Logical Fallacies
And
Hello!
Are are astonished by the clutter & noise on the internet and various
mass medias (television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc.) ??
Well, glen_qu...@thebodhi.com made this interesting post you might find
interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Logical Fallacies
A fallacy is a misleading or false argument or belief. What follows is a
list of the most common informal and formal logical fallacies. Learn these
and be able to spot logical fallacies in your (and others') reasoning.
ACCENTUS
One of the Fallacies of Ambiguity, which arises from the emphasis (the
accent) placed on a word or phrase.
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
An argument based on a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the
consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the SYLLOGISM below, A is the
antecedent and C is the consequent:
A implies C
C is true <-- Affirming the consequent
______________
Therefore: A is true
AMBIGUITY
An argument in the course of which at least one term (such as "rights") is
used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several
types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION,
AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS.
AMPHIBOLY
A type of Fallacy of Ambiguity where the ambiguity involved is of an
"amphibolous" (equivocal, uncertain) nature. Amphiboly is a syntactic error.
The fallacy is caused by faulty sentence structure, and can result in a
meaning not intended by the author. "The department store now has pants for
men with 32 waists." (How many waists do you have?)
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM
A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is
old; that is, because "that's the way it's always been."
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
An argument that resorts to the threat of force to cause the acceptance of
the conclusion. Ad baculum arguments also include threats of fear to cause
acceptance (e.g., "Do this or you'll go to Hell when you die!" or "I made him
an offer he couldn't refuse.").
ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those
with more money are more likely to be right. "If he's so stupid why is he
so rich?" The reverse of a. ad crumenam is a. ad lazarum.
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by
attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of
putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing
with issues. The two basic types of ad hominem arguments: are 1) abusive,
and 2) circumstantial. This is the most common form of Logical Fallacy.
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be
false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as "appeals to
ignorance." This fallacy has two forms:
1. The statement is true, because it has not been proven false.
2. The statement is false, because it has not been proven true.
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or
more virtuous than one who is wealthier. -- "responsible breeders don't make
money." This fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy a. ad crumenam.
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
An argument that appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion
accepted (or for fundraising).
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM
The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more
often it is heard. An a. ad nauseum is one that employs constant repitition
in asserting a a statement is the truth. Dr. Goebbel's Big Lie Theory.
ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM
A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is
new or newer than something else. Or that something is better because it is
newer. -- "we've tried the other way for a while and it's failed, let's try
something (anything) ." This type of fallacy is the opposite of a. ad
antiquitam.
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM
A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a
proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates
mass support with correctness.
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
An argument that appeals to the beliefs of the multitude. Another way of
putting it: Speaker deals with passions of audience rather than with salient
issues. This fallacy is also known as "Appeal to Tradition" Ad populum
arguments often occur in 1) propaganda, 2) demagogy, and 3) advertising.
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
An argument in which an authority is appealed to on matters outside his/her
field of authority. (like veterinarians dispensing medical advice). a.ad
verecundiam also refers to a fallacy of simply resorting to appeals to
authority (like "Doctor" Tom Regan)
BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING)
An argument that assumes as part of its premises that the conclusion is true.
Another way of saying this is: Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an
argument the very point you are trying to prove. This Fallacy is also known
by the Latin "PETITIO PRINCIPII"or "CIRCULUS IN PROBANDO."
BIFURCATION
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the
presentation of a situation or condition with ONLY TWO alternatives, whereas
in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.
COMPOSITION
An argument which assumes that a whole has a specific property solely because
itsvarious parts have that property. -- "Because ALF is a terrorist
organization (and ALF is part of PETA) > all PETA members condone terrorism."
Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity.
CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
Description: If A then B, therefore, if B then A. <<<NOT!!!
CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC
A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur
simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are
causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the
cause(s) of the events. This fallacy is similar to the "post hoc" fallacy.
DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
An argument in which one infers the falsity of the consequent from the truth
of a hypothetical proposition, and the falsity of its antecedent.
A implies B
Not-A
____________
Therefore: Not-B
DIVISION
An argument in which one assumes that various parts have a property solely
because the whole has that same property. Division is a type of Fallacy of
Ambiguity -- the inverse of COMPOSITION.
EQUIVOCATION
An argument in which an equivocal expression is used in one sense in one
premise and in a different sense in another premise, or in the conclusion.
