Chapter 4 Fallacies Fallacies defined What is a

Chapter 4 Fallacies

Fallacies defined • What is a fallacy? – Fallacies are common but bad arguments. • Why do we need to know them by name? Isn’t it sufficient to be able to identify a bad argument as a bad argument? – Their forms are so common they have been given particular names to identify them and their associated failing. • So they’re common. How common? – There are perhaps hundreds of them. Our text has elected to cover only a few of the most common and important ones.

But more important than knowing the names • Is a cautious or skeptical attitude • Learn to ask these kinds of questions: “Does the author. . . ” – appeal to something that has nothing to do with the actual argument? – distort the facts? – shift ground? – assume what is to be proved? – claim to have covered all the options when that is not the case? – use terms inconsistently, ambiguously?

The failings of fallacies • Can a valid argument be fallacious? – Yes. Fallacies are arguments that may or may not be valid. • How can a valid argument be fallacious? – Whether valid or not, they use rhetoric or misuse evidence in order to make the argument more persuasive (in an irresponsible way) than it would be without the rhetoric or improperly used evidence. • For these reasons, fallacies are not good arguments: you should be on the lookout for them in both your own and others’ speaking and writing.

Detecting fallacies • Fallacies can be difficult to detect. As our text has pointed out, skill in detecting fallacies (like some of the other “squishy” skills to which we’ve been exposed) requires sensitivity, judgment, practice, and the experience of time. • One may need to see examples of fallacies over and over again to “get the hang” of spotting them.

General types • Authors classify fallacies in different ways (as we shall see). – What characterizes fallacies of irrelevant appeal? • These arguments make reference, implicitly or explicitly, to factors that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument (usually because the argument is without merit), but may, precisely because of those irrelevant reasons, seem very “persuasive. ” They are like diversionary tactics--they shift or confuse the hearers’ or readers’ foci to other points that have nothing to do with the original issue, usually because the arguer’s position on the original issue is weak. – What characterizes fallacies of ambiguity? • Precisely because of ambiguity in meaning, syntax or perspective, these arguments have the effect of confusing the hearer just enough to “slip one by”: they shift meaning, syntax, or perspective just enough to make a point without the shift itself being detected by most hearers. – What characterizes fallacies involving unwarranted assumptions? • These arguments add an unarticulated but unjustified or illegitimate assumption. – What characterizes fallacies of false emphasis? • These arguments actually stick to the point and do not appeal to irrelevant concerns, but they somehow misuse or misapply reasoning in sometimes subtly persuasive ways. – Miscellaneous

Irrelevant appeals • • What is appeal to force (ad baculum)? – Any reference that implicitly or explicitly alludes to the threatening specter of [active] physical, emotional, legal, financial injury, etc. by the arguer or his/her agents against the hearer or reader if the desired response isn’t forthcoming. I. e. , “Do x or else!” What is appeal to emotion (ad misercordium)? – Any reference that alludes to the pain and suffering (of any kind) to or the happiness of a third party. Unlike ad baculum, the suffering or happiness suggested in ad misercordium is more passive, i. e. , the arguer will not cause it, but it may happen if the hearer or listener does or doesn’t respond in the desired way. I. e. , “With/Without x this [unspecified] happiness or suffering will happen to y. ” • What is appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam)? –Any appeal that, because of some unknown quantity, anything (usually the arguer’s point) could or is likely to be the case. I. e. , “Because x is unknown, who’s to say (or “it must be”) that my way is/isn’t/may be the right way of interpreting things? ”

Changing the point • What is irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi, non sequitur)? – An argument in which the premises just do not seem to have much, if anything, to do with the conclusion, but, remarkably, may have persuasive power over the unwary. • What is personal attack (ad hominem)? – Any argument in which the character of one’s opponent is impugned, rather than the argument itself. I. e. , “x is a bad idea because the arguer is a bad character. ”

Changing the point, cont’d. • What is a straw man? – An argument in which the arguer shifts the focus from the main point to an apparently weaker but less-than-essential point to attack and--by obtaining assent on that point--claims to have refuted the overall argument. “Joy! Rapture!”

Changing the point, cont’d. What is a complex (loaded) question? – An argument, phrased rhetorically as a question (usually seeking a simple “yes/no” response), in which there are, on closer inspection, actually two issues requiring a response, and the questionee finds him/herself in a no-win situation.

False emphasis • • What is slippery slope? What is division? What is composition? What is accident?

Miscellaneous • Equivocation • Begging the question/Circular reasoning • False dichotomy/dilemma