on page 788 we find 4,ir Arthur.s first encounter with a ghost came when he was 7C, surgeon of a whaling ship in the Arctic..4 &his is much like saying 4I never borrowed his car, and it already had that dent when I got it.4 &his is related to Inconsistency. 2"anging "e (u!6ect ;Digression' 1ed Herring' &isdirection' False Emp"asis<:

this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not supposed to notice. (or e)ample, I got a bill which had a big announcement about how some ta) had gone up by C:, and the costs would have to be passed on to me. +ut a quick calculation showed that the increased ta) was only costing me a dime, while a different part of the the bill had silently gone up by Q18. It is connected to various rhetorical tricks, such as announcing that there cannot be a question period because the speaker must leave. 2+ut then he doesn.t leave.3 Argument By Fast al%ing:

if you go from one idea to the ne)t quickly enough, the audience won.t have time to think. &his is connected to ?hanging &he ,ubject and 2to some audiences3 Argument +y 'ersonal ?harm. >owever, some psychologists say that to understand what you hear, you must for a brief moment believe it. If this is true, then rapid delivery does not leave people time to reject what they hear. Having Eour 2a%e ;Failure o Assert' or Diminis"ed 2laim<:

almost claiming something, but backing out. (or e)ample, 4It may be, as some suppose, that ghosts can only be seen by certain so called sensitives, who are possibly special mutations with, perhaps, abnormally e)tended ranges of vision and hearing. Ket some claim we are all sensitives.4 Another e)ample: 4I don.t necessarily agree with the liquefaction theory, nor do I endorse all of Walter +rown.s other material, but the geological statements are informative.4 &he strange thing here is that liquefaction theory 2the idea that the world.s rocks formed in flood waters3 was demolished in 1FGG. &o 4not necessarily agree4 with it, today, is in the category of 4not necessarily agreeing4 with 7P7M9. +ut notice that writer implies some study of the matter, and only partial rejection.

19F

A similar thing is the failure to rebut. ,uppose I raise an issue. &he response that 4Woodmorappe.s book talks about that4 could possibly be a reference to a resounding rebuttal. !r perhaps the responder hasn.t even read the book yet. >ow can we tell= TI later discovered it was the latter.U Am!iguous Assertion:

a statement is made, but it is sufficiently unclear that it leaves some sort of leeway. (or e)ample, a book about Washington politics did not place quotation marks around quotes. &his left ambiguity about which parts of the book were first hand reports and which parts were second hand reports, assumptions, or outright fiction. !f course, lack of clarity is not always intentional. ,ometimes a statement is just vague. If the statement has two different meanings, this is Amphiboly. (or e)ample, 4#ast night I shot a burglar in my pyjamas.4 Failure o (tate:

if you make enough attacks, and ask enough questions, you may never have to actually define your own position on the topic. .utdated ,nformation:

information is given, but it is not the latest information on the subject. (or e)ample, some creationist articles about the amount of dust on the moon quote a measurement made in the 1@C8.s. +ut many much better measurements have been done since then. Amazing Familiarity:

the speaker seems to have information that there is no possible way for him to get, on the basis of his own statements. (or e)ample: 4&he first man on deck, seaman "on ,mithers, yawned la%ily and fingered his good luck charm, a dried seahorse. &o no avail At noon, the ,ea 0anger was found drifting aimlessly, with every man of its crew missing without a trace4 Least Plausi!le Hypot"esis:

ignoring all of the most reasonable e)planations. &his makes the desired e)planation into the only one. (or e)ample: 4I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. ?learly, my yard was visited by fairies.4 &here is an old rule for deciding which e)planation is the most plausible. It is most often called 4!ccam.s 0a%or4, and it basically says that the simplest is the best. &he current phrase among scientists is that an e)planation should be 4the most parsimonious4, meaning that it should not introduce new concepts 2like fairies3 when old concepts 2like neighborhood cats3 will do. Argument By (cenario:

telling a story which ties together unrelated material, and then using the story as proof they are related. Affirming "e 2onse-uent:

logic reversal. A correct statement of the form 4if ' then J4 gets turned into 4J therefore '4. (or e)ample, 4All people whose surname begins with 5ac are of ,cottish ancestry. "ougal is of ,cottish ancestry. &herefore his surname begins with 5ac.4 +ut actually his name is ?ampbell.

19G

Another e)ample: 4If the earth orbits the sun, then the nearer stars will show an apparent annual shift in position relative to more distant stars 2stellar paralla)3. !bservations show conclusively that this paralla) shift does occur. &his proves that the earth orbits the sun.4 In reality, it proves that J Tthe paralla)U is consistent with ' Torbiting the sunU. +ut it might also be consistent with some other theory. 2!ther theories did e)ist. &hey are now dead, because although they were consistent with a few facts, they were not consistent with all the facts.3 Another e)ample: 4If space creatures were kidnapping people and e)amining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase the memories of the people they e)amined. &hese people would thus suffer from amnesia. +ut in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. &his tends to prove they were kidnapped and e)amined by space creatures.4 &his is also a #east 'lausible >ypothesis e)planation. &oving "e 7oalposts ;1aising "e Bar' Argument By Demanding ,mpossi!le Perfection<:

if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult 2or diverse3 then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn.t up on. &his is related to Argument +y Juestion. Asking questions is easy: it.s answering them that.s hard. It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. (or e)ample, a person who takes *itamin ? might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the *itamin ?. Appeal o 2omple3ity:

if the arguer doesn.t understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. ,o, his opinions are as good as anybody.s. 2ommon (ense:

unfortunately, there simply isn.t a common sense answer for many questions. In politics, for e)ample, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. /ach side thinks that their answer is common sense. ?learly, some of these people are wrong. &he reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the conte)t, knowledge and e)perience of the observer. &hat is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these: When boating, use common sense. >ave one life preserver for each person in the boat. When towing a water skier, use common sense. >ave one person watching the skier at all times. If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence= Why do they have to spell it out= &he answer is that 4use common sense4 actually meant 4pay attention, I am about to tell you something that ine)perienced people often get wrong.4 Argument By Laziness ;Argument By 5ninformed .pinion<:

the arguer hasn.t bothered to learn anything about the topic. >e nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect. (or e)ample, someone looked at a picture on one of my web pages, and made a complaint which showed that he hadn.t even skimmed through the words on the page. When I pointed this out, he replied that I shouldn.t have had such a confusing picture.

