FORMAL FALLACIES
Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning which result from the use of incorrect forms in inferences.
INFORMAL FALLACIES
Informal fallacies may result from several different reasons such as faulty communication, reasoning from a part to the whole, insufficient evidence, irrelevant evidence, and similar errors.
VERBAL FALLACIES
Amphibole
Ambiguous grammar such as faulty word grouping, dangling clauses, etc.
| A. | The duke yet lives that Henry shall dispose. –Henry IV Part Two. |
| 2. | She was an absent-minded professor’s wife. |
| 3. | Mewing and purring contentedly, Jane picked up the kitten. |
| 4. | Henry liked pudding better than his wife. |
Accent:
Ambiguity or wrong meaning by misplaced emphasis, quotations out of context or false emphasis due to size of type employed.
| 1. | And he spake unto his sons, saying Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him. — I Kings, Chap xiii, 27. | |
| 2. | Woman without her man is a beast. | |
| 3. | That’s a fine town to live in takes on different meanings according to how the emphasis is placed. | |
| 4. | Mistaking more monastic for Mormonistic; or she kicked her husband’s knees for she kicked her husband’s niece. | |
| 5. | As a headline:
|
Figure of Speech:
1. Arguing from facts of grammar to facts of nature.
“Here she comes up the pier. When you try to sail her against the wind watch out. You know all females are hard to manage.”
2. Taking literally what was not meant literally.
“The rain was typing on the roof.”
3. Hypostatization. Taking abstract concepts to represent concrete things having actual effects.
“Nature decrees what is right. “Progress will tolerate no obstacles.”
4. Other figurative language.
“Civilization is a pleasant for of barbarism.” Taxation is robbery.”
Wrong word meaning: ignorance of a word’s definition.
“A plagiarist is a writer of plays.”
“An unbridled orgy is a wild horse.”
“An octopus is a person who hopes for the best.
“Nausea is an island in the Aegean Sea.”
“Unleavened bread is bread made without any ingredients.”
MATERIAL FALLACIES (due to inattention to subject matter)
Equivocation: use of ambiguous word or phrase; change of meaning of a word or phrase.
“The end of a thing is its perfection. Death is the end of life. Therefore, it is its perfection.”
“For its followers, Communism is a religion. Hence Communists believe in God.”
“Your argument is sound, nothing but sound.”
“No news is good news. Strikes and other labor troubles are no news. Therefore they are good news.”
Composition: faulty reasoning from a part (or parts) to the whole.
“Each part of this machine is light. Therefor the machine is light.”
“Each man on the All-American team is one of the very best football players. Hence the All-American team is one of the very best teams.”
Division: faulty reasoning from the whole to some part or parts. Confusion of “class inclusion” with “class membership.”
“The machine is very heavy. Hence each part of it must be heavy.”
“The Michigan team was the best team in the country, so its halfback, Herb Jones, was the best halfback in the country.”
“Stars are widely distributed throughout the Universe. Our sun, being a star, is therefore widely distributed throughout the Universe.”
Bifurcation: (the Black-or-White Fallacy) ignoring shades of difference. Considering the two extremes only. (good-bad, sane-insane, normal-abnormal, American-unAmerican, etc.)
“He is either rich or poor.”
“This article is not pro-American, therefore it is anti-American.”
Accident: faulty reasoning from the general to some special case which is an exception.
“Theft should be punished. Therefore a poverty-stricken man who steals a loaf of bread should be punished.”
“what you bought yesterday you eat today; you bought raw meat yesterday; therefore you eat raw meat today.”
Converse accident: (hasty generalization) arguing wrongly from a few special cases to some generalization.
“My friends Herb Brown and Joe Smith got rich by speculation on the stock market. Hence anyone can get rich that way.”
“All wars are caused by economic rivalry.”
“Artists lead immoral lives.”
“Women are poor drivers.”
Begging the question:
1. Petitio Principii – assuming at the beginning of the argument the very point to be established.
“This doctrine is heresy and should be condemned.”
2. Circulus in probando – (arguing in a circle). Here also the point to be established is assumed at the beginning but in an indirect manner; thus A is B is C is D is A.
“I’m glad I don’t like chicken because if I liked chicken I would eat it, and I don’t want to eat chicken because I don’t like it.”
3. Question begging epithets. The use of descriptive names which tend to induce prejudice in a hearer.
“This pork barrel spending measure.”
Spoonerisms: transposing letters or syllables in a word. Occasionally this will result in intelligible, although false information.
