|
Dr. Bob's
Critical Thinking Site
|
|
Fallacies Page Fallacies are errors in reasoning. Logicians have identified hundreds of logical fallacies. In this brief survey, we will examine only a few of the ones you may encounter as a consumer of argument. Here are example of ten of common fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Straw Man, False Dilemma, Ad Hominem, Post Hoc Fallacy, Two Wrongs Fallacy, Ad Populum, Non Sequitur, Appeal to Ignorance, and Hasty Conclusion. Appeal to Authority: Authorities may provide good evidence (not fallacious) in support of a claim as long as we believe the authority is knowledgeable on the subject at hand and will provide an unbiased statement. If an authority cited does not satisfy these criteria, we should criticize the argument on the basis of a fallacious appeal to authority. If we are presented with an argument based on authority, we should ask the following questions:
Straw Man: Straw man is a diversionary tactic and is employed as a means of attacking an opponent's argument. The straw man is a made up version of an opponent's argument that is easy to attack, or it attributes a position to an opponent that goes well beyond what the opponent would be willing to accept. Once a straw man has been set up, it is knocked down. Having destroyed the straw man, the attacker can then suggest that the opponent's entire argument should be rejected. Here's an example: In a speech at Louisiana State University, President Bush, speaking about "people" who engage in moral relativism, said, "It may seem generous and open-minded to say that everybody on every issue is equally right, but that attitude can also be an excuse for sidestepping life's most important questions." No doubt the president is correct, but we might wonder who has made such an argument. Mr. Bush set up a straw man with no name then proceeded to knock it down. False Dilemma: Sometimes called the "either/or fallacy," the false dilemma poses a question to which the arguer suggests there are only two alternatives, when in fact there are more. In Congress, the debate over military budgets is often reduced to a false dilemma. Either you are in favor of increasing military spending, a stronger military, and a safer America or you oppose increases in military spending, a weaker military and a less safe America. There are, of course, reasonable views other than the two identified here. Here is another example: President Bush explained the decision to go to war in Iraq and the subsequent failure to find weapons of mass destruction, which had been the primary reason for going to war in the first place, in the following way. He pointed out that prewar intelligence indicated that such weapons were there, then said, "So, I had a choice to make: either trust the word of a madman or protect America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time." Of course there was at least one other alternative. He might have permitted the United Nations to continue the inspection it was conducting. Ad Hominem: The Latin term means "against the man." It refers to an attack on the person making the argument, rather than against the argument itself. The idea is that if the arguer's person can be discredited, the argument is also discredited. People sometimes say, "How can we trust what a politician says about (name a topic), since they are all dishonest anyway?" I have often heard people say, "How can priests give advice on marriage, when they have never been married themselves?" It might be better to listen to the advice, then make a judgment about its value, rather than about the person giving it. Politicians often attack their opponents' personal characteristics rather than their qualifications for office. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc: Another Latin term which means "After this, therefore, because of this." The arguer claims that, when two events have occurred in sequence, the first event caused the second. Two events which occur in sequence may be unrelated or both events may be the result of a third factor. When a cause-effect argument is made, an arguer must show a connection between cause and effect beyond the fact that one event followed the other. Consider the following example: The public broadcasting system is currently making a public service announcement which goes like this: "Kids are less likely to use drugs if parents ask them where they are going, what time they will return, and if adults will be present." Although, the announcement does not directly say so, the implication is that asking those questions causes kids to be less likely to use drugs. A more reasonable cause of kids being less likely to use drugs is parents who take an interest in what their kids do. These parents are also likely to ask the questions suggested in the announcement. Two Wrongs Fallacy: The two wrongs fallacy is another diversionary tactic. It attempts to justify an implied wrong action by charging the accusers with another wrong action. It says, in effect, "You can't accuse me of doing wrong when you are not perfect yourself." Recently Russian President, Vladimir Putin, responded to an American reporter's question about his decision to appoint regional governors rather than allow them to be elected by citizens of the region. The question implied that Russia is retreating from its democratic reform. President Putin referred to America's electoral college, noting that the Russian president was elected directly by the people. The implication is that America, too, is not perfectly democratic. President Putin made no attempt to deny that his decision was undemocratic; instead he attempted to divert attention to what he perceived as flaws in the American democracy. Ad Populum: This Latin terms refers to an appeal to preferences of people. The suggestion is that if it is popular it must be good. This is a common advertising appeal. A typical appeal might go something like this:
The fallacy in the argument is that there are reasons other than it is the best (such as advertising or its national distribution) for the high popularity of beer X. Non Sequitur: This Latin term means "it does not follow." This fallacy is sometimes called irrelevant reason. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument does not follow from its premises. In the run up to the war with Iraq, antiwar protesters were told they should not protest because their action was giving aid and comfort to the Saddam Hussein regime by sending the message that America was soft on the war and may not be willing to fight. This claim might or might not have been accurate, but true or not, it did not address the reasons for the protest. It was irrelevant to the anti-war argument being made by the protesters. Ad Ignorantiam: This Latin terms refers to an appeal to ignorance. It argues that if there is no evidence to prove an argument wrong, it must be correct. An argument might go something like this: "No one as found evidence that of life on other planets in the universe, which proves that no extraterrestrial life exists." A current television advertisement claims that a certain aspirin product has prevented more heart attacks than any other aspirin. The argument is an appeal to ignorance. It argues that no evidence that heart attacks occurred among users of the aspirin must mean that the aspirin prevented them. However, one cannot rationally argue that something which did not occur was prevented from occurring. This argument is also an example of a post hoc fallacy. Hasty Conclusion: This fallacy refers to the argument which presents evidence which may be accurate and relevant to the argument, but which is insufficient to warrant the conclusion drawn. Example #1 on the warrant page is an example of this fallacy. John's statement of his problems with the Ford automobile may be true and relevant to the argument but it is a hasty conclusion to suggest that his experience can be generalized to all or most Ford automobiles.
|