19@

Disproof By Fallacy:

if a conclusion can be reached in an obviously fallacious way, then the conclusion is incorrectly declared wrong. (or e)ample, 4&ake the division 6BH16. <ow, canceling a 6 on top and a si) on the bottom, we get that 6BH16 M BH1 M B.4 4Wait a second Kou can.t just cancel the si)4 4!h, so you.re telling us 6BH16 is not equal to B, are you=4 <ote that this is different from 0eductio Ad Absurdum , where your opponent.s argument can lead to an absurd conclusion. In this case, an absurd argument leads to a normal conclusion. 1eductio Ad A!surdum:

showing that your opponent.s argument leads to some absurd conclusion. &his is in general a reasonable and non fallacious way to argue. If the issues are ra%or sharp, it is a good way to completely destroy his argument. >owever, if the waters are a bit muddy, perhaps you will only succeed in showing that your opponent.s argument does not apply in all cases, &hat is, using 0eductio Ad Absurdum is sometimes using the (allacy !f &he -eneral 0ule. >owever, if you are faced with an argument that is poorly worded, or only lightly sketched, 0eductio Ad Absurdum may be a good way of pointing out the holes. An e)ample of why absurd conclusions are bad things: +ertrand 0ussell, in a lecture on logic, mentioned that in the sense of material implication, a false proposition implies any proposition. A student raised his hand and said 4In that case, given that 1 M 8, prove that you are the 'ope4. 0ussell immediately replied, 4Add 1 to both sides of the equation: then we have 7 M 1. &he set containing just me and the 'ope has 7 members. +ut 7 M 1, so it has only 1 memberA therefore, I am the 'ope.4 False 2ompromise:

if one does not understand a debate, it must be 4fair4 to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. 2+ut one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.3 Eournalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of 4balanced4 coverage. &elevision reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question. &here are many possible reasons for this, some of them good. >owever, viewers need to be aware of this tendency. Fallacy .f "e 2rucial E3periment:

claiming that some idea has been proved 2or disproved3 by a pivotal discovery. &his is the 4smoking gun4 version of history. ,cientific progress is often reported in such terms. &his is inevitable when a comple) story is reduced to a soundbite, but it.s almost always a distortion. In reality, a lot of background happens first, and a lot of buttressing 2or retraction3 happens afterwards. And in natural history, most of the theories are about how often certain things happen 2relative to some other thing3. (or those theories, no one e)periment could ever be conclusive. #o +rongs &a%e A 1ig"t ; u 9uo-ue' Eou oo<:

1B8

a charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationali%ation that others have sinned, or might have sinned. (or e)ample, +ill borrows Eane.s e)pensive pen, and later finds he hasn.t returned it. >e tells himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his. War atrocities and terrorism are often defended in this way. ,imilarly, some people defend capital punishment on the grounds that the state is killing people who have killed. &his is related to Ad >ominem 2Argument &o &he 5an3. Pious Fraud:

a fraud done to accomplish some good end, on the theory that the end justifies the means. (or e)ample, a church in ?anada had a statue of ?hrist which started to weep tears of blood. When analy%ed, the blood turned out to be beef blood. We can reasonably assume that someone with access to the building thought that bringing souls to ?hrist would justify his small deception. In the conte)t of debates, a 'ious (raud could be a lie. 5ore generally, it would be when an emotionally committed speaker makes an assertion that is shaded, distorted or even fabricated. (or e)ample, +ritish 'rime 5inister &ony +lair was accused in 7889 of 4se)ing up4 his evidence that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction. Around the year B88, ,aint Augustine wrote two books, "e 5endacioT!n #yingU and *ontra +edacium TAgainst #yingU, on this subject. >e argued that the sin isn.t in what you do 2or don.t3 say, but in your intent to leave a false impression. >e strongly opposed 'ious (raud. I believe that 5artin #uther also wrote on the subject. HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH http:HHonegoodmove.orgHfallacyHtoc.htm HIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIHIH Fallacies of 2ausality A< Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: &he fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc 2before the fact therefore because of the fact3 consists of attributing a causal relationship 2L caused K3 to what can only be shown to be a temporal relationship 2L preceded K3. &his fallacy is committed whenever someone asserts or implies that an event that occurred before another event must have caused that event. &his fallacy is often called simply the post hoc fallacy, and it is the abuse of reasoning that allows politicians to take credit for everything good that happened while they were in office and for their opponents to blame them for everything bad that happened. Inflation tripled after Eimmy ?arter was elected 'resident. >is policies must have been inflationary. After ,weden lifted restrictions on pornography, instances of violent se)ual crime decreasedA this proves that restrictions on pornography rather than pornography itself causes se)ual crimes. ,tudies have conclusively proven that G9: of people who have died in automobile accidents last year ate ice cream within a month of their accidents. &his figure strongly suggests that eating ice cream causes automobile accidents. B< "ird 2ause Fallacy: &he third cause fallacy is a variation on the post hoc fallacy in which it is asserted that L causes K when it can be demonstrated that both L and K are caused by $. When third causes are ignored, it is often possible to marshal very impressive statistical evidence in support of a non e)istent causality.