“Half warmed fish (half formed wish).”
“Well boiled icicle (well oiled bicycle).”
“Leave no tern unstoned (leave no stone unturned).”
Frequently it results in unintelligible words.
“I am flatified and grattered.”
“It is kisstomary to cuss the bride.”
Complex question: asking a question in such a way that a specific answer to some other question is assumed.
“Does your wife cry when you beat her?”
“Where did you hide the gun you used to shoot him?”
False Cause:
1. Non causa pro cause. Taking as the cause of an occurrence something which is not the cause.
“This patient was very sick and has a high fever. The high fever is the cause of his illness.”
2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this.)
“During this century we have had four distinct Democratic administrations. During Woodrow Wilson’s administration we got into World War I. During Franklin Roosevelt’s administration we got into World War II. During Harry Truman’s administration we got into the Korean war and in the Kennedy-Johnson administration we got into the Viet Namese war. Therefore, a democratic administration means involvement in war.”
3. Mistaking a condition for a cause. Conditions favorable to an event are not the cause of it, nor can either event of mutually related occurrences be taken as the cause of the other.
“The United States is a great nation because of its abundant natural resources.”
“In winter, days get longer causing nights to get shorter.”
Special Pleading: suppression of evidence which while relevant tends to a conclusion other than that being advocated.
“Democracy has produced extravagant and incompetent government, therefore there should be a dictatorship.”
Poisoning the well: where a single source of evidence is available and the reliability of this source is impeached even before the evidence is given.
“Professor Brown dislikes me, so his statement as to why he gave me an F is of no value.”
Genetic Fallacy: the truth or falsity of an ides is dependent on its source.
“The Anti-Poll Tax bill is a vicious attack upon democracy for it is sponsored by the Communist Party.”
Irrelevant Evidence: the evidence given does not relate to the conclusion which it seeks to establish.
1. Argumentum ad hominem. The idea at issue is attacked by attacking the author of the idea as a person.
“There is no truth in Nietzsche’s philosophy for he died insane.”
2. Argumentum ad populem. An appeal to the prejudices of the audience in disregard of the merits of the issue involved.
“You are all southerners. I am a southerner. We know how to deal with these problems and we don’t need any northern left wingers telling us how to do it.”
3. Argumentum ad misericordiam. An appeal to sympathy, to be used when logical argument has failed.
“This poor man had an unhappy childhood, so do not send him to jail.”
4. Argumentum ad verecundiam. An appeal to authority. This is not a fallacy provided the person to whom the appeal is made ia an authority on the subject in question; but the opinion of the world chess champion on automobile racing may be worse than useless.
“Immortality of the soul is well established since Rembrandt believed in it.”
5. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. An attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the party where it does not belong.
“Telepathy is a fact since you cannot prove it is impossible.”
6. Argumentum ad baculum. The appeal to force. You must accept this idea because otherwise you will be injured.
“You had better believe in Santa Claus, otherwise he will not leave you any toys for Christmas.
7. Tu quoque (you also). Defending against attack by saying “You also are guilty,” (of this, or some other thing as bad or worse).
“My opponent says I accept bribes! Ask him about that $10,000 kick back he got on the sewer contract.”
Irrelevant Conclusion: this fallacy arises whenever the proof is directed toward a point not at issue or subsidiary to the issue.
“This prisoner is guilty of murder and should be punished because murder is the most horrible of all crimes since it deprives the victim of life itself.”
Non sequitur: (It does not follow) there is no relevant connection between the argument and the conclusion.
“He is a very handsome man, therefore, he cannot be guilty of robbery.”
Speculative Argument:
1. Hypothesis contrary to fact. The speculative elaboration of a false assumption and the drawing of conclusions therefrom.
“If Gish had been president he would have aided the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, and with a free Hungry, there would have been no Communist problem. So the failure of the American people to elect Gish president was the cause of all our problems.”
2. Deriving an “is” for an “ought to be.” This fallacy is assuming that something is true because it would be very nice if the world were so ordered that it were true. Commonly known as wishful thinking.
“The soul of man craves immortality; and since the Universe is essentially friendly to man’s aspirations, we may rest assured that we are immortal.”
Ignoratio Elenchi: (Ignorance of the refutation) This fallacy is closely allied to the irrelevant conclusion. In the most usual form, a statement is substituted for the original proposition. Proof for this substitute statement is then regarded as proving the original proposition.
“Miracles don’t happen? — Ever hear of penicillin or TV or Crest?”