Fallacy
-
What is a fallacy in logic?
In logic, a fallacy refers to a flawed argument where the premises fail to provide rational grounds for accepting the conclusion. Fallacies can be categorized into material, verbal, and formal types. Material fallacies, also known as fallacies of presumption, occur when the premises assume too much, either by covertly assuming the conclusion or avoiding the central issue. Verbal fallacies arise from the incorrect use of terms, while formal fallacies involve improper processes of inference. The formal study of fallacies, established by Aristotle, remains a fundamental aspect of logic.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why is it important to recognize fallacies in arguments?
Recognizing fallacies is crucial because they are defective arguments that appear to be persuasive but offer no rational grounds for accepting their conclusions. Fallacies can occur in the content, wording, or structure of an argument. Being able to identify fallacies helps to ensure that reasoning is correct and efficient. Understanding fallacies strengthens critical thinking skills, enabling one to assess claims, identify misinformation, and construct sound arguments.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What is the difference between a formal and an informal fallacy?
In logic, a fallacy is a defective argument where the premises fail to provide rational grounds for accepting the conclusion. Fallacies are classified as formal, material, or verbal.
-
Formal fallacies are deductively invalid arguments with easily recognizable logical errors. They relate to the structure of the argument, particularly in syllogisms. An example is the fallacy of illicit major premise, where a term undistributed in the premise is distributed in the conclusion.
-
Informal fallacies include material and verbal fallacies. Material fallacies involve misstatements of facts, while verbal fallacies arise from the incorrect use of terms. Verbal fallacies often stem from ambiguities in wording or discrepancies between syntactic and semantic forms of sentences.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
-
Can you give an example of a common logical fallacy?
A common logical fallacy is the ad hominem fallacy, which involves attacking a person's character instead of addressing the facts or claims they've made. For example, dismissing a scientist's argument because of their taste in music is an ad hominem fallacy because musical preference has no bearing on the validity of the scientific argument.
There are several subcategories of ad hominem arguments, including abusive, circumstantial, bias, "poisoning the well," and tu quoque. Ad hominem attacks are common in politics and can be effective in persuading an audience to dismiss an argument without addressing its merits.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How do logical fallacies affect debates or discussions?
Logical fallacies weaken arguments by using irrelevant information, misleading language, or faulty reasoning. They can be material, verbal, or formal.
- Material fallacies use irrelevant conclusions, make appeals to emotion, or change the subject.
- Verbal fallacies include errors due to ambiguity and misunderstanding of language.
- Formal fallacies create an invalid structure of an argument.
Fallacies can undermine the persuasiveness and validity of arguments, leading to incorrect conclusions. Detecting and avoiding them is crucial for sound reasoning and effective communication.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What strategies can you use to avoid making fallacies in your own reasoning?
To avoid fallacies in reasoning, focus on:
- Clarity: Breaking down problems to expose underlying logic and assumptions.
- Self-awareness: Recognizing your biases in judgment.
- Evidence: Collecting relevant evidence through personal observations, experiments, and external sources.
- Open-mindedness: Seeking viewpoints that challenge your beliefs to broaden your perspective and mitigate confirmation bias.
- Rigor: Approaching decisions with structured analysis incorporating historical data, long-term trends, and risk assessment.
- Record-keeping: Maintaining meticulous records of trades, outcomes, and decision-making processes to identify patterns of bias and track your progress.
- Feedback: Engaging with peers and mentors to gain valuable feedback and alternative viewpoints.
5 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Fallacy, in logic, erroneous reasoning that has the appearance of soundness.
Correct and defective argument forms
In logic an argument consists of a set of statements, the premises, whose truth supposedly supports the truth of a single statement called the conclusion of the argument. An argument is deductively valid when the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; i.e., the conclusion must be true, because of the form of the argument, whenever the premises are true. Some arguments that fail to be deductively valid are acceptable on grounds other than formal logic, and their conclusions are supported with less than logical necessity. In other potentially persuasive arguments, the premises give no rational grounds for accepting the conclusion. These defective forms of argument are called fallacies.