1B1

/very year, when the asphalt starts to get sticky, people die of heat stroke. It seems that heat stroke is a disease caused by the fumes emitted by sticky asphalt. A recent study by a prominent researcher showed that elementary school students who live in houses without central air conditioning do poorer on standardi%ed tests than children live in houses with central air conditioning. &here seems to be something about central air conditioning that is conducive to learning. 2#ikely third cause: wealth vs poverty3. Fallacies t"at Assume t"e 2onclusion 3) Alleged Certainty: &he fallacy of alleged certainty is the most basic of all fallacies that assume the point that they are trying to prove. An alleged certainty is any argument in which something is asserted to be certain without ever being proved. -enerally, those employing this fallacy begin with a statement 4everyone knows that. . . .4 or 4it is universally acknowledged that. . . . 4 +e careful, though, some things really are true. /verybody really does know 2or should know3 that ,acramento is the capital of ?alifornia, and it would not be a mistake to 4allege4 such a fact as certain. &o qualify as an alleged certainty, something that should be proven must be asserted as true. It is simply a fact that speech codes on campus lead to more, rather than fewer, incidnts of racial hostility. 4It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.4 2Eane Austen, "ride and "re<udice and yes, Eane knew that it was a fallacy, that was the point.3 4) Begging the Question: 4+egging the Juestion4 is a fallacy in which the arguer somehow, often very subtly, asserts, as truth, a the answer to a question that is really at issue in the debate and then uses the resulting, faulty premise as the basis for further debate or argumentation. &he reason that abortion is wrong is that it is wrong to kill babies who don.t have any change to represent themselves. 2&he question that is 4begged4 is whether or not a fetus is a 4baby,4 which is an integral part of the debate.3 !f course guns should be outlawed. Anything that dramatically increases the number of deaths of young people in this country should be outlawed. 2&he question of whether or not gun ownership does dramatically increase the numbers of deaths of young people is very much at issue in the debate over guns.3 ,hakespeare is a better writer than ,penser because he more closely duplicates real life e)periences. 2&his assumes that real life e)periences have more literary value than fantasy.3 5) Co ple! Question: A comple) question is a fallacy that combines two unrelated or tenuously related questions into a query requiring a single answer. &he most famous 4comple) question4 ever is the old courtroom gag 4have you stopped beating your wife yet.4 &he real question 2are you a wife beater3 is embedded in the ostensible question. !ther e)amples. 2&o an in law3 Which plane would you rather leave town on, the C:98 one or the F:1C one= 2'arent to child3 Which law school do you want to attend= 2'olitician to voters3 Are you willing to elect my opponent and risk total bankruptcy of the social security and medicare programs within five years= ") Cir#ular $easoning: &he fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when a speaker asserts a conclusion that is based on a premise that requires the conclusion to be true before it can be accepted. !fficially, this is a syllogistic fallacy:

1B7

5ajor 'remise: If -od does not e)ist, we should not obey his word. 5inor 'remise: We should obey -od.s word, as the +ible states. ?onclusion: -od e)ists. &his syllogism is circular because the minor premise, that the +ible says we should obey -od.s word, can only be true if the conclusion is also true. &hus, the conclusion would have to be proved before the minor premise could prove it. !ften, the syllogistic structure in this fallacy is deeply embedded the assertions. 'ornography should be defined as 4any type of literature that causes unnatural thoughts and feelings about se).4 2&his argument is, ultimately, circular because it relies on a definition of 4unnatural4 that will have to end up being 4anything portrayed by pornography3. /ducated people like Eane Austen.s novels better than &homas >ardy.s. Anyone who thought otherwise should not be take seriously by legitimate scholars. Fallacies t"at 2"ange t"e (u!6ect %) Ad &o ine : is a #atin phrase meaning 4against the man.4 &his fallacy should not be confused with simple name calling, which is normally not an 4ad hominem4 fallacy as much as it is simply 4being a jerk.4 <or should the ad hominem fallacy be confused with the legitimate challenge of an authority. If someone asserts a point based on their own authority, then it is very logical to call that authority into question. &he ad hominem fallacy is the specific assertion that someone.s argument or viewpoint should be discounted because of character flaws that have nothing to do with the arguments at issue. >ow can people believe the theory of evolution when it is a well known fact that "arwin cheated on his wife= (ree trade must be a bad ideaA it is advocated by both ,enator >ansen and 0epresentative 5c-uire, both of whom have admitted to using marijuana in college. &he problems with hip hop music can be summed up with two names: <otorious +.I.-. and 7'ac ,hakur two big hip hop stars who died senseless, violent deaths. ') Tu quoque: &he tu quoque 2you.re another3 fallacy is a speciali%ed form of the ad hominem in which it is suggested that someone does not have the right to make a point if they themselves are guilty of violating their own precepts. 5y dad gave me this big lecture about why I should stay in college and not drop out. Who is he to talk= >e dropped out his first year and got a job in a machine shop. Why should we listen to +ill ?linton tell us not to use drugs. >e inhaled. () Appeal to Authority: &he fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when an argument is asserted as true on the sole grounds of its endorsement by an authority, or perceived authority, figure. ,imply using an e)pert testimony is not a fallacyA it is good reasoning. >owever, such appeals become fallacious: 13 when the authority figure does not have any e)pertise in the area under discussionA 73 when opposite opinions of other authorities are suppressedA or 93 when the testimony of the authority figure is given disproportionate weight in relation to other considerations. /at Wheaties cereal so you can be like 5icheal Eordan 25ichael Eordan is an e)cellent authority figure for advice on basketballA a much more limited one for advise on nutrition3 &he e)istence of life the fourth moon of ,aturn is proven by the fact that "r. 5artin (inkleberry, who received a 'h.". from ?al &ech., believes absolutely that it is inhabited by large, intelligent blobs of jelly. 2"r. (inkleberry may well believe it, but most e)perts on the subject do not3. We should not allow 4science4 to blind us to truth. +oth the +ible and the works of Aristotle tell us that the earth moves around the sun. &hat settles it 2&his, roughly, was the