Equivocal means 1) of uncertain significance; not determined, and 2) having
different meanings equally possible. Equivocation is a type of Fallacy of
Ambiguity. The opposite of equivocation is "UNOVOCATION," in which a word
always carries the same meaning through a given context.
FALLACY OF INTERROGATION
The question asked has a presuppostion which the answerer may wish to deny,
but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count
as an answer. Any answer to the question "Why does this event happen?"
presupposes that the event does indeed happen.
FALSE ANALOGY
An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things
or events on which a comparison can be made. A false analogy involves
comparing two things that are NOT similar. Note that the two things may be
similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued.
**
IGNORATIO ELENCHI
An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in
proving a different one. IGNORATIO ELENCHI stands for "pure and simple
irrelevance."
ILLICIT PROCESS
A syllogistic argument in which a term is distributed in the conclusion, but
not in the premises. One of the rules for a valid categorical syllogism is
that if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then IT MUST BE
DISTRIBUTED IN THE PREMISES. There are two types of Illicit Process: Illicit
Process of the Major Term and Illicit Process of the Minor Term.
PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM - COMPLEX QUESTIONS
A demand for a simple answer to a complex question.
NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA
An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other
proposition that SEEMS to be a consequence of the first, but really is not.
NON-SEQUITUR - DOES NOT FOLLOW
An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the
premises. A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical
connection to it.
PETITIO PRINCIPII
The same as "Begging the Question" This argument assumes its conclusion is
true but DOES NOT SHOW it to be true. Petitio principii has two forms:
1. P is true, because P is true.
2. P is true, because A is true. And A is true because B is true.
And B is true because P is true.
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC
An argument from a premise of the form "A preceded B" to a conclusion of the
form "A caused B." Simply because one event precedes another event in time
does not mean that the first event is the cause of the second event. This
argument resembles a fallacy known as a HASTY GENERALIZATION.
QUATERNIO TERMINORUM
An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur four or more terms.
In a standard categorical syllogism there are ONLY THREE TERMS: a subject, a
predicate, and a middle term.
RED HERRING
A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being
discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points
being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to
divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points.
REIFICATION
To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into a concrete thing.
Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity. Reification is also sometimes known
as a fallacy of "HYPOSTATIZATION".
SECUNDUM QUID (HASTY GENERALIZATION)
An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention
given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's
application. This fallacy is also known as the "HASTY GENERALIZATION." It is
a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases
to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. NOTE THE RELATION TO
STATISTICS: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is
representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the
better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty
generalization is a sweeping generalization.
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or
proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "ARGUMENTUM AD
IGNORANTIUM," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who
denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is
the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
SPECIAL PLEADING
Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed
by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when
one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than
he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.
STRAW MAN
It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of
more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position,
and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a
fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.
SWEEPING GENERALIZATION
Also known by the Latin term "DICTO SIMPLICITER", a Sweeping Generalization
occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the
features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A
sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.
TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT (TU QUOQUE)
Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right a wrong by applying yet
another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency. It is a
fallacy because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under
discussion.
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
A syllogistic argument in which the middle term of a categorical
syllogism is not distributed in AT LEAST ONE of the premises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
glen_qu...@thebodhi.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Danny Clark for providing this list.
scott
Bummer, my computer doesn't do Venn diagrams.
G.C.McLoughlin
Glen wrote: "What follows is a list of the most common informal and
formal logical fallacies..."
Thanks for posting them: they're important. Maybe (among other things)
it will remind folks that "begging the question" does not mean the same
thing as "raising the question"--a mistake that's been cropping up
lately with discouraging frequency.
g.c. mcloughlin
And
Hello!
Are are astonished by the clutter & noise on the internet and various
mass medias (television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc.) ??
Well, Glen_Qu...@thebodhi.com made this interesting post you might find
interesting.
ACCENTUS
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
AMBIGUITY
AMPHIBOLY
ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM
ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM
ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM
ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM
ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM
ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM
ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM
ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM
BIFURCATION
COMPOSITION
CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL
DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT
DIVISION
EQUIVOCATION
FALLACY OF INTERROGATION
FALSE ANALOGY
ILLICIT PROCESS
NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA
PETITIO PRINCIPII
QUATERNIO TERMINORUM
RED HERRING
REIFICATION
SECUNDUM QUID (HASTY GENERALIZATION)
SPECIAL PLEADING
STRAW MAN
SWEEPING GENERALIZATION
UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thanks to Danny Clark for providing this list."
glen_qu...@thebodhi.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out this cool site: http://www.print-mail.com/calendar.htm