WHAT ARE FALLACIES? These are arguments that may sound logical, but are not.

An improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or take advantage of social relationships between people. Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

'. *.

$! was brought up to believe in (od, and my parents told me (od exists, so )e must.$ $+ure, the media claims that +enator was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media s credibility, don t we.$ $Bill claims that '-'.*. )owever, my parents brought me up to believe that '-'.*/0, so Bill must be wrong.

,.

REDUCTIVE FALLACY

FALLACY OF ORIGINS (GENETIC FALLACY) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. !t 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. is an illogical argument for or against an idea based on the origin of the idea. The problem with an argument based on genetic fallacy is that the truth of a statement is in no way based on the origin of the concept. A philosophical or theological concept is true or it is not# it does not matter how a person came to believe the concept or who, in the past, held that concept to be true is a line of $reasoning$ in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. !t is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. %e can avoid the genetic fallacy by remembering that the beginnings of something do not always tell us everything about its present state. %e can avoid the psychogenetic fallacy by reminding ourselves that you don t refute an idea simply by identifying the psychological reason why a person holds it.

occurs when a writer uses a phrase which effectively limits diversity to one thing, through phrases like $nothing but$. 1ou commit the reductive fallacy when you stop with a one-level description when there are many levels to be described. 1ou are mistaken when you $reduce$ a complex entity to only one of its many aspects. 2ur generation is especially vulnerable to this problem of oversimplification-another term for the same error-because television has become so powerful in our lives. involves reducing the number of causes, oversimplification seems to occur more often, perhaps because there are so many ostensibly good reasons for simplifying things. %ell-intentioned writers and speakers can readily fall into the trap of oversimplification if they are not careful. 2ne impetus for simplification is the basic advice given to all who want to improve their writing style& don t get bogged down in details. (ood writing needs to be clear and precise, thus helping people to understand an issue rather than confusing them even more. !n the process, however, a writer can easily leave out too many details, omitting critical information which needs to be included. Although it is true that an explanation should be no more complicated than n ! ""a#y, one must be very careful not to construct an explanation which is $ "" complicated than necessary. A famous 3uote attributed to Albert 4instein states, $4verything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.$

EXAMPLE% '. +chool violence has gone up and performance has gone down ever since prayer was banned at public schools. prayer should be reintroduced, resulting improvement. academic organi5ed Therefore, in school

EXAMPLES&

This argument obviously suffers from oversimplification because it assumes that problems in schools 6increasing violence, decreasing academic performance7 can be attributed to a single cause& the loss of organi5ed, state-mandated prayers. A myriad of other factors in society are completely ignored, as if the social and economic conditions haven t changed in any relevant way. 2ne way to reveal the problem in the above example is to reword it slightly& *. +chool violence has gone up and academic performance has gone down ever since racial segregation was banned. Therefore, segregation should be reintroduced, resulting in school improvement. 8resumably there are racists around who would agree with the above, but very few of those who make the argument in 9' will also make the argument in 9* yet, they are structurally the same. The reasons for both examples of oversimplification is actually another :ausation Fallacy, known as 8ost )oc Fallacy and covered in more detail elsewhere. !n the real world, events typically have multiple, intersecting causes which together produce the events we see. 2ften, however, such complexities are difficult to understand and even more difficult to change# the unfortunate result is that we simplify things. +ometimes that isn t so bad, but sometimes it can be disastrous. +adly, politics is one field where oversimplification occurs more often than not. FALLACY FROM IGNORANTIAM ARGUMENTUM AD

ignorance& the lack of evidence 6proof7 for something is used to support its truth. occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the sub<ect to know otherwise. occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the sub<ect to know otherwise. Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. =ot all arguments of this form are fallacious# if it is known that if the proposition were not true then it would have been disproven, then a valid argument from ignorance may be constructed. !n other cases, though, arguments from ignorance are fallacious. !n all argumentation and debate it is important that we know where lies the burden of proof. !n general, the burden of proof is on the person who asserts anything. 1ou can not affirm something and then ask your opponent to offer the proof for it. )e ll remind you that it is your duty to offer proof for your own assertions. Appeal to ignorance often pops up in philosophical disputes. For example, naturalists or materialists will argue, $%ell, since you can t really prove (od, then naturalism wins by default.$ This idea of any theory $winning by default$ is the essence of the logical error here. >aybe you win by default in tennis, but not in philosophy.

(ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE) !s a mistake that is committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false. But this appeal to ignorance succeeds only where innocence must be assumed in the absence of proof to the contrary# in other contexts, such an appeal is indeed an argument ad ignoratiam. The ;atin means $argument to ignorance.$ 6a7 Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or 6b7 arguing that something is false because no one has proved it to be true. 4xamples& 6a7 +pirits exist since no one has as yet proved that there are not any. 6b7 +pirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence. Also called the appeal to

EXAMPLES% !n spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been authenticated. %e may assume, therefore, there are not such things as flying saucers. +ince the class has no 3uestions concerning the topics discussed in class, the class is ready for a test. =o one has been able to disprove the existence of (od. Therefore, (od exists.

FALSE DICHOTOMY (FAULTY DILEMMA& 'LAC() AND WHITE FALLACY) 1ou commit this fallacy when you suppose that in a given situation there are only two

alternatives, when in fact there are more than two. The thinker is particularly vulnerable to this mistake when the two choices are opposite extremes& black or white, good or evil, communist or capitalist, true or false. Arguing 6a7 with the use of sharp 6$blackand-white$7 distinctions despite any factual or theoretical support for them, or 6b7 by classifying any middle point between the extremes 6$black-and-white$7 as one of the extremes. 4xamples& $!f he is an atheist then he is a decent person.$ $)e is either a conservative or a liberal.$ $)e must not be peace-loving, since he participated in picketing the American embassy.$ A *a$" +,!-otomy or *a$" +,$ mma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives. !n general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two opposite options are mutually exclusive 6that is, only one of them may be the case, never both7 and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options. 2ne way to shatter false dichotomies is to look at what both sides might have in common -- and ! don t mean $extremism.$ +ometimes you ll find a commonality so important that the two $opposites$ will look like brothers. +ome false dichotomies depend on a misunderstanding of one or both positions, such as the theory vs. practice dichotomy, or the moral vs. practical dichotomy, or the mind vs. body dichotomy. These are all popular false dichotomies. A theory is only good to the degree it resembles practice... morals are a type of theory, so impracticable morals and immoral practicality are both very dangerous... a mind without a body is a ghost, while a body without a mind is a corpse. %hen only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exist between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characteri5ed by ?either this or that@ language, but can also be characteri5ed by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

'.

$;ook, you are going to have to make up your mind. 4ither you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while.$ 4ither you let me go to the Family Aalues Tour, or ! ll be miserable for the rest of my life. ! know you don t want me to be miserable for the rest of my life, so you should let me go to the concert. 4ither we keep :harles >anson in <ail, or we release him, thus risking murder, carnage, and mayhem. %e don t want murder, carnage, or mayhem, so we had better keep him in <ail. $1ou re either part of the solution or part of the problem.$ $!f you re not with us, you re against us.$

APPEAL TO FEAR (argumentum in terrorem) This line of $reasoning$ is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim. ortant to distinguish between a rational reason to believe 6BBB7 6evidence7 and a prudential reason to believe 68BB7 6motivation7. A BBB is evidence that ob<ectively and logically supports the claim. A 8BB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor 6such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief7 that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, it might be prudent to not fail the son of your department chairperson because you fear he will make life tough for you. )owever, this does not provide evidence for the claim that the son deserves to pass the class. This is a logical fallacy, which depends on manipulation of emotions. The fallacious argument takes the form of& either A or B is true, since B is frightening, then A is true. The speaker exploits some fears in the listener to gain support for his proposal or argument. The appeal to fear is related to the fallacy of false dilemma, which proposes that there is no other alternative but the ones presented, either you accept A or B and nothing else. The well-known argument, which states that if you believe in (od you will go to paradise as the only alternative if you do not believe, you will face the horrors

EXAMPLES%

of hell, is the best known example of such logical fallacy.

Fear is an effective tool to change attitudes, C0D which are moderated by the motivation and ability to process the fear message. 4xamples of fear appeal include reference to social exclusion, and getting laid-off from one s <ob,C/D getting cancer from smoking or involvement in car accidents and driving. Fear appeals are nonmonotonic, meaning that the level of persuasion does not increase in proportion to the amount of fear that is used. A study of public service messages on A!E+ found that if the messages were too aggressive or fearful, they were re<ected by the sub<ect# a moderate amount of fear is the most effectiveattitude changer.C/D 2thers argue that it is not the level of fear that is decisive changing attitudes via the persuasion process. Bather, as long as a scare-tactics message includes a recommendation to cope with the fear, it can work.CFD

EXAMPLES% 1ou must believe that (od exists. After all, if you do not accept the existence of (od, then you will face the horrors of hell.$ $! don t think a Bed Byder BB rifle would make a good present for you. They are very dangerous and you ll put your eye out. =ow, don t you agree that you should think of another gift ideaG$ If you dont accept X as true, something terrible will happen to you. Therefore, X must be true. $!f you continue to drink, you will die early as your father did.$ $!f you cannot graduate from high school, you will live in poverty for the rest of your life.$