1B9

argument used by the ?hurch to force -alileo to recant his beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary3. )*) Slippery Slope: &he slippery slope fallacy is an attempt to divert attention away from a question at issue by arguing that a certain decision, if made, would set in motion a series of increasingly severe consequences. &hese consequences are then presented as the consequences of the question at hand, rather than as the consequences of a series of future decisions that may or may not be made. If we start to ban e)tremely violent and se)ually e)plicit speech, we will open the doors to a flood of censorship that will never stop. (irst, we will ban images of violent se)uality, "enthouse and "layboy will be ne)t, then Eames Eoyce, ".>. #awrence, ?haucer, +yron, and ,hakespeare. +efore long, we will be living in a fascist state where nobody has any rights at all. If we pass legislation to ban the sale of semi automatic weapons, it won.t be long until we ban other kinds of weapons: handguns, hunting rifles, butter knives, lawn mowers. +efore long, everything with a sharp edge will be illegal, and we will be living in a fascist state where nobody has any rights at all. ))) $ed &erring: &he 4red herring4 fallacy draws its image from the /nglish fo) hunt. 0eportedly, certain unethical people competing in such fo) hunts would place a smelly herring in the track of their opponent.s dogs, thus getting the rival hunters off the track. &he 4red herring4 fallacy is an argument that is not really related to the question at issue, but which is thrown into the debate in an attempt to move the discussion away from the point of stasis. It is illogical for people to be concerned about guns in this country when it is a proven fact that cars kill twice as many people every year as guns do, and nobody seems to be an)ious to pass 4car control4 legislation. Why do all of these right wing ?hristians get upset about se) on &*. &here has always been much more violence on &* than se)A don.t people think that it is worse to kill someone than to have se) with them= Fallacies t"at &iss t"e Point )+) Straw ,an: #ike the slippery slope. &he 4straw man4 argument is a fallacy named for a metaphor. &he image invoked by the fallacy is that of a fight between a human opponent and a straw dummy dressed to look like a real opponent. When the straw man is knocked down, the human opponent claims victory. A straw man argument is a summary of an opponent.s position that is intentionally weak or easy to refute. +y defeating an artificial, constructed version of someone else.s argument, a speaker can claim 4victory,4 even though he or she has not really dealt with the points that are at issue. &hose who want to adopt campus wide speech codes believe that they can prevent se)ist, racist, or homophobic speech. As noble an idea as this is, it is practically impossible. 'rejudice is a basic component of human nature, and will not be eliminated with the passage of new rules and laws. &hose who would try to limit free speech on campus would curtail a vital part of the American constitution in the name of a pipe dream. &he problem with anti pornography feminists like ?atherine 5cDinnon is that they think se) is bad because men are evil. &hey tell us that any se)ual relationshp between a man and a woman will demean the woman and enforce the patriarchal hegemony of the man. &his idea ignores the fact that there are a lot of men out there who really do respect and car for women. )3) -alse .ile a: &he false dilemma, or false dichotomy, is a fallacy that presents two issues as if they are the only possible choices in a given situation. &he rejection of one choice, in such a situation, requires the adoption of the second alternative. (alse dichotomies should be distinguished from true dichotomies. ,ometimes, there really are only two choices: everything in the world is either a dog or a non dog, but

1BB

everything isn.t either a dog or a cat. In most, but not all, situations, there are middle grounds or other options that make it irresponsible to force a choice between two alternatives. &he purpose behind campus speech codes is to combat racism. /ither you support our efforts to end hate speech, or you are a racist. fff I know that most of you don.t really want to vote for Eones because he is a crook and a gambler, but, still, that is better than voting for ,mith, who once went to jail for murder. ,o you should vote for Eones. )4) .i#to si pli#iter: Cicto simpliciter is the illogical assumption that something that is good in general must therefore be good in a particular instance. &hose who commit this fallacy are guilty of uncritically applying a general truism to a particular situation that might have factors that mitigate the validity of the general truth. 5ilk is good for you, so everyone should drink milk. 2,ome people are lactose intollerant3 /)ercise is good, so the college should require a '/ class every semester. (ree speech is a good thing, so rules against hate speech on college campuses are bad. )5) Appeal to /gnoran#e: &he fallacy of appeal to ignorance is the assertion that something must be true because it cannot be proven to be false. According to argument theory, the person making an affirmative claim 2a claim about what is true, good, necessary, useful, etc.3 >as the burden to prove that claim true. &he fallacy of appeal to ignorance attempts to reverse the burden of proof and place it on the person making the negative claim 2that something is not true, good, useful, etc.3 !ur justice system has a safeguard against this fallacy built in to it: the presumption of innocence, or the belief in 4innocent until proven guilty3. If cases were tried according to the appeal to ignorance, the guilty person would have to prove that he or she did not commit a crime, which is, in many cases, a very difficult thing to do. I belive that life e)ists in outer space because nobody has ever been able to prove that it does not. ,enator +a)ter has never given any compelling evidence to prove that he is not a communistA therefore it is safe to assume that he is. <obody has ever been able to prove conclusively that pornography does not lead to se)ual violence. ;ntil they do, we had best regulate its production and distribution. Fallacies t"at Appeal to Emotions )") Appeal to Tradition: &he appeal to tradition, or appeal to the status quo, is the assertion that an idea or course of action is 4good4 because it is traditional, comfortable, or the way that things have always been done. &raditional appeals, though not logical, are often very powerful because old ideas and old policies are, if not perfect, at least unintimidating. #etting women into the "owntown Athletic ?lub would be a disasterA for 17C years, the club has been male only. Why should we do anything now to break up that tradition= )%) Appeal to -ear: &he appeal to fear is the notion that if some course of action is or is not pursued, terrible consequences will occur. &he more common name for this fallacy is 4scare tactics.4 If you don.t buy life insurance, you will die and your family will be left destitute and reduced to thievery and prostitution. If we do not pass immigration reform, pretty soon we will go bankrupt because we will have spent all of our children.s money on support for illegal aliens. If we don.t repent and mend our national ways, we will soon face the wrath of -od, who will burn us all in the flames of hellfire, even so, amen. )') Appeal to -or#e: &he appeal to force is simply the assertion that you should do what I say or believe what I believe because, if you do not, I will do something unpleasant to you. &his is a speciali%ed case of

