FALLACIES & PSEUDO-REASONING

INTRODUCTION

One basic/fundamental philosophical cun logical question in life is – What constitutes good reasoning? And we know that Logic is the study of what counts as sound reasoning, of how persons ought to reason in order to avoid mistakes. This is to ensure that correct reasoning will not lead from true premises to false conclusion. However, during arguments or conversations, people by errors of commission or omission, fail to observe accurately, the art of correct reasoning. This in itself leads to mistakes, errors and pseudo – reasoning. Now let’s look at the origin of ‘fallacy’.

ORIGIN, MEANING AND DEFINITION OF FALLACY

Fallacy refers to any misplaced idea, thought, belief or opinion e.g. the belief on myths. For logicians, fallacy is simply ‘error in reasoning’ and this error can occur, either in the methods employed or by the issues raised. Many a time, people in an attempt to convince others make use of tricks, sentiments or emotion-arousing gestures in order to deceive others into coming to terms with a particular point of view or argument and the study of this forms the core of this article. A fallacy is nothing more than a rhetorically persuasive language.

In a fallacious argument, one is deceived into accepting the claims or conclusion of an argument when it is not established by the argument. We can classify such argument as both unfounded and unjustified due to the incoherence of the proposition – as we can barely make any sense out of it.

FALLACY:

According to Copi is “that argument that may seem to be correct but which proves, upon examination, not to be so”.
Has a Latin origin from the term ‘FALOR’ which means – TO BE DECEIVED.
As an error could be more or less obvious; deliberate or unintentional.
Can be caused by the following factors – Irrationality, Dogmatism, Influence ability, Complexity of issue, Carelessness and lots more.

Types of Fallacy

Traditionally, fallacies are classified into two:

1. Formal Fallacies [also known as Logical Fallacies]: This fallacy arises as a result of errors in their form or nature. It appears to be a deductively valid line of reasoning but it is not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter [topic of discussion] and can easily be discovered without the knowledge of the subject matter of the argument. This fallacy is present in – Amphiboly, Equivocation, Accent, Composition, Division etc.

2. Material Fallacies [also known as Fallacies of Relevance]: The mistake/error in this kind of fallacy is not structural rather it arises from errors over a confusion of the issue or issues at stake. Such mistakes can include:

· Introduction of irrelevances

· A failure to disambiguate terms

· Vagueness

· Misplaced precision etc.

Consider the argument/example: ‘hey! Beautiful girl! Follow me and not my brother. You can’t continue with him, he’s a liar, a cheat and an evil man’.Now, if you observe, the speaker has not stated why the lady should follow him. Rather, he has explained why she should not follow his brother. Such an argument commits the fallacy of relevance.

Now, it is wiser, safer and better to study fallacies by their names instead of kind. And a progression in this direction will lead us to fallacies that are formed out of the Latin phrase – ‘Argumentum Ad’, which means ‘arguing by appealing to…….’. Other types of fallacy include: ‘the four term fallacy’, ‘Gambler’s fallacy’, ‘Ignorantio Elenchi’, ‘Vicious circle’,etc. Let’s take a much deeper look into these fallacies:

ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAN [Appeal to Ignorance]

This form of argument appeals to the belief on “certain facts” and it is of two forms:

It can be argued that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be false, or vice versa. For instance, when someone argues that something does not exist because no one has seen it, such argument is guilty of Argumentum Ad Ignorantian. Another popular instance is, claiming that the ‘appendix’is useless because no one has found its use.
Ignorantian can also mean ‘ignorance of the opposite’. This is largely subjective, that is, one’s ignorance. Here, an individual accepts or rejects a conclusion because he has not heard of an opposing view [even though it exists].

ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM [Appeal to Force]

Here, the speaker makes use of threat or force to cause the acceptance of a conclusion. Almost everyone who considers himself powerful may commit this error especially where all other sensible options have failed. A popular example is when an employer says to his employees – ‘go back to work or you will not get paid’. Or a lecturer to his students – ‘if you don’t buy my book you won’t pass my examination’. In social and political circle, such an argument above is called ‘wielding the big stick’ i.e. forcing a conclusion by making use of the grave consequences of rejecting it. It can also be called Scare Tactics.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM [Attack against the Personality]

In this type of argument, the speaker leaves or forgets about the subject matter and makes the personality of his opponent his target. This can happen in any of the following ways:

By abusing or praising the personality of the opponent.
By pointing out circumstances that are irrelevant to the argument e.g. women can’t be presidents because they are made from men’s ribs. This is baseless and has no relationship whatsoever to the topic.
By attacking or pointing out the inconsistency of an opponent. This usually occurs when an opponent tends to shift ground or abandon a previously supported claim or opinion. But if it can’t be proven that the opponent is wrong despite the shift in ideas, the objection is highly fallacious.
By shifting the focus of an argument from the truth to the source or origin of the argument. It is also called ‘poisoning the well’.

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM [Appeal to People’s Emotion]

This form of argument is biased i.e. partial. It dwells or thrives on emotion, the pains or desires of a person or people. The argument sways from the main or central idea and focuses on how such claims [topic/activity] will adversely or positively affect the individual. It is often used to get popular support. It is also called ‘snoop appeal’ or ‘bandwagon argument’. A typical example: “DON’T JOIN THE STRIKE”, the government argues, “it will bring hunger and starvation to our citizens, especially women and children”. This is obviously an appeal to the readers’ emotion as nobody likes hunger or death. Politicians, advertisers among others are often in the habit of using this strategy.

ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM [Appeal to Pity]

Here, instead of appealing to people’s emotion, the speaker simply outlines [makes a list of] his difficult or private sad circumstance(s) in order to get the sympathy of others. So, 'Argumentum Ad Misericordiam' is a trade on the sympathy of others.

ARGUMENTUM AD VERENCUNDIAM [Appeal to Authority]

This is an appeal to a person or deity [e.g. God] as an authority on the basis of love, respect and reverence one has for them. This is done sometimes, even when the topic in view is not the domain or field of such authority. A good example is: when one believes or states that “war and strife are necessary for development” because Heraclitus said so.

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?

The carelessor deliberate use of deductive principle even where it does not apply is known as accident or Ad Dicto Simpliciter.
When you support a person’s belief, argument or opinion out of compassion; or reject/condemn it out of envy/jealousy; or praise yourself and your achievements out of pride, you are said to commit the error of fallacy of APPLE POLISHING.
When we move carelessly or quickly to a generalization the fallacy depicted is that of CONVERSE ACCIDENT.
When we argue by ‘begging the question’ or assume to be true, the premise that one is about to prove then we are guilty of the fallacy known as PETITIO PRINCIPII.
When we try to establish or push forth an argument by asking ‘multiple questions in one’ we commit the fallacy of JURES INTERROGATIONES. Usually, the question asked will assume an answer and then build into further questions. It Is also called the fallacy of complex questions.
When we assume what isn’t the ‘cause’ of something to be the cause, we are guilty of the error known as FALSE CAUSE.
The mistake of arguing to a conclusion that does not have any relationship with the issue at hand results in the fallacy known as – IGNORATIO ELENCHI or ‘Irrelevant Conclusion’.
When the conclusion of an argument does not tally/match with the points or premises establishing it, it is declared NON-SEQUITUR I.e. it does not follow.

ASSIGNMENT

Do a research on the following concepts, their effect on an argument and how they cause fallacy:

Amphiboly
Accent
Equivocation
Composition
Division
Death by A Thousand Qualifications
Argument from Outrage
Rationalizing

FALLACY AND PSEUDO-REASONING - Meaning & Types