(See related pages)
|
|
|
| Accent | This fallacy occurs when, because of the way a word or phrase is visually or verbally emphasized, we are led to drawing an incorrect conclusion. This includes the repetition of a word or phrase to create a certain effect that leads to an incorrect conclusion. Think, for example, of ads where the word "Free" is accented but, in tiny print, we are told what we have to do or buy to get the freebie. Another way the fallacy of accent occurs is when someone misquotes someone or takes something out of context. When quoting someone, be careful that the quote represents the author's thought and intent. |
| |
| |
| |
| Accident | This fallacy occurs when a general rule or principle is applied to a special case in which, by reason of its special or atypical characteristics, the rule simply does not apply. This fallacy might be a misapplication of a moral principle, a rule from work, or a general pronouncement made by a family member or friend. The unwarranted assumption is that the rule applies to all cases, without exception. But most rules and principles simply fail to apply across the board and so there are exceptions that make the rule inapplicable. The fallacy of accident occurs when this is not recognized. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Baculum | This fallacy occurs when there is the use of force, the threat of force, or coercion in order to get a conclusion accepted. This includes verbal or sexual harassment, blackmail, extortion, and threat of violence used to "persuade" someone to a position. A variation is bribery, where the coercion comes in the form of a promise, offer, money, or position that motivates with a combination of desire (to have something) and fear (that the opportunity will pass if we turn down the bribe). |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Hominem | This fallacy involves an attack on the character or traits of person making an argument, rather than their ideas or argument. The form of an Ad Hominem is this: PERSON holds POSITION ATTACK on PERSON because of character, traits, or identity. Therefore, POSITION must be false. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Hominem Circumstantial | This fallacy involves an attack on an opponent because of their special circumstances or vested interests, rather than focusing on their ideas or arguments. We see ad hominem circumstantial fallacy when someone is criticized because of the person's membership in a group or professional, religious, cultural, or political associations. The form of ad hominem circumstantial is this: PERSON holds POSITION ATTACK on PERSON'S IMPARTIALITY because of affiliation, group membership, or vested interests. Therefore, POSITION must be false. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Ignorantiam | This fallacy occurs when it is argued that something is the case (true or false) simply because you cannot prove otherwise. This is the "if you can't prove me wrong, then I must be right!" defense. The person argues on the basis of a lack of proof to the contrary. However, a failure to disprove something does not mean the opposite is true. And when it comes to legal matters, a presumption of innocence is quite different than proof of innocence. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Misericordiam | This fallacy occurs when there is an irrelevant appeal to pity or sorrowful circumstances in order to get a conclusion accepted. A sympathetic response may be called for when knowing of someone's personal difficulties. But that does not, in itself, substitute for good reasons that directly support a conclusion. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Populum | This fallacy occurs when there is an attempt to persuade on the basis of popular appeal, mass sentiment, or patriotism, rather than giving good reasons to accept the conclusion. "Snob appeal" would be included here. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ad Vericundiam | This fallacy occurs when a famous person or celebrity is used as a means of persuasion instead of solid sevidence. What makes it a fallacy is that the authority cited is not a credible expert in the area. Note: Expert testimony does have its place, however. But the person cited must be an expert in the field under dispute. |
| |
| |
| |
| Ah-ha effect | The "ah-ha" effect when we finally get it (= mental breakthrough). |
| |
| |
| |
| Amphiboly | This fallacy occurs because an ambiguity is created by the use of grammar or sentence structure. This is also known as a fallacy of syntax. Sometimes amphiboly results from two nouns preceding the verb or two nouns with an unclear reference afterward. Sometimes the fallacy results from a missing verb phrase. If the sentence structure seems awkward or funny, check for amphiboly. |
| |
| |
| |
| Begging the Question (Petitio Principii) | This fallacy consists of circular reasoning, whereby the speaker assumes what she or he is trying to prove. The conclusion is drawn on the basis of evidence containing a restatement of the conclusion itself. Because of this repetition, it is called begging the question. What is concluded must come out of the premises and not be a restatement of them. A rehash is just that. The evidence must provide good reasons for drawing the conclusion. |