1BC

the appeal to fear in which the negative consequences are a direct or indirect threat by the speaker to the audience. &hough it is technically a fallacy, it is often a very persuasive one. 'eople should be tolerant of diversity because, if they are not, they will not be welcome at 0ocky 5ountain ;niversity. If 5e)ico does not agree that they need to restrict immigration from within their boarders, we will try to convince them by putting high tarriffs on their agricultural products. )(< Ad &isericordiam 0appeal to pity): &he appeal to pity is e)actly what it apepars to be: the assertion that somebody should do something out of a sense of pity or compassion. &echnically, this is always a fallacyA however, since pity, emotion, and compassion are generally seen as elements of a good person, there is really nothing illogical about asserting that someone should have compassion. >owever, in many instances, people assert that feelings of pity should override other, much more reasonable considerationsA these are the cases usually referred to as illogical appeals to pity. Another category of argument that is generally considered an ad misercordium fallacy occurs when emotional images or rhetoric are used to support an argument that has little or nothing to do with them. &hough there are 17 qualified candidates for this position, you should give it to me because I have four children in college and am having trouble meeting my mortgage payment. 2&he appeal is intended to override more important qualifications, such as e)perience, education, and ability.3 5ore than half of the children in the world go to bed hungry every night. A third do not have adequate access to even the most basic forms of health care. +ut you can do something about it. (rom now untiul the end of the year, 'athos ?ola will donate a portion of every two liter bottle that it sells to the >elp &he ,tarving ?hildren (oundation. 2&hough pity for children is appropriatae, it really has very little to do with which cola product you decide to purchase.3 +*) Appeal to Popularity 01andwagoning): &he fallacy of appeal to popularity, or bandwagoning, is the assertion that you should believe something or do something because everybody else believes it or does it. +andwagoning works because most people are deeply insecure about their opinons and actions and horrified at the thought of being out of step. We tend to see a kind of emotional security in doing and thinking like other people think. &his fallacy is sometimes called 4 d populum.4 "on.t be the last person on your street to buy a ?lippermeister lawnmower the only lawnmower that tells the neighbors that you care about the neighborhood as much as they do. &he 4pro life4 position is becomon incrreasingly difficult to maintain. A recent poll suggested that GC: of the people in America favor some form of abortion. AH0 False cause: 2onclusion depends on none3istent or minor causal connection0 &errorist nations undeterred by the certainty of retaliation would be deterred by a defense system intercepting a percentage of incoming missiles. &here are more laws on the books today then ever before, and more crimes are being committed than ever before.&herefore, we must eliminate the laws to reduce crime

""ost Hoc =rgo "ropter Hoc42after this therefore because of this 3 !nly minutes after the -overnors speech ended, the devastating earthquake struck.In the interests of public safety the -overnor should avoid making any more televised speeches. Anthrocentric 2human centered3 fallacy &his one isn.t found in standard te)ts, but was described by Eohn ,tuart 5ill in .ystem of ?ogic. ?onsider the e)ample of a preacher who one day takes someone

1B6

supposedly possessed of a demon, throws his hand on her forehead, and shouts, 4-et out leave this body4 /ven supposing that demons e)ist, one might find it curious that they understand /nglish, obey peremptory commands, and are easily influenced by incantations and rituals. &he a.f. here occurs at the presupposition level: human language, reason, instincts, and desires are assumed to be the orbit around which everything else in the universe 2including the aforementioned demons3 revolve. Appeal to authority Dnown also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. &he practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an e)pert in the field in which one is speakingA the allusion to authority masks the fact that e)perts may be divided down the middle on the subjectA no e)plicit reference is made to the authority. A priori fallacies (rom &he =ncyclopedia of "hilosophy: 4;nder the heading of a priori fallacies 5ill listed a number of natural prejudices, including the popular superstition that words have a magical power and such philosophical dogmas as that which is true of our ideas of things must be true of the things themselvesA that differences in nature must correspond to our received 2linguistic3 distinctionsA that whatever is, is rationally e)plicableA that there is no action at a distanceA that every phenomenon has a single causeA and that effects must resemble their causes. &hese are all errors, but we can go further and recogni%e a general apriorist fallacy, which consists in trying to base knowledge of fundamental synthetic truths on anything other than empirical evidence.4 Argumentum ad baculum (allacy that occurs when threat of force is made, either implicitly or e)plicitly. /)ample: 4I.m willing to discuss this in even more depth, but if you don.t come around soon, there may be dire consequences.4 2$aculum from the #atin means 4stick4.3 Argumentum ad captandum Any specious or unsound argument that is likely to win popular acceptance. 2literally, 4for catching the common herd43. &aster List .f Logical Fallacies &he following is a partial list of common fallacies of logic.(or each fallacy and e)planation and e)ample is provided. 1. Ad hominem or Attacking &he 'erson. Attacking the arguer rather than hisHher argument. /)ample: >is objections to capital punishment carry no weight because he is a convicted felon. <ote: ,aying something negative about someone is not necessarily ad hominem. If a person 2politician for e)ample3 is the issue, then it is not a fallacy to critici%e himHher. 7. Ad ignorantium or Appeal &o Ignorance. Arguing on the basis of what is not known and cannot be proven. 2,ometimes called the Sburden of proofO fallacy3. If you cannot prove that something is true then it must be false 2and vice versa3. /)ample: Kou can.t prove there isn.t a #och <ess 5onster, so there must be one. 9. Ad verecundiam or Appeal &o Authority. A deliberate attempt to convince the listener by appealing to the reputation of a famous or respected person. !ften manifested by an authority in one field speaking out of his or her field of e)pertise. /)ample: ,ports stars endorsing investment firms. !r, a &* commercial by an actor who claims, 4I.m not a doctor, but I play one on &*.4 B. Affirming &he ?onsequent. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this case, the second premise affirms the consequent of the first premise and the conclusion affirms the antecedent. /)ample: If he wants to get that job, then he must know ,panish. >e knows ,panish, so the job is his. C. Amphiboly. ,yntactical ambiguity involving the position of words in a sentence or the ju)taposition of two sentences that leads to communication of a erroneous idea. &his fallacy is like e/uivocation e)cept that the ambiguity does not result from a shift in meaning of a single word or phrase, but is created by word placement. /)ample: Eim said he saw Eenny walk her dog through the window. !w ,he should be

