CPT Chpt 7
Chapter Seven: Fallacies
7.1. Appeal to Authority (Latin: Argumentum ad Verecundiam)
Definition: An attempt to prove a conclusion by improper appeal to the opinion of an authority; specifically, when the authority is either irrelevant, lacking expertise, biased, or unrecognized in the relevant area. The weight given to an expert's opinion should be proportional to their verifiable knowledge and impartiality within the specific field.
Reasons to Study Fallacies:
To avoid committing them and thereby ensure sound and valid reasoning in one's own arguments.
To correct biases in personal reasoning and recognize errors learned from various influences, such as family, culture, or media.
To identify fallacies in arguments made by others, such as politicians, advertisers, or reporters, which enables more critical thinking and educated decision-making.
Examples of Faulty Appeals to Authority:
"My mom says if I eat watermelon seeds, a plant will grow in my belly and I’ll turn green; therefore, it must be true." (Authority lacks medical expertise).
"I believe the earth is flat because celebrities like B.o.B and Kyrie Irving say so." (Celebrities are not recognized scientific authorities on astronomy).
"The President said that violent crime in Chicago is out of control; being the President means he must know." (While holding a high office, a President may not have direct, expert knowledge of specific crime statistics or sociological factors without relying on actual experts).
Notes on Valid Appeals to Authority:
Proper when the authority has relevant and demonstrable expertise in the specific subject matter (e.g., Buzz Aldrin on facts pertaining to moon landings or astronaut training).
Reliance on authority is acceptable and often necessary when one lacks the necessary information, experience, or specialized knowledge to evaluate a claim independently. However, the authority should be credible, unbiased, and speaking within their area of expertise.
7.2. Appeal to Force (Latin: Argumentum ad Baculum)
Definition: Attempting to make someone accept a proposition or conclusion through the use of an explicit or implicit threat, coercion, or force, rather than through logical persuasion.
Notable Points:
Threats, intimidation, or the application of force do not establish the truth or falsehood of a proposition; they merely compel obedience or acceptance.
A crucial distinction exists between threats (which are fallacious) and legitimate consequences (which are not). Describing the undesirable legal or natural outcomes of an action (e.g., "If you drive drunk, you could go to jail and harm someone") is a warning based on facts and reality, not a fallacious appeal to force.
Examples:
"Anyone who doesn’t support company policy (100% or nothing) will be fired." (Threat of job loss compelling policy acceptance).
"I will destroy the theater if my play isn’t performed." (Threat of violence to force performance).
7.3. Appeal to Emotion
Definition: Attempting to persuade through emotional manipulation, such as pity, fear, anger, or flattery, rather than through objective evidence or logical reasoning. It often diverts attention from the actual merits of an argument.
Important Reminder: Feelings alone cannot establish truth or validate a factual claim. While emotions can motivate or be part of a persuasive speech, they should never be the sole basis for accepting a conclusion.
Examples:
"The defendant should not be found guilty; she has faced endless abuse throughout her life, and a conviction would only add to her suffering." (An appeal to pity: while sad, the defendant's past suffering doesn't negate guilt based on evidence).
"I just know the Montreal Canadiens will win this year; search your feelings!" (Appealing to subjective feelings rather than team performance statistics or objective analysis).
"If you don't support this tax cut, you clearly don't care about the hard-working families struggling to make ends meet." (An appeal to guilt or shame).
7.4. Appeal to Tradition (Latin: Argumentum ad Antiquitatem)
Definition: Citing historical preferences, established customs, or long-standing practices as the sole evidence that a practice or belief is correct, valid, or morally superior merely because of its age. The age of something, by itself, does not inherently validate it.
Examples:
"We have turkey for Thanksgiving because that’s how it has always been done generations." (While a cultural practice, the mere repetition doesn't justify it logically or prove it's the only or best way).
"I cut off the top of my broom handle like my mother did when sweeping; therefore, it must be the proper way to use a broom." (The reason for the tradition might be lost or irrelevant today).
