FALLACIES
……. Arguments, like men, are often
pretenders.
What is a fallacy?
A fallacy is an error in reasoning….
e.g.
Come to class today because every time you come our teacher does
not….
An argument whose premises do not imply its conclusion is
said to be fallacious, or to be a fallacy.
Importance of studying fallacies
Fallacies although incorrect are psychologically persuasive.
Hence a fallacy is also defined as a type of argument that
may seem to be correct, but that proves, upon
examination, not to be so.
Two groups of fallacies
Fallacies of relevance
Fallacies of ambiguity
Fallacies of Relevance
When an argument relies upon premises that are not
relevant to its conclusion, and that therefore cannot
possibly establish the truth, the fallacy committed is one of
relevance.
The Argument from ignorance – Argument ad
Ignoratiam
An argument that a proposition is true simply on the basis
that it has not been proved false, or that it is true simply
on the basis that it has not been proved true.
E.g.
We are the only intelligent being in the universe, if not aliens should
have contacted as by now.
Because of lack of warrant the murder weapon was not admitted in
court, Since there is no murder weapon the murderer is not guilty. The
reasonable doubt standard.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
An argument that a given conclusion is correct on the
ground that a witness who is not an expert has come to
that judgment.
I swear on my mothers name that I am not a LIAR!!!
A gun smith testifying on the psychological tendency of the
accused to fire indiscriminate shots at the crowd would ensure
a guilty verdict.
Complex question
Complex question, defined as:
A question that presupposes the truth of some conclusions
buried in that question. The question is likely rhetorical, no
answer is genuinely sought.
Commonly known as trick question.
"Although not an argument as such, a complex
question involves an implicit argument. This argument is usually
intended to trap the respondent into acknowledging something
that he or she might otherwise not want to acknowledge.
1. Have you stopped beating
your wife?
2. What did you use to wipe
your fingerprints from the
gun you used to kill the
victim?
Note:
If the implied information is an accepted fact, it
is not a fallacy.
E.g.
How long can a man survive without water?
Argument ad hominem
Abusive
Circumstantial
Ad hominen, description:
It is a fallacious attack, in which the thrust
is directed not at the conclusion one wishes
to deny, but at the person who asserts or
defends it.
An attack against the person making an
argument to disprove the argument
Abusive
An argument to disparage the character
of the opponents, to deny their intelligence
or reasonableness, to question their
integrity, and so on.
Circumstantial
An argument based on the irrelevant
connection between beliefs and the
circumstances of the persons holding
it that gives rise to the mistake.
“I believe that ABUSIVE
abortion is
morally wrong” You are an
idiot/totally
jerk!
“I believe that GUILT BY
abortion is ORGANIZATION
morally wrong” Yeah, but Hitler
also think that
abortion is
morally wrong.
“I believe that CIRCUMSTANCIAL
abortion is
morally wrong” Yeah, but you
only say that
because you
are a priest.
“I believe that TU QUOQUE
abortion is
morally wrong” Yeah, but you
aborted your
supposed first
baby.
Premise 1: animals are sentient beings
Premise 2: if a being is sentient, then
killing it for food is immoral
Conclusion: killing animal for food is
immoral.
Note:
The argument is not fallacious if the credibility of the
witness, and his sworn testimony, is thus undermined.
But if one goes on to infer that the attack establishes
the falsehood of that to which the witness testified,
instead of concluding merely that the discredited
testimony does not establish its truth, then the
reasoning would be fallacious
Complex Question
A question that presuppose the truth of some conclusions
buried in that question. The question is likely rhetorical, no
answer is genuinely sought.
E.g.
When you stole my cellphone did you text your mother or your girlfriend
first?
At the time when you were having carnal knowledge with the wife of my
client were you wearing protection?
Argument ad Hominem
It is a fallacious attack, in which the thrust is directed not
at the conclusion one wishes to deny, but at the person
who asserts or defends it.
Two Major Forms of Ad Hominem
Abusive
An argument to disparage the character of the opponents, to
deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their
integrity, and so on.
Choose me as your boyfriend your other suitors are all backstabbing
snakes.
You might as well admit defeat your lawyer took the Bar thrice, such a
LOSER!!
Two Major Forms of Ad Hominem
Circumstantial
An argument based on the irrelevant connection between
beliefs and the circumstances of the persons holding it that
gives rise to the mistake.
And what does a college dropout know about managing a business.
You cannot be appointed judge before me because you are not a law
graduate of UP.
Fallacy of Accident
An application of a generalization to individual cases that is
not governed by the generalization.
All men are womanizers, so never ever trust your BF.
You’re the only one who has the duplicate keys to my car, so
its only you who could have stolen it.
Converse Accident
An application of a principle that is true to a particular case
to the general majority of cases.
E.g.
My BF is a womanizer, that’s because all men are womanizers.
My friend that has duplicate keys to my car stole it, don’t ever trust your
car keys to your friends for they will surely steal your car.
False Cause (Fallacy of Non Causa Pro
Causa)
One variety is the error of concluding that an event is
caused by another because it follows the other.
E.g.
Oh no we lost again, Its you’re fault every time you watch the game we
always lose!!!!
