Fallacy :
Sometimes an argument seems to be valid and sound but in reality it is not so. It involves a violation of some rule of logic which is not apparent and which can be detected only on close examination. Such a piece of unsound reasoning is called a fallacy.
When the premise of an argument fails to support its conclusion we call the argument a fallacious argument. So a fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in fact it is not and which can mislead us.
In logic we use the term fallacy in narrower sense when we call it typical error that is made in reasoning. In this sense each fallacy is a type of incorrect argument. We call the argument committing fallacy in which such kind of mistake is made. And different arguments can commit same fallacy, and the argument which commits a fallacy is itself a fallacy because it is an example of that typical mistake.
A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally. When committed unintentionally it is called Paralogism, while when it is committed intentionally it is call Sophism. In paralogism the person committing fallacy himself is not aware, while in sophism is a fallacy which is employed with the intention in order to deceive or mislead someone. However a fallacy whether committed intentionally or unintentionally is a fallacy.
So the study of fallacy enables us to avoid these and fulfil the purpose of logic which is to differentiate between correct and incorrect reasoning. We understand, after studying these fallacies, what the valid thinking (reasoning) is, we recognise sound arguments and unsound arguments and the conditions for valid reasoning. Even when we are tricked by an (invalid) argument we wish to be able to show how we are tricked by it. If we are just able to see it and not solve the problem our mind is unable to proceed as Aristotle says. Hence it is necessary to study the fallacies.
We can avoid fallacies when we understand the kinds of reasoning mistakes made by different arguments. Therefore we need to understand different kinds of fallacies. Although there are many kinds of fallacies but there are two most common and important, namely:
Fallacies of Relevance.
Fallacies of Ambiguity.
1. Fallacies of Relevance:
These are the bald mistakes, that is to say there are the product of the missing connection between premises and conclusion. And since the connection is missing the premises cannot establish the truth of conclusion drawn. But the premises may look relevant to conclusion psychologically to the reader or hearer. Each fallacy of this kind has a traditional and modern name as follows;
a. The Appeal to Emotion or argument ad populum:
It is a kind of fallacy in which argument relies on emotions rather than on reason. Appeal to emotion of audience is the most common device used by people. In this kind of fallacy in place of evidence and rational argument expressive language (or emotive language) is used in order to excite emotions of audience. For example Love for a country is an honourable emotion but using this emotion to manipulate audience is not correct logically. As Samuel Johnson says “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (villain)”
We can take example of this kind of fallacy in advertising commercials.
Beauty products are associated with youthfulness. Soft drinks are associated with high spirits, romance and adventure. Dairy products are associated with health and happy families. In short we are manipulated by relentless appeals to emotions of every kind.
b. The Appeal to Pity (argument ad misericordiam):
It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism or mercy rather than reason. Misericordiam literally means ‘a pitying heart’. When the premises of an argument are an appeal to pity rather than reason the argument is fallacious. This is a very common kind of fallacy. We can say it’s a kind of subcategory of argument ad populum because in this we appeal to feelings/emotions of generosity, altruism and mercy.
A man who killed his parents himself after proving guilty pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan now.
c. The Appeal to Force (argument ad baculum):
It is a kind of fallacy in which the argument relies on threat of force rather than reason. We commit this fallacy when our evidence or rational methods fail, we use ‘might makes right’. As Stock says,” To knock a man down who differs from you in opinion may prove your strength, but hardly your Logic.”
Religious persecutions are examples of this kind of fallacy. The reformer who is prosecuted is not necessarily proved in error, it is only shown that his opponents are stronger than him. To make an end of a man by violence or bullying does not refute, by reason, or even make an end eventually of his conclusion.
d. Argument against the person (argument ad hominem):
It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against the person taking a position. It is an argument which rests, not upon the merits of the case but upon the character or position of the person who maintains it. It is an argument in which we tend to silence our opponent instead of convincing him (by attacking his personality). A man is accused of a crime; it is no answer to say that the prosecutor is as bad as the accused himself.
e. Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi):
It is a kind of fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion than the one that is proposed. In a sense all the fallacies of relevance are ignoratio elenchi but this term is used chiefly when the point is missed substantively (actually) not merely with other kind of fallacies of relevance.
For example to prove the taste of dinner made by your wife she might name the difficulties she faced during making this dinner for you.
So these are the kinds and examples of Fallacies of Relevance.
2. Fallacies of Ambiguity;
These are the kinds of fallacies we commit due to confusion of the meanings of the words within argument. A term may have one sense in the premise but might be used in another sense in the conclusion. When an inference is drawn in this kind of argument it is fallacious and we call this fallacy, fallacy of ambiguity. There are five kinds of fallacies of ambiguity;
a. Equivocation:
The fallacy of equivocation arises from the ambiguous use of a term in an argument. It is a fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different parts of an argument (premise and conclusion).