Remarks: Considered traditions that carry justified value beyond mere repetition, recognizing that some traditions are upheld for sound reasons (e.g., cultural preservation, historical significance, proven effectiveness over time), but these reasons must be explicitly stated and defended, not just assumed from the tradition's age.
7.5. Appeal to Novelty (Latin: Argumentum ad Novitatem)
Definition: Claiming that the newness, modernity, or innovativeness of an idea, product, or practice automatically proves its truth, superiority, or effectiveness. Novelty does not inherently guarantee validity; older ideas are not necessarily inferior, and newer ones are not automatically better.
Examples:
"String theory is new and cutting-edge; therefore, it must be the true explanation of the universe." (While innovative, its truth requires empirical evidence, not just its newness).
"The latest Star Wars movies are superior because they are modern and use the newest CGI technology." (Modernity and special effects don't automatically make a film superior in narrative, character, or artistic merit).
7.6. Appeal to Ignorance (Latin: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)
Definition: Arguing for or against a proposition based solely on the absence of evidence for or against it. It asserts that something is true because it hasn't been proven false, or false because it hasn't been proven true.
Examples:
"There is intelligent life on Neptune; after all, no evidence proves there isn’t." (The lack of disproving evidence doesn't confirm its existence).
"He must be a terrorist; he hasn’t shown that he isn’t." (The absence of proof of innocence doesn't automatically imply guilt; this shifts the burden of proof).
"Since scientists haven't found a cure for the common cold, it must be that no cure exists." (The current absence of a cure doesn't mean one is impossible to find).
7.7. Shifting the Burden of Proof
Definition: When a speaker makes a claim but wrongfully requires another person to provide proof for their argument (or disproof of the initial claim), rather than supporting their own assertions. The burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion or extraordinary claim.
Examples:
"Aliens must exist; prove they don't!" (The person making the claim of alien existence should provide the proof, not demand disproof).
"How could anyone dislike Marilyn Monroe? So, obviously, you must explain why you do!" (The speaker asserts universal likeability and demands the opponent justify an alternative opinion).
7.8. Appeal to Popularity (Latin: Argumentum ad Numeram)
Definition: Using the widespread acceptance, common belief, or popularity of an idea as evidence of its truth or correctness. It argues that if many people believe something, it must be true, which is fallacious because popularity does not equate to truth.
Examples:
"All mothers at daycare give quinoa to their kids because it's the trendy superfood; it must be best for child nutrition." (Popularity among parents doesn't automatically make it the best nutritional choice).
"Ten million iPod owners can’t be wrong about its superiority; it’s clearly the greatest music player on the market." (The popularity of a product reflects consumer preference or marketing success, not necessarily its objective superiority in all aspects).
Remark: This fallacy is notable when the popularity does relate to widespread distribution or common usage (e.g., certain language conventions) rather than establishing factual truth or objective quality.
7.9. Fallacy of Accident (Latin: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
Definition: Applying a general rule or principle to a specific case that has relevant features or circumstances making it an exception to that rule. It involves ignoring the nuances and qualifications of a general statement.
Examples:
General Rule: "All birds can fly." - Exceptions: Flightless birds like kiwis and penguins demonstrate that this general rule has specific, relevant exceptions.
General Rule: "It is wrong to hurt innocent people." - Exception: A situation where hurting an innocent person is unavoidable to prevent a greater harm (e.g., a doctor causing pain during a life-saving surgery).
7.10. Amphiboly
Definition: A fallacy of ambiguity that arises from poor grammatical structure, awkward phrasing, or imprecise word order in a sentence or argument, leading to multiple possible interpretations and misinterpretation of the intended meaning.
Examples:
"I took pictures of the dogs playing in the park with a new lens, but they weren't good." (Unclear reference: were the pictures not good, or were the dogs not good at playing, or was the new lens not good?).
Punctuation issue: "Let’s eat grandma!" (Implies cannibalism) vs. "Let’s eat, grandma!" (An invitation to dine).
"The doctor said he couldn't operate on the child because of his heart." (Whose heart? The doctor's or the child's?).