An argument may be fallacious in three ways: in its material content, through a misstatement of the facts; in its wording, through an incorrect use of terms; or in its structure (or form), through the use of an improper process of inference. As shown in the diagram,
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
fallacies are correspondingly classified as (1) material, (2) verbal, and (3) formal. Groups 2 and 3 are called logical fallacies, or fallacies “in discourse,” in contrast to the substantive, or material, fallacies of group 1, called fallacies “in matter”; and groups 1 and 2, in contrast to group 3, are called informal fallacies.
Kinds of fallacies
Material fallacies
The material fallacies are also known as fallacies of presumption, because the premises “presume” too much—they either covertly assume the conclusion or avoid the issue in view.
The classification that is still widely used is that of Aristotle’s Sophistic Refutations: (1) The fallacy of accident is committed by an argument that applies a general rule to a particular case in which some special circumstance (“accident”) makes the rule inapplicable. The truth that “men are capable of seeing” is no basis for the conclusion that “blind men are capable of seeing.” This is a special case of the fallacy of secundum quid (more fully: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, which means “from a saying [taken too] simply to a saying according to what [it really is]”—i.e., according to its truth as holding only under special provisos). This fallacy is committed when a general proposition is used as the premise for an argument without attention to the (tacit) restrictions and qualifications that govern it and invalidate its application in the manner at issue. (2) The converse fallacy of accident argues improperly from a special case to a general rule. Thus, the fact that a certain drug is beneficial to some sick persons does not imply that it is beneficial to all people. (3) The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion is committed when the conclusion changes the point that is at issue in the premises. Special cases of irrelevant conclusion are presented by the so-called fallacies of relevance. These include ( a) the argument ad hominem (speaking “against the man” rather than to the issue), in which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false, ( b) the argument ad populum (an appeal “to the people”), which, instead of offering logical reasons, appeals to such popular attitudes as the dislike of injustice, ( c) the argument ad misericordiam (an appeal “to pity”), as when a trial lawyer, rather than arguing for his client’s innocence, tries to move the jury to sympathy for him, (d) the argument ad verecundiam (an appeal “to awe”), which seeks to secure acceptance of the conclusion on the grounds of its endorsement by persons whose views are held in general respect, ( e) the argument ad ignorantiam (an appeal “to ignorance”), which argues that something (e.g., extrasensory perception) is so since no one has shown that it is not so, and (f) the argument ad baculum (an appeal “to force”), which rests on a threatened or implied use of force to induce acceptance of its conclusion. (4) The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii (“begging the question”), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: “Gregory always votes wisely.” “But how do you know?” “Because he always votes Libertarian.”). A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando (“arguing in a circle”), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn − 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . ., pn is taken as established (example: “McKinley College’s baseball team is the best in the association [ pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [ p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [ p1].” “But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?” “Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [ p3 again].”). Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise. (5) The fallacy of false cause (non causa pro causa) mislocates the cause of one phenomenon in another that is only seemingly related. The most common version of this fallacy, called post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after which hence by which”), mistakes temporal sequence for causal connection—as when a misfortune is attributed to a “malign event,” like the dropping of a mirror. Another version of this fallacy arises in using reductio ad absurdum reasoning: concluding that a statement is false if its addition to a set of premises leads to a contradiction. This mode of reasoning can be correct—e.g., concluding that two lines do not intersect if the assumption that they do intersect leads to a contradiction. What is required to avoid the fallacy is to verify independently that each of the original premises is true. Thus, one might fallaciously infer that Williams, a philosopher, does not watch television, because adding
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
A: Williams, a philosopher, watches television.
to the premises
P1: No philosopher engages in intellectually trivial activities.
P2: Watching television is an intellectually trivial activity.
leads to a contradiction. Yet it might be that either P1 or P2 or both are false. It might even be the case that Williams is not a philosopher. Indeed, one might even take A as evidence for the falsity of either P1 or P2 or as evidence that Williams is not really a philosopher. (6) The fallacy of many questions (plurimum interrogationum) consists in demanding or giving a single answer to a question when this answer could either be divided (example: “Do you like the twins?” “Neither yes nor no; but Ann yes and Mary no.”) or refused altogether, because a mistaken presupposition is involved (example: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”). (7) The fallacy of non sequitur (“it does not follow”) occurs when there is not even a deceptively plausible appearance of valid reasoning, because there is an obvious lack of connection between the given premises and the conclusion drawn from them. Some authors, however, identify non sequitur with the fallacy of the consequent (see below Formal fallacies).