For example;
No cat has two tails.
Every cat has one more tail than no cat.
Therefore every cat has three tails.
In this argument the term ‘no cat’ in premise is used in one sense while in the conclusion it is used in another sense.
b. Amphiboly;
It is a kind of fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words is used which can be interpreted more than one way. The argument contains a premise based on one interpretation and conclusion is based on another interpretation. A statement I amphibolous when it’s meaning is indeterminate because of the loose use of words combination. When we use ambiguous grammatical structure in a sentence. The ambiguity lies in the sentence and not in the word because of the construction of the sentence. For example the statement, “A piano for sale by a lady in an oak case with curved legs” can be interpreted both ways the curved legs of the oak case or the curved legs of the lady. Similarly a statement, “Dr. Arif donated along with his wife 5 million rupees to Govt College Lahore for research centre” can be interpreted both ways.
c. Accent;
It is a fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within an argument and difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase. For example, “I never sold you this book” if we stress on ‘I’ it means something else and if we stress on ‘this book’ it means something else and if we stress on ‘you’ it means something else.
d. Composition;
It is a fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of whole. In other words this fallacy consists in going from the distributive to the collective use of a term. For example;
Three and two are odd and even.
Five is three and two.
Therefore five is odd and even.
When it is said three and two are odd and even, ‘three and two’ are taken separately; but in conclusion ‘three and two’ (that is five) are taken collectively. Or if we say,
Ali is good.
Ali is sportsman.
Therefore Ali is good sportsman.
e. Division;
It is a fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole. This is actually converse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed when we pass from a statement about a group as a collective whole to the same statement about each individual or member of that group. For example;
Six is an even number.
Five and one are six.
Therefore five and one are even numbers.
Or we say;
Ali is a good sportsman.
Ali is sportsman.
Therefore he is a good man.
Or
Cheetahs are disappearing.
That animal is a cheetah.
Therefore that animal is disappearing.
So all above are the kinds and examples of Fallacies of Ambiguity.
Sometimes an argument seems to be valid and sound but in reality it is not so. It involves a violation of some rule of logic which is not apparent and which can be detected only on close examination. Such a piece of unsound reasoning is called a fallacy.
When the premise of an argument fails to support its conclusion we call the argument a fallacious argument. So a fallacy is an argument which appears to be valid but in fact it is not and which can mislead us.
In logic we use the term fallacy in narrower sense when we call it typical error that is made in reasoning. In this sense each fallacy is a type of incorrect argument. We call the argument committing fallacy in which such kind of mistake is made. And different arguments can commit same fallacy, and the argument which commits a fallacy is itself a fallacy because it is an example of that typical mistake.
A fallacy may be committed unintentionally or intentionally. When committed unintentionally it is called Paralogism, while when it is committed intentionally it is call Sophism. In paralogism the person committing fallacy himself is not aware, while in sophism is a fallacy which is employed with the intention in order to deceive or mislead someone. However a fallacy whether committed intentionally or unintentionally is a fallacy.
So the study of fallacy enables us to avoid these and fulfil the purpose of logic which is to differentiate between correct and incorrect reasoning. We understand, after studying these fallacies, what the valid thinking (reasoning) is, we recognise sound arguments and unsound arguments and the conditions for valid reasoning. Even when we are tricked by an (invalid) argument we wish to be able to show how we are tricked by it. If we are just able to see it and not solve the problem our mind is unable to proceed as Aristotle says. Hence it is necessary to study the fallacies.
We can avoid fallacies when we understand the kinds of reasoning mistakes made by different arguments. Therefore we need to understand different kinds of fallacies. Although there are many kinds of fallacies but there are two most common and important, namely:
Fallacies of Relevance.
Fallacies of Ambiguity.
1. Fallacies of Relevance:
These are the bald mistakes, that is to say there are the product of the missing connection between premises and conclusion. And since the connection is missing the premises cannot establish the truth of conclusion drawn. But the premises may look relevant to conclusion psychologically to the reader or hearer. Each fallacy of this kind has a traditional and modern name as follows;
a. The Appeal to Emotion or argument ad populum:
It is a kind of fallacy in which argument relies on emotions rather than on reason. Appeal to emotion of audience is the most common device used by people. In this kind of fallacy in place of evidence and rational argument expressive language (or emotive language) is used in order to excite emotions of audience. For example Love for a country is an honourable emotion but using this emotion to manipulate audience is not correct logically. As Samuel Johnson says “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (villain)”
We can take example of this kind of fallacy in advertising commercials.