7.11. Fallacy of Composition
Definition: The erroneous assumption that what is true of individual parts or members of a group must also be true for the group or whole entity itself. It incorrectly attributes characteristics of the constituents to the collective.
Examples:
"Each NHL player is wealthy; therefore, the NHL as a league must be wealthy." (While individual players earn high salaries, the league itself has significant expenses and complex financial structures that differ from individual player wealth).
"All atoms in my body are invisible; therefore, my body is invisible." (An invisible part does not make the whole invisible).
7.12. Fallacy of Division
Definition: The erroneous assumption that what is true for a group or whole entity must also be true for individual parts or members of that group. It incorrectly attributes characteristics of the collective to its constituents.
Examples:
"This machine is heavy; therefore, all its individual parts must be heavy." (A machine can be heavy due to the sum of many light parts).
"Students at Heritage College study many subjects; therefore, John, as a student at Heritage College, will study all those subjects." (John, as an individual student, studies only a specific curriculum).
7.13. Straw Man Fallacy
Definition: Misrepresenting, exaggerating, or fabricating an opponent's argument to make it appear weaker, more extreme, or more easily refutable, and then attacking that distorted version rather than the actual argument. This creates a "straw man" that is easy to knock down.
Examples:
Original Argument: "We should invest more in renewable energy sources like solar and wind." Straw Man: "The opposition is against purchasing submarines and wants our country completely defenseless by abandoning all traditional energy and defense strategies." (Distorts a call for investment into an extreme, reckless position).
Original Argument: "I think we should make the requirements for graduation more stringent." Straw Man: "So, you're saying that you want to make it impossible for anyone to graduate and you don't care about students' well-being?"
Notes: Often used in political debates, ethical discussions, and advertising, focusing on distorting an argument rather than engaging with its actual substance. It avoids genuine debate by creating a false target.
7.14. Red Herring (Latin: Ignoratio elenchi)
Definition: Introducing an irrelevant topic, issue, or argument into a discussion or debate in order to distract the audience or opponent from the original point being made and divert attention to a different subject. It's a tactic to shift focus rather than address the argument directly.
Examples:
Original Issue: "The protesters are raising valid concerns about environmental pollution, which we should address." Red Herring: "We shouldn't listen to the protesters because they are living in tents, wearing dirty clothes, and disrupting traffic, which shows they don't care about ordinary citizens." (Critique of protesters’ living conditions and behavior instead of addressing their message about pollution).
Original Question: "Did you clean your room like I asked?" Red Herring: "How can I clean my room when it's so hot in here? You never fix the air conditioning!" (Irrelevant complaints about heat to avoid answering about the room).
7.15. Abusing the Man (Latin: Argumentum ad Hominem - specifically Ad Hominem Abusive)
Definition: Dismissing or attempting to discredit an argument by directly attacking the character, motive, personality, or other irrelevant personal traits of the individual making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The personal attack is irrelevant to the logical validity of their claims.
Examples:
"We shouldn’t listen to those protesters because they are nothing but troublemakers seeking attention." (Attacks their character instead of their message).
"You can't trust anything CEO Smith says about environmental policy; he's a greedy millionaire only interested in profit." (Attacks his motive, not the policy details).
Variation: Poisoning the well — A preemptive ad hominem attack that attempts to discredit a person's entire argument before they even present it, based on unrelated negative issues or bias. (e.g., "Before you even hear her proposal, remember that she's been caught lying several times in the past.")
7.16. False Cause (Latin: Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
Definition: Assuming that because two events occur sequentially in time, or are correlated, the first event must be the cause of the second. This fallacy confuses correlation or temporal succession with causation, overlooking other potential causes or mere coincidence.
Examples:
"The sun rises everyday after the rooster crows; thus, the rooster causes the sun to rise." (Temporal succession without causal link).
"After new gun laws were implemented last year, gun violence dropped; hence, the new laws clearly caused the drop." (While possible, other factors could have contributed; the correlation alone doesn't prove causation).
"Every time I wear my lucky socks, my favorite team wins. Therefore, my lucky socks cause them to win." (Superstition based on false causation).