1BF

reported for animal abuse.T&his was supposed to relate EimRs sighting of Eenny through the window, not EennyRs passing bodily through the window.U 6. Appeal &o /motion."eliberate introduction of emotional devices in place of logical assertions to persuade the listener. &he fallacy can appeal to various emotions including pride, pity, fear, hate, vanity, or sympathy. -enerally, the issue is oversimplified to the advantage of the arguer. /)ample: In 1@F7, there was a widespread advertisement printed by the (oulke (ur ?o., in response to the frequent protests against the killing of Alaskan seals for highly priced furs. According to the advertisement, clubbing the seals was one of the great conservation stories of our history, a mere e)ercise in wildlife management, because 4biologists believe a controlled colony would be a healthier colony.4 F. Argument (rom Analogy or (alse Analogy. An unsound form of inductive argument in which an argument relies heavily on a weak or irrelevant analogy to prove its point. /)ample: &his must be a great car, for, like the finest watches in the world, it was made in ,wit%erland. G. +egging &he Juestion. An argument in which the conclusion is implied or already assumed in the premise. Also said to be a circular argument. /)ample: !f course the +ible is the word of -od. WhyX= +ecause it says so in the +ible. @. ,lippery ,lope. A line of reasoning that argues against taking a step because it assumes that if you take the first step, you will inevitably follow through to the last. &his fallacy uses the valid form of hypothetical syllogism, but uses guesswork for the premises. /)ample: We can.t allow students any voice in decision making on campusA if we do, it won.t be long before they are in total control. 18.?ommon +elief 2,ometimes called the bandwagon fallacy or Sappeal to popularityO3. Assertion of a statement to be true on the evidence that many other people allegedly believe it. +eing widely believed is not proof or evidence of the truth. /)ample: !f course <i)on was guilty in Watergate. /verybody knows that 11. 'ast +elief. A form of the ?!55!< +/#I/( fallacy. &he same error in reasoning is committed e)cept the claim is for belief or support in the past. /)ample: Women must obey their husbands. After all, marriage vows contained those words for centuries. 17. ?ontrary &o (act >ypothesis. Assertion of an idea based on an unjustified or unsubstantiated degree of certainty that a hypothetical consequence would have resulted./)ample: If 'resident +ush had not gone into the 'ersian -ulf with military force when he did, ,addam >ussein would have overtaken control of ,audi Arabia and controlled the world.s oil today. 19. "enying &he Antecedent. An invalid form of the conditional argument. In this one, the second premise denies the antecedent of the first premise, and the conclusion denies the consequent. !ften mistaken for modus tollens. /)ample: If she qualifies for a promotion, she must speak /nglish. ,he doesnRt qualify for the promotion, so she must not know how to speak /nglish. 1B. "ivision. ?onclusion that any part of a particular whole must have a characteristic because the whole has that characteristic. /)ample:I am sure that Daren plays the piano well, since her family is so musical. 1C. ?omposition. ?onclusion that a whole must have a characteristic because some part of it has that characteristic. /)ample: &he "awson clan must be rolling in money, since (red "awson makes a lot from his practice. 16. (alse "ilemma 2often called the either8or fallacy or false dichotomy3. Assertion that we must choose one of two alternatives instead of allowing for other possibilitiesA a false form of dis<unctive syllogism. /)ample: SAmerica, love it or leave it.O2&he implication is, since you donRt love it the only option is to leave it3.

1BG

1F. /quivocation. A form of semantic ambiguity. &he arguer uses the ambiguous nature of a word or phrase to shift the meaning in such a way as to make the reason offered appear more convincing. /)ample: We reali%e that workers are idle during the period of layoffs. +ut the government should never subsidi%e idleness, which has often been condemned as a vice. &herefore, payments to laid off workers are wrong. 1G. >asty -enerali%ation. A generali%ation accepted on the support of a sample that is too small or biased to warrant it. /)ample: All men are rats Eust look at the louse that I married. 1@. 'ost >oc, /rgo 'ropter >oc. 2SAfter this, therefore caused by this.O3 A form of the false cause fallacy in which it is inferred that because one event followed another it is necessarily caused by that event. /)ample: 5ary joined our class and the ne)t week we all did poorly on the qui%. It must be her fault. 78. Inconsistency. A discourse is inconsistent or self contradicting if it contains, e)plicitly or implicitly, two assertions that are logically incompatible with each other. Inconsistency can also occur between words and actions. /)ample: A woman who represents herself as a feminist, yet doesnRt believe women should run for ?ongress. 71. <on ,equitur. 2SIt does not follow.O3 Assertion of premises that have no direct relationship to the conclusion. &his fallacy appears in political speeches and advertising with great frequency. /)ample: /ven visual devices such as a waterfall in the background and a beautiful girl in the foreground in an automobile advertisement.T&hese of course have nothing to do with the automobile.s performance.U 77. Juestionable ?ause. 2In #atin: non causa pro causa, Snot the cause of thatO3. &his form of the false cause fallacy occurs when the cause for an occurrence is identified on insufficient evidence. /)ample: I e)pect that it will rain tomorrow because I washed the car. 79. 0ed >erring. Introduction of an irrelevant issue into a discussion as a smokescreen. It is a tactic designed to divert attention from the issue at hand. /)ample: 5any people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires. 7B. ,lanting. A form of misrepresentation in which a true statement is made, but made in such a way as to suggest that something is not true or to give a false description through the manipulation of connotation. /)ample: I can.t believe how much money is being poured into the space program T;se of the word SpouredO suggests heedless and unnecessary spendingU. 7C. ,traw 5an.5isrepresentation or recasting of an opponent.s position to make itmore vulnerable.;sually this is done by distorting the issue to a ridiculous e)treme. &his can also take the form of attacking only the weak premises in an opposing argument while ignoring the strong ones. /)ample: &hose who favor gun control legislation just want to take all guns away from responsible citi%ens and put them into the hands of the criminals. 76.&wo Wrongs 5ake A 0ight. An attempt to justify an apparently wrong action by charges of a similar wrong. &he underlying assumption is that if they do it, then we can do it too and are somehow justified. /)ample: ,upporters of apartheid are often guilty of this error in reasoning. &hey point to ;.,. practices of slavery to justify their system. Argumentum Ad ?rumenam &he fallacy of supposing that a conclusion must be valid because the person making the argument is wealthy. 2*rumena from the #atin means 4purse4.3 An instance of this fallacy is when someone turns to another and says, 4Well, if you.re so smart, why aren.t you rich=4 !ne can be both smart and poor, as indeed numerous philosophers throughout history were 2e.g., #ao &%u, ,ocrates, ,pino%a3. Argumentum ad hominem 24argument against the person43 A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it. &he truth or falsehood of a position doesn.t