| |
| |
| |
| Biased Statistics | This fallacy occurs when an inference is drawn on the basis of a sample that is not diverse enough. That is, the sample is not representative of the target population. We see this in studies that exclude a certain age group, gender, ethnic group, and so on--and yet draw a generalization to a population which includes the omitted group. In all of these cases, there is a shift from the sample population to the target population. It is not a question of size, as with hasty generalization. Here the issue is diversity. |
| |
| |
| |
| Bifurcation (Also Known as "False Dichotomy" or "Excluded Middle") | This fallacy involves the presentation of an "either/or" situation when there are more than two options. This occurs when a division of opposites is presented as complete and absolute (i.e., uncompromising contrasts). This omits what lies between the two extremes, creating the problem. Do not assume that someone who says, "It's either this, or it's that" is right. Check for other options. |
| |
| |
| |
| Complex Question | This fallacy is in the form of a question in which two questions are rolled into one. The answer to the hidden, unasked question is assumed, thereby creating the fallacy. At times, it may be an intentional attempt to trap the listener in a complex, incriminating question (like an ambush). Legislative bodies try to address complex question. Whenever anyone detected the fallacy of complex question, they would move to "divide the question." The question would then be divided up into two questions, removing the unwarranted assumption. |
| |
| |
| |
| Composition | This fallacy occurs when it is argued that what is true of the parts or members must then be true of the whole or organization. Each of the parts/members may have some characteristic (say being lightweight), but that does not mean the whole group or object will have be lightweight. The characteristics of the parts do not necessarily transfer to the entity as a whole. |
| |
| |
| |
| Division | This fallacy occurs when it is argued that a characteristic of the whole will also be true of its parts or members. This is the opposite of composition. The fallacy of Division occurs when it is argued that simply because something is true of a whole (or an organization) that it will necessarily follow that each part or member has that characteristic too. But this is fallacious. For instance, you might have a very heavy piece of machinery that is constituted a large number of tiny, lightweight parts. |
| |
| |
| |
| Equivocation | This fallacy occurs when two or more different meanings of a single word or phrase are used in the same context. The resulting ambiguity leads to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. This is also known as a semantic fallacy. We often see equivocation in puns and jokes. A special kind of equivocation has to do with "relative terms"-- which have different meanings in different contexts (like "tall" or "big" or "small"). |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of ambiguity | Also called linguistic fallacies. They are invalid and unsound because of unclear and confusing use of words, grammar, or sentence structure leading to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. Linguistic Fallacies (Fallacies of Ambiguity) include: Equivocation, Accent, Amphiboly, Composition, and Division. |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of presumption | are invalid and unsound because of unfounded or unsupportable assumptions underlying them. Fallacies of Presumption include: Accident, Hasty Generalization, Biased Statistics, Bifurcation, Complex Question, Post Hoc, Red Herring, Slippery Slope, Straw Man, and Begging the Question. |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacies of relevance | are invalid and unsound because the premises are simply irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn. Fallacies of Relevance rest on evidence that's beside the point and, thus, irrelevant. There is always a glaring gap between the premises and the conclusion drawn in a fallacy of relevance. Fallacies of Relevance include: Ad Hominem, Ad Hominem Circumstantial, Tu Quo, Ad Populum, Ad Baculum, Ad Verecundiam, Ad Misericordiam, and Ad Ignorantiam. |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacy | Fallacies are not only pervasive; they often convince people to positions that are not supported by the evidence. In other words, a fallacy is a deceptive or misleading argument that may persuade us, but is nevertheless unsound. Every fallacy contains a fundamental flaw in reasoning. The flaws can take any number of forms and may involve structural or linguistic errors, mistaken assumptions, or premises that are irrelevant to the conclusion stated. Fallacies could employ appeals to flawed statistical studies, the irrelevant testimony of a famous person, threats, patriotism, personal attacks, and so on. |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent | One of the formal fallacies. The form it takes is: "If A then B. B, therefore A." |