Beauty products are associated with youthfulness. Soft drinks are associated with high spirits, romance and adventure. Dairy products are associated with health and happy families. In short we are manipulated by relentless appeals to emotions of every kind.
b. The Appeal to Pity (argument ad misericordiam):
It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on generosity, altruism or mercy rather than reason. Misericordiam literally means ‘a pitying heart’. When the premises of an argument are an appeal to pity rather than reason the argument is fallacious. This is a very common kind of fallacy. We can say it’s a kind of subcategory of argument ad populum because in this we appeal to feelings/emotions of generosity, altruism and mercy.
A man who killed his parents himself after proving guilty pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan now.
c. The Appeal to Force (argument ad baculum):
It is a kind of fallacy in which the argument relies on threat of force rather than reason. We commit this fallacy when our evidence or rational methods fail, we use ‘might makes right’. As Stock says,” To knock a man down who differs from you in opinion may prove your strength, but hardly your Logic.”
Religious persecutions are examples of this kind of fallacy. The reformer who is prosecuted is not necessarily proved in error, it is only shown that his opponents are stronger than him. To make an end of a man by violence or bullying does not refute, by reason, or even make an end eventually of his conclusion.
d. Argument against the person (argument ad hominem):
It is a fallacy in which the argument relies on an attack against the person taking a position. It is an argument which rests, not upon the merits of the case but upon the character or position of the person who maintains it. It is an argument in which we tend to silence our opponent instead of convincing him (by attacking his personality). A man is accused of a crime; it is no answer to say that the prosecutor is as bad as the accused himself.
e. Irrelevant Conclusion (ignoratio elenchi):
It is a kind of fallacy in which the premises support a different conclusion than the one that is proposed. In a sense all the fallacies of relevance are ignoratio elenchi but this term is used chiefly when the point is missed substantively (actually) not merely with other kind of fallacies of relevance.
For example to prove the taste of dinner made by your wife she might name the difficulties she faced during making this dinner for you.
So these are the kinds and examples of Fallacies of Relevance.
2. Fallacies of Ambiguity;
These are the kinds of fallacies we commit due to confusion of the meanings of the words within argument. A term may have one sense in the premise but might be used in another sense in the conclusion. When an inference is drawn in this kind of argument it is fallacious and we call this fallacy, fallacy of ambiguity. There are five kinds of fallacies of ambiguity;
a. Equivocation:
The fallacy of equivocation arises from the ambiguous use of a term in an argument. It is a fallacy in which two or more meanings of a word or phrase are used in different parts of an argument (premise and conclusion).
For example;
No cat has two tails.
Every cat has one more tail than no cat.
Therefore every cat has three tails.
In this argument the term ‘no cat’ in premise is used in one sense while in the conclusion it is used in another sense.
b. Amphiboly;
It is a kind of fallacy in which a loose or awkward combination of words is used which can be interpreted more than one way. The argument contains a premise based on one interpretation and conclusion is based on another interpretation. A statement I amphibolous when it’s meaning is indeterminate because of the loose use of words combination. When we use ambiguous grammatical structure in a sentence. The ambiguity lies in the sentence and not in the word because of the construction of the sentence. For example the statement, “A piano for sale by a lady in an oak case with curved legs” can be interpreted both ways the curved legs of the oak case or the curved legs of the lady. Similarly a statement, “Dr. Arif donated along with his wife 5 million rupees to Govt College Lahore for research centre” can be interpreted both ways.
c. Accent;
It is a fallacy in which a phrase is used to convey two different meanings within an argument and difference is based on changes in emphasis given to words within the phrase. For example, “I never sold you this book” if we stress on ‘I’ it means something else and if we stress on ‘this book’ it means something else and if we stress on ‘you’ it means something else.
d. Composition;
It is a fallacy in which an inference is mistakenly drawn from the attributes of the parts of a whole, to the attributes of whole. In other words this fallacy consists in going from the distributive to the collective use of a term. For example;
Three and two are odd and even.
Five is three and two.
Therefore five is odd and even.
When it is said three and two are odd and even, ‘three and two’ are taken separately; but in conclusion ‘three and two’ (that is five) are taken collectively. Or if we say,
Ali is good.
Ali is sportsman.
Therefore Ali is good sportsman.
e. Division;
It is a fallacy in which a mistaken inference is drawn from the attributes of a whole to the attributes of the parts of the whole. This is actually converse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed when we pass from a statement about a group as a collective whole to the same statement about each individual or member of that group. For example;
Six is an even number.
Five and one are six.
Therefore five and one are even numbers.
Or we say;
Ali is a good sportsman.
Ali is sportsman.
Therefore he is a good man.
Or
Cheetahs are disappearing.
That animal is a cheetah.
Therefore that animal is disappearing.
So all above are the kinds and examples of Fallacies of Ambiguity.
No comments:
Post a Comment