1B@

depend on who does 2or doesn.t3 espouse it. e.g. 4Kou can.t trust Eones. theory of electromagnetic particles because he.s a communist.4 2&he theory is good or bad because it comports 2or doesn.t comport3 with certain facts and evidence, not because the man propounding it holds a political affiliation.3 Argumentum ad ignorantiam 24arguing from ignorance43 A fallacy that occurs when someone argues that because we don.t know something is true, it must be false, or because we lack proof that a statement is false, it must be true. Ignorance or lack of evidence doesn.t necessarily mean a position or claim is true or false. ?ommon /)amples: 4<o one has ever proven that ;(!s e)ist. &herefore, they don.t e)ist.4 2,omething can e)ist despite the absence of confirmation. #ack of proof is justification for caution or even scepticism, but not dogmatic assertions.3 4&here is simply no proof that -od e)ists. &herefore, -od doesn.t e)ist.4 2-od might e)ist even though there is no way empirically to prove it.3 Argumentum ad la%arum &he fallacy of supposing a conclusion is valid because the argument is made by a poor person. It is the opposite of the ad crumenam fallacy. Argumentum ad misericordiam !ccurs when an appeal is made to pity or to one.s sympathetic nature. /)ample: 4Augusto 'inochet is an old, dying man. It is wrong to make him stand trial for alleged offenses.4 Argumentum ad populum &his fallacy occurs when an argument panders to popular passion or sentiment. When, for instance, a politician e)claims in a debate that his opponent 4is out of step with the beliefs of everyone in the audience,4 heHshe is committing the fallacy. &he legitimacy of a theoryHclaimHpositionHstatement depends not on its popularity, but on its truth credentials 2internal consistency, e)istence of sufficiently relevant facts, correspondence to e)ternal objects, Yc.3. Argumentum e) silentio &he fallacy of supposing that someone.s silence is necessarily proof of ignorance. &wo people, for instance, may be debating a political issue on a cable news program. !ne may be in the studio with the host, the other appearing via satellite. &heir time on air reaches the point when each only has a few seconds left to make a closing comment. !ne of the debaters asks his opponent a very technical, comple) question, and the opponent is speechless for a few seconds. 4-o ahead,4 the debater screams. 4Answer my question ,ee= >e can.t answer.4 A viewer may be left with the impression that the person.s speechlessness is tantamount to ignorance, when in fact any number of things could have happened: 13 the satellite connection could.ve been lost or e)periencing problemsA 73 the debater was thinking about how best to answer a difficult question under such an immediate time constraintA 93 the debater might not have even heard the whole question. &here may be reasons for temporary silence other than ignorance. +egging the question ?ircular reasoning in which a claim is assumed to be true and is then tucked in the conclusion. e.g. 4-overnment by the people is ideal because democracy is the least inadequate form of government.4 24-overnment by the people4 is the working definition of democracyA the first part of the statement needs to be proven, not reasserted in the predicate.3 ?ircular reasoning ,ometimes known as circulus in demonstrando, or begging the question. >.W. (owler, in +odern =nglish >sage, puts it this way: 4&he basing of two conclusions each upon the other. &hat the world is good follows from the known goodness of -odA that -od is good is known from the e)cellence of the world he has made.4 /quivocation ,ometimes referred to as 4amphiboly4. A fallacy that stems from the ambiguous meaning of certain words. (or e)ample, 1. !nly man is logical. 7. <o woman is a man. 9. &herefore, no woman is logical. 45an4 in the first sentence really means 4mankind,4 4humankind,4 4homo sapiens4. 45an4 in the second sentence means 4maleness4. &he syllogism appears to be valid, but in fact is fallacious because of the subtle shift in meaning. (allacy of false alternatives A fallacy occurring when the number of alternatives is said to be fewerHless than the actual number. ?ommon e)amples of this fallacy are statements containing eitherHor, nothingHbut, all or nothing elements. /)amples: 4Is she a "emocrat or a 0epublican=4 2,he may be a socialist, a