| |
| |
| |
| Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent | One of the formal fallacies. The form it takes is: "If A then B. A is not the case. Therefore, B is not the case." |
| |
| |
| |
| Formal Fallacies | (See Chapter 16) include: Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent and the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent. Formal fallacies are invalid and unsound because the very form or structure of the argument leads to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. |
| |
| |
| |
| Hasty Generalization | This fallacy occurs when a generalization or moral principle is drawn on the basis of too small a sample or an atypical case. Stereotypes and other poor inferences have been drawn about entire groups of people on the basis of either too little information or a group that is not representative. Hasty generalization often occurs because the sample size is too small. Therefore, the inference drawn is an incorrect generalization. |
| |
| |
| |
| Linguistic Fallacies | Also called Fallacies of ambiguity. They are invalid and unsound because of unclear and confusing use of words, grammar, or sentence structure leading to an incorrect conclusion being drawn. Linguistic Fallacies (Fallacies of Ambiguity) include: Equivocation, Accent, Amphiboly, Composition, and Division. |
| |
| |
| |
| Post Hoc | This fallacy asserts a causal connection that rests on something happening earlier in time. The fallacy goes like this: Because something precedes something else means that it must then cause the later thing to happen. No evidence given to support such a causal link. Any connection might be coincidental. It would be unwarranted to assume a causal connection. We also see post hoc arguments when people base their reasoning on "bad omens" or attributing success to a lucky charm or a ritual. |
| |
| |
| |
| Question-Begging Epithets | One of the variations of begging the question rests on the use of highly slanted language. Here, biased language stacks the deck with language that is slanted in one direction or another. The result is that it is difficult to stay focused on the issue. Question-begging epithets are either a euphemism or a dyslogism (name-calling)--biased in a very positive (praiseworthy) way or biased in a highly negative (critical) way in terms of descriptions of people or situations. In that sense, question-begging epithets have set down the groundwork for prejudging the case at hand. |
| |
| |
| |
| Red Herring | This fallacy occurs when an irrelevant line of reasoning is intentionally used to divert people away from the topic at hand. We see this when someone purposely shifts the subject of the conversation to avoid an incriminating line of questioning or to deceive someone. It's called a red herring, because a stinking little herring (fish) is an effective way to lead the hound dogs off the scent. Most of us have seen red herring fallacies. People often jump around topics. But what marks a red herring is that the change of topic is done with the intent to deceive and divert attention from one thing to another. |
| |
| |
| |
| Slippery Slope | In this case, an argument is made against something on the basis that, if it is allowed, it will lead to something worse which, in turn, leads to something even worse and so on (down the slippery slope). Behind this reasoning is the unstated assumption that the first in the causal chain leads to the second and that leads to the third, and so on. There is no attempt to prove the one situation actually does lead to the next one or that situation to an even worse one. Rather, the connection is incorrectly assumed and not proven. Note: Not all propositions that involve causal chains are slippery slopes. If it is demonstrated that Situation A leads to situation B and so on, they are not committing slippery slope. The fallacy occurs when the chain is asserted, but not proven. |
| |
| |
| |
| Straw Man Fallacy | This fallacy occurs when an opponent's position is presented as so extreme that it's indefensible. We are then steered toward another, more moderate or appealing, position, which offered as the alternative. The image of the "straw man" (scare crow) is that of something so flimsy that it will go up in smoke if we put a match near it. With the straw man fallacy, the opposition is painted as much more extreme than it actually is. What usually happens is that the speaker's own position is offered as the preferred, reasonable alternative. |
| |
| |
| |
| Tu Quo | This fallacy occurs when there's an attempt to discredit someone because their actions are not in keeping with their words or they don't "practice what they preach." |
| |
| |
| |
| Uh-oh effect | The "uh-oh" effect is when we realize we've made a big mistake. Catching ourselves in a fallacy is the "uh-oh" effect (= mental sinkhole). |