7.17. Non-Sequitur Fallacy
Definition: A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement, demonstrating a fundamental breakdown in reasoning. The premises, even if true, do not provide supporting evidence for the conclusion.
Examples:
"The police couldn’t crack a difficult case, so they decided to hold a bake sale to raise money for new equipment." (The conclusion—holding a bake sale—does not logically follow from the premise of being unable to crack a case in terms of solving it).
"What do you think of my new haircut?" in response to a judge asking for legal precedent. (The response is entirely irrelevant and disconnected from the context or question).
"Since it rained this morning, the stock market is likely to go up today." (No logical connection between the two events).
7.18. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
Definition: Occurs in a categorical syllogism where the middle term (the term that appears in both premises but not in the conclusion) is not "distributed" in at least one of the premises. A term is distributed when the premise refers to all members of the category it represents. If the middle term is undistributed, it fails to connect the two other terms (major and minor) in a way that necessitates the conclusion.
Examples:
False Syllogism: "All X are Y; All Z are Y; hence, All X are Z."
E.g. "All ghosts are spooky (X is Y); all zombies are spooky (Z is Y); therefore, all ghosts are zombies (X is Z)." Here, 'spooky' (Y) is the middle term. While both X and Z are subsets of Y (spooky things), this doesn't mean X and Z are directly related or identical. The middle term 'spooky' does not cover all spooky things in either premise, hence it's undistributed.
7.19. Naturalistic Fallacy (Latin: Argumentum ad Naturam)
Definition: Assuming that what is natural is inherently good, right, moral, or better, and conversely, that what is unnatural is inherently bad or wrong. This fallacy wrongly conflates descriptive factual statements (what is) with prescriptive value judgments (what ought to be).
Examples:
"It is natural to feel angry; therefore, feeling angry is always justified and I should act on it." (While anger is a natural emotion, acting aggressively on it may not be morally justified or beneficial).
"Herbal remedies are natural; therefore, they are safer and more effective than synthetic medicines." (Natural substances can be harmful, and synthetic ones can be beneficial; their origin doesn't determine their quality or safety).
7.20. Complex Question Fallacy
Definition: A question that contains a controversial or unjustified presupposition, making it impossible to answer directly without seemingly admitting to the presupposition's truth. It's often used to trap someone into admitting something they don't believe or haven't done.
Examples:
"Was it from The Pirate Bay that you illegally downloaded your MP3s?" (This question presupposes that the person has illegally downloaded MP3s, making any direct 'yes' or 'no' an admission).
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" (Whether the answer is 'yes' or 'no,' it implies the person has a wife and has beaten her in the past).
7.21. Equivocation (Also known as Doublespeak)
Definition: Using ambiguous language or a word with multiple meanings in an argument, switching between those meanings in a way that misleads the audience and makes an otherwise unsound argument appear valid. The shift in meaning often occurs subtly.
Examples:
"A feather is light, and nothing light can be dark; therefore, a feather cannot be dark." (The word "light" is used in two different senses: physical weight vs. luminosity).
"Hamburgers are better than nothing; nothing is better than a good steak; hence, hamburgers are better than steak." (The word "nothing" shifts meaning from the absence of anything to a specific item).
7.22. Begging the Question (Latin: Petitio Principii)
Definition: A fallacy where the premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to prove, essentially arguing in a circle. It presents the conclusion as a self-evident truth within the premises, rather than providing independent evidence for it.
Examples:
"Smith’s book is true because he says it is true, and he would never lie." (The conclusion that Smith's book is true is supported by the premise that he says it's true and is trustworthy, which is part of what needs to be proven).
"He’s guilty because innocent people don’t go to jail." (This assumes his guilt to explain why he's in jail, without providing independent proof of guilt).
"God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God." (Relies on the premise of God's existence to validate the Bible, which then validates God's existence).
7.23. False Dilemma (Also known as False Dichotomy)
Definition: Presenting only two options or courses of action as the only possibilities when, in reality, more alternatives exist. This fallacy oversimplifies complex situations by forcing a choice between two typically extreme or undesirable options, excluding middle ground or other viable solutions.