1C8

libertarian, a #eninist, an anarchist, a feminist or any number of other things, including one who is strictly apolitical.3 4If you aren.t for your country, then you are against it.4 2!ne may be neither 4for4 nor 4against4 but may occupy a position of strict neutrality or be affirmative sometimes and critical at others.3 (allacies of interrogation &here are two forms of this particular fallacy. !ne is asking two or more questions and demanding a single answer when, in fact, each question might require separate treatment. &he other form is asking a question whose answer would necessitate acceptance of a presupposition, one which the answerer might separately deny. &he famous e)ample of this second form is asking, 4"o you still beat your wife=4 Answering 4no4 legitimates the question and does nothing to contradict the presupposition that the husband once did beat his wife. Asking a question with presuppositions is fine so long as a narrow answer is not demanded. (lamboyance &he manner in which someone speaks can easily draw unwarranted support for a thesis or idea. Incisive wit, verbal facility, equanimity, and repartee have no bearing at all on the soundnessHlegitimacy of a position. It is the essence of what is said, not the manner in which it is said, that counts. -enetic fallacy A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks the cause or origin of a belief rather than its substance. ;hy a person believes something is not relevant to the belief.s legitimacyHsoundnessHvalidity. /)ample: 4,mith.s belief in -od stems from a subsconscious need for a fatherly figure and is thus a total joke.4 2&he psychological link may in fact be true and may even shed some light on the personality of ,mith, but is nevertheless irrelevant to the truthHfalsehood of his belief.3 >asty generali%ation &he habit of arriving at a bold conclusion based on a limited sample of evidence. &his often occurs with statistics. (or instance, someone may ask ten women and one man what their opinion is of contemporary male female relationships and from this sample draw a sweeping conclusionA hasty generali%ation would then be said to e)ist. If then fallacies 1. Affirming the consequent 2If ', then J. J. &herefore '.3. 7. "enying the antecedent 2If ', then J. <ot '. &herefore not J.3 9. ?onverting a conditional 2If ', then J. &herefore if J, then '.3 B. <egating antecedent and consequent 2If ', then J. &herefore if not ', then not J.3 Ignoratio elenchi 24ignoring of the disproof43 A fallacy that consists in disproving or proving something different from what is in question or called for. It can also be called the irrelevance fallacy. /)ample: 4Kou cannot convict my client of murder. We have proven that one of the arresting officers made prejudicial remarks, remarks scornful of my client. #ook at the videotape, the audiotape, the man.s own testimony. >e is a full blown racistA you must not trust anything he says.4 2;ndermining an allegation of murder is something different than proving that one member of the plaintiff.s team is bigotedA hence, the i.e. fallacy here.3 Invincible ignorance the fallacy of insisting on the legitimacy of one.s position in the face of contradictory facts. ,tatements like 4I really don.t care what the e)perts sayA no one is going to convince me that I.m wrong4A 4nothing you say is going to change my mind4A 4yeah, okay, whatever4 are e)amples of this fallacy. <aturalistic fallacy A fallacy of ethical reasoning, first articulated by "avid >ume 21F11 1FF63, in which 4ought4 is derived from 4is4. >ume, and later -./. 5oore 21GF9 1@CG3, claimed that any invocation of 4good4 or 4right4 must presuppose a moral standard beyond the mores of social practice. 4-oodness4 is all too often a loose term referring to a natural characteristic. /)ample: 4&here is nothing morally wrong with the institution of slavery. It has been with us in some form for thousands of years.4 2&he fact that slavery has been with us or is with us is not moral justification of the act. What is may not be the same thing as what ought to be.3

1C1

<on sequitur 24it does not follow43 A statement that does not logically follow from what preceded itA a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. 'aralogism Any fallacious or illogical argument generally.

'oisoning the wells &his entry comes from an article by Albury ?astell titled 4Analy%ing A (allacy,4 which was included in the book 0eadings In ,peech, edited by >aig +osmajian 2>arper Y 0ow, 1@6C3. >ere is the full quote: 4"uring the last century a famous controversy took place between ?harles Dingsley and ?ardinal <ewman. It began, I believe, by Dingsley suggesting that truth did not possess the highest value for a 0oman ?atholic priestA that some things were pri%ed above truth. <ewman protested that such a remark made it impossible for an opponent to state his case. >ow could <ewman prove to Dingsley that he did have more regard for truth than for anything else, if Dingsley argued from the premiss that he did not= It is not merely a question of two persons entertaining contradictory opinions. It is subtler than that. &o put it baldly, <ewman would be logically .hamstrung.. Any argument he might use to prove that he did entertain a high regard for truth was automatically ruled out by Dingsley.s hypothesis that he did not. <ewman coined the e)pression poisoning the wells for such unfair tactics...&he phrase poisoning the wells e)actly hits off the difficulty. If the well is poisoned, no water drawn from it can be used. If a case is so stated that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, no arguments against it can be used.4 'ost hoc, ergo propter hoc 24after this, therefore because of this43 &his might also be described as the causality fallacy: /vent - follows from /vent B, so one automatically concludes that B caused -.2A young kid walks by a neighbor.s house and sees a cat scurrying awayA he looks up and sees a giant hole in the window. &he hole, he infers, must have been caused by the cat, who fell through the pane. &he inference is hasty, because the hole might have been caused by any number of things a baseball that missed a friend.s glove and flew over his headA young brothers fighting inside and accidentally smashing the window, etc.3. 0ed herring An attempt to divert attention away from the cru) of an argument by introduction of anecdote, irrelevant detail, subsidiary facts, tangential references, and the like. ,traw man A fallacy that occurs when someone attacks a less defensible position than the one actually being put forth. &his occurs very often in politics, when one seeks to derive ma)imum approval for himselfHherself or for a cause. /)ample: 4!pposition to the <orth American (ree &rade Agreement amounts to nothing but opposition to free trade.4 2,omeone can believe in free and open trade and yet still oppose <A(&A.3 &u quoque 24you too43 fallacy &he fallacy of assuming an argument is specious because it is either inconsistent with the person.s actions or inconsistent with previous claimsHarguments. A person may 4preach4 about something and act in a very different manner, but this fact has no bearing on the specific argument he is advancing at any time. Inconsistency, moreover, may raise issues of hypocrisy or double standards, but it does not bear upon the argument at hand. /)ample: 4.mith# I.ve always maintained that the best policy is to turn the other cheek. *iolence only begets violence, and violence in and of itself is wrong. 'ones# What= Kou used to punch people who messed with you. What you.re saying is a complete joke.4 2,mith.s transformation or piety may be less than convincing, but two of his premises that violence only begets violence, and that violence is morally wrong need to be e)amined objectively.3 Furt"er ,nvestigation Kears of intense study and training are not needed to develop a rough understanding of logic or, for that matter, of any other branch of philosophy. 5uch ground can be gained by reading a few chapters of several books, by foraging through various collections in used or old bookstores, and by visiting a few good sites on the web. +elow is a list of prominent logicians and their work: Aristotle: *ategoriesA 0n InterpretationA "rior nalyticsA "osterior nalyticsA &opicsA .ophistical Aefutations. (rancis +acon: 1ovum 0rganum "escartes: Ciscourse on +ethod

1C7

Eohn ,tuart 5ill: .ystem of ?ogic Eohn "ewey: Aeconstruction In "hilosophy +ertrand 0ussell: &he "roblems of "hilosophy, &he "rinciples of +athematics. -ilbert 0yle: Cilemmas #udwig Wittgenstein: "hilosophical Investigations

1C9

,nde3

1CB