After a hearing a cry for help in the next room the police officers
immediately
responded and arrested the first person they saw running away from
the scene.
Begging the Question – Petitio Principii
To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove,
in the effort to prove it.
Among other fallacies of relevance this one is a case in which the error
does not lie in the premises, the premises on petition principii are
relevant to the conclusion and are always valid arguments.
Although logically valid it is mostly worthless and unpersuasive.
e.g.
I know that your decision is not illegal or immoral. My proof is, it is not
prohibited by the law.
He is mad right now, because I could see that he is really angry.
The Appeals to Emotion, to Pity, and to
Force
Ad Populum
Ad Misericordiam
Ad Baculum
Ad Populum
An argument that replaces evidence and rational argument
with expressive language and other devices calculated to
excite enthusiasm.
E.g.
Good Morning sir you look so ruggedly handsome today, can we have
our recitations rescheduled next week
Our sofa with electronic massager will soothe your stress every time you
watch TV. Thus, “Sofa Cum Massage” is what you and busy family needs
these days.
Ad Misericordiam
An argument that appeals to the altruism and mercy of the
audience.
E.g.
Sir I have already told my parents that I will be grauduating this
semester, my mother has a heart condition and the agony of her
disappointment on the event that I would not graduate might be too
much for her heart. Please sir have it in your heart to give me a 3.0, for
the sake of my mother’s well being.
My client who after the incident could not close her eyes lest sleep
without shaking in fear of remembering that faithful day, She can no
longer eat, nor talk, nor work because of the humiliation she felt when
the accused repeatedly called her a mistress in front of her friends and
family. We believe that the 5 Million pesos we are asking for moral
damages would barely be a band aid to the wounds that her soul
suffered from the acts of the accused.
Ad Baculum
An argument that uses force or threat to cause the
acceptance of some conclusion.
E.g
If you do not pass on this letter to six of your friends, an
unforeseen calamity will befall upon you.
Talking back against your father might diminish your
allowance!
Irrelevant Conclusion – Ignoratio
Elenchi
An argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion
is instead directed to proving a different conclusion.
E.g.
I think a failed the exams, I even think I might get ZERO. But I think I got
items 1 and 4 correctly.
A lawyer is one who maintains allegiance to the Philippines, who support
its constitution, who obeys the laws, who do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court, who delays no man for money or malice. I
am Atty. Matatag running for Barangay Captain.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
The mistaken arguments are formulated in such a way as
to rely on shifts in the meaning of words or phrases, from
their use in the premises to their use in the conclusion; a
term may have one senses in a premise but quite a
different sense in the conclusion.
Equivocation
When the same word or phrase is used with two or more
meanings, deliberately or accidentally, in the formulation
of an argument; misuse of relative terms; which have
different meaning in different context.
E.g.
All banks are beside rivers. Therefore, the financial institution where I
deposit my money is beside a river.
An elephant is an animal, therefore a small elephant is a small animal.
Amphiboly
When one of the statements in the argument has more
than one plausible meaning, because of the loose or
awkward way in which the word in that statement have
been combined.
The fallacy of amphiboly occurs when one is arguing from
premises whose formulations are ambiguous because of
their grammatical construction.
Ex. The anthropologists went to a remote area and took
photographs of some native women, but they weren’t
develop.
Accent
An argument may prove deceptive, and invalid, when the
shift of meaning within it arises from changes in the
emphasis given to its words or parts. (manner of delivering
the words)
E.g. I resent that letter.
Atty. Matatag(,)(!)(!)(?) Public Servant(.)(!)(?)(?)
Composition
First may be described as reasoning fallaciously that what
is true of the parts of a whole is true to the whole itself.
E.g.
Because all of us are good basketball players, if we team up nobody can
beat us.
In court lawyers that I have seen are almost always very good in orally
arguing their cases in public, It can be said then that if we become
lawyers we will also be good public speakers.
Composition
The second kind of composition fallacy is the invalid
inference that what may truly be predicated of a term
distributively may also be predicated of the term collectively.
If Lebron leads the game in scoring they will surely win.
Lawyer : Are you bigger bigger than your frat mates?
Accused : Yes sir.
Lawyer : Stronger?
Accused : Yes sir.
Lawyer : Then this proves to the court that you the biggest and
strongest of the group caused the most damage in the hazing of
the victim and is therefore the proximate cause of his death.
Division
Is the reverse of composition fallacies, first it is an
argument that fallaciously concludes that what is true of its
whole is true of its parts.
E.g.
The San Antonio Spurs is the reigning NBA champions, the Spurs’
players are the best players in the World.
Lawyers are well versed with the Law, Atty. Matatag can surely answer
all our legal queries.
Division
The second part of division fallacy is when one argues from
the attributes of an argument predicated collectively may
also be predicated distributively.
E.g.
All birds fly, the ostrich is a bird, therefore the ostrich flies.
Your honor the several witnesses who are medical doctors has already
testified that the cause of death was not the physical injuries inflicted by
my client, but is in fact the negligence of the victim in forgetting to have
tetanus shots that led to the infection that killed him.