Examples:
"You’re either with us or against us." (Ignores the possibility of neutrality, partial agreement, or alternative positions).
"Either you support the new law, or you’re aiding criminals." (Creates a false binary choice, ignoring potential criticisms of the law that don't imply support for crime).
"You can either get good grades or have a social life." (Presents these as mutually exclusive, ignoring the possibility of balancing both).
7.24. Hasty Generalization
Definition: Making a broad generalization based on a sample that is either too small, atypical, or unrepresentative of the entire population or category. The conclusion is drawn prematurely without sufficient evidence or consideration of diversity.
Examples:
"My grandfather smoked and drank heavily every day and lived to be 95; therefore, smoking and drinking can't be that bad for your health." (One individual case is insufficient to generalize about public health risks).
"I met two rude people from that country; therefore, everyone from that country is rude." (Drawing a sweeping conclusion from a very limited sample).
7.25. Faulty Analogy
Definition: Using an analogy or comparison between two subjects where the similarities between them are insufficient or irrelevant to support the conclusion drawn. The comparison is too dissimilar in critical respects to be a valid basis for inferring likeness in other respects.
Examples:
Comparing belief in monsters under the bed to disbelief in the Titanic sinking. (The subjects are fundamentally different: one is a verifiable historical event, the other is a mythical entity, making the emotional or logical comparison faulty).
"Dogs are warm-blooded, and humans are warm-blooded; dogs give birth to live puppies; thus, humans also give birth to puppies." (While both are warm-blooded, this superficial similarity doesn't extend to reproductive biology).
7.26. Tu Quoque (Latin: ‘you also’)
Definition: Responding to an accusation or criticism by asserting that the accuser is also guilty of the same conduct or a similar wrong, rather than addressing the substance of the original accusation. It attempts to deflect criticism by pointing to the hypocrisy of the accuser.
Examples:
Person A: "You can’t vote for him; he was caught in a financial scandal last year." Person B: "Oh yeah? What about your candidate’s issues with campaign finance violations last election?" (Person B avoids addressing the accusation against their candidate by pointing out similar faults in Person A's candidate).
Parent: "You shouldn't spend so much time on your phone." Child: "But you're always on your phone too!" (Child deflects parental advice by accusing the parent of similar behavior).
7.27. Slippery Slope
Definition: Arguing that an initial action or event will inevitably lead to a series of undesirable, often increasingly severe, consequences, without providing sufficient evidence or logical connections for each step in the predicted chain of events. It often exaggerates the negative outcomes.
Examples:
"If we legalize gay marriage, soon people will demand to marry animals, then inanimate objects, and society will collapse!" (Exaggerates the logical progression without evidence for each step).
"If you allow a student to turn in a late assignment, they'll expect to turn in everything late, then they'll fail the class, drop out of college, and never get a job." (An unsubstantiated chain of negative events).
7.28. The Fallacy Fallacy
Definition: Assuming that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, its conclusion must automatically be false. This is a fallacy itself because the conclusion of a fallacious argument might still happen to be true, even if the reasoning used to support it is flawed.
Examples:
Argument: "Eating Tide Pods is bad for you because my mom said so (an appeal to authority)." Conclusion: "Therefore, eating Tide Pods is bad." (While the reasoning is fallacious, the conclusion that eating Tide Pods is bad is factually true, as they are indeed harmful! Asserting the conclusion is false because of the flawed argument is incorrect).
Argument: "99% of people prefer to fly by car. Therefore, flying by car should be the preferred method of travel." (This argument uses an appeal to popularity, and the premise is factually absurd, making the argument fallacious. However, even if the premise was phrased differently, the overall idea that what is popular is preferred might have some truth, despite the flawed reasoning).
Conclusion
Purpose of Studying Fallacies: To enhance reasoning skills, avoid being deceived by faulty arguments, and promote clear, logical communication. Identifying fallacies allows one to improve their own argumentation, critically evaluate the arguments of others, and engage in more constructive debates without undermining the debate itself. Understanding fallacies is a crucial component of critical thinking and philosophical inquiry.