Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[Jim Parker]

When we discuss our views we do our best to make a logical presentation of how we come to our conclusions or why we disagree with someone else's conclusion. But we don't always get the logic right.
So, it seemed good to me (as Luke said) to provide a list of the logical fallacies, their definitions and some examples. It may take a couple of posts. because there are 16.

Here goes:

1. Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

2. Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

3. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.

4. Fallacy: Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

Examples of Appeal to Belief
1. At one time, most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (at least most of those who had beliefs about such things). However, this belief turned out to be false.
2. God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

Of course there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he'll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.

 

[Jim Parker]

5. Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the fact that most people do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.

An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say "the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them." This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:
1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.

This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and B has blonde hair.

There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:
1. Most people do X.
2. Therefore X is morally correct.
would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one's view simply by eliminating those who disagree.

Examples of Appeal to Common Practice
1. Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says "This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn't go on in all state programs."
2. "Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it's okay."
3. "Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women less then men. It's okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can't really be wrong."
4. "There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism."

6. Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.

Examples of Appeal to Emotion
1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.
2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight. Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the people who are currently in office. After hearing the speech, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.
4. "It's for the children."

 

[Jim Parker]

7. Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganisms cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

This sort of "reasoning" is appealing for a variety of reasons. First, people often prefer to stick with what is older or traditional. This is a fairly common psychological characteristic of people which may stem from the fact that people feel more comfortable about what has been around longer. Second, sticking with things that are older or traditional is often easier than testing new things. Hence, people often prefer older and traditional things out of laziness. Hence, Appeal to Tradition is a somewhat common fallacy.

It should not be assumed that new things must be better than old things (see the fallacy Appeal to Novelty) any more than it should be assumed that old things are better than new things. The age of something does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context). In the case of tradition, assuming that something is correct just because it is considered a tradition is poor reasoning. For example, if the belief that 1+1 = 56 were a tradition of a group of people it would hardly follow that it is true.
Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that aged wine would be better than brand new wine, he would not be committing an Appeal to Tradition. This is because, in such cases the age of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the age is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim.

One final issue that must be considered is the "test of time." In some cases people might be assuming that because something has lasted as a tradition or has been around a long time that it is true because it has "passed the test of time." If a person assumes that something must be correct or true simply because it has persisted a long time, then he has committed an Appeal to Tradition. After all, as history has shown people can persist in accepting false claims for centuries.

However, if a person argues that the claim or thing in question has successfully stood up to challenges and tests for a long period of time then they would not be committing a fallacy. In such cases the claim would be backed by evidence. As an example, the theory that matter is made of subatomic particles has survived numerous tests and challenges over the years so there is a weight of evidence in its favor. The claim is reasonable to accept because of the weight of this evidence and not because the claim is old. Thus, a claim's surviving legitimate challenges and passing valid tests for a long period of time can justify the acceptance of a claim. But mere age or persistance does not warrant accepting a claim.

Examples of Appeal to Tradition
1. Sure I believe in God. People have believed in God for thousands of years so it seems clear that God must exist. After all, why else would the belief last so long?
2. Gunthar is the father of Connan. They live on a small island and in their culture women are treated as property to be exchanged at will by men.
Connan: "You know father, when I was going to school in the United States I saw that American women are not treated as property. In fact, I read a book by this person named Mill in which he argued for women's rights."
Gunthar: "So, what is your point son?"
Connan: "Well, I think that it might be wrong to trade my sisters for cattle. They are human beings and should have a right to be masters of their own fate."
Gunthar: "What a strange and new-fangled notion you picked up in America. That country must be even more barbaric then I imagined. Now think about this son. We have been trading women for cattle for as long as our people have lived on this island. It is a tradition that goes back into the mists of time. "
Connan: "But I still think there is something wrong with it."
Gunthar: "Nonsense my boy. A tradition this old must be endorsed by the gods and must be right."

3. Of course this mode of government is the best. We have had this government for over 200 years and no one has talked about changing it in all that time. So, it has got to be good.

4. A reporter is interviewing the head of a family that has been involved with a feud with another family.
Reporter: "Mr. Hatfield, why are you still fighting it out with the McCoys?"
Hatfield: "Well you see young man, my father feuded with the McCoys and his father feuded with them and so did my great grandfather."
Reporter: "But why? What started all this?"
Hatfield: "I don't rightly know. I'm sure it was the McCoys who started it all, though."
Reporter: "If you don't know why you're fighting, why don't you just stop?"
Hatfield: "Stop? What are you crazy? This feud has been going on for generations so I'm sure there is a darn good reason why it started. So I aim to keep it going. It has got to be the right thing to do. Hand me my shooting iron boy, I see one of those McCoy skunks sneaking in the cornfield."

8. Fallacy: Begging the Question Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question
1. Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."


2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

9. Fallacy: Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof
1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

 

[Jim Parker]

10. Fallacy: Confusing Cause and Effect Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:
1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.
This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

This fallacy is committed when a person assumes that one event must cause another just because the events occur together. More formally, this fallacy involves drawing the conclusion that A is the cause of B simply because A and B are in regular conjunction (and there is not a common cause that is actually the cause of A and B). The mistake being made is that the causal conclusion is being drawn without adequate justification.

In some cases it will be evident that the fallacy is being committed. For example, a person might claim that an illness was caused by a person getting a fever. In this case, it would be quite clear that the fever was caused by illness and not the other way around. In other cases, the fallacy is not always evident. One factor that makes causal reasoning quite difficult is that it is not always evident what is the cause and what is the effect. For example, a problem child might be the cause of the parents being short tempered or the short temper of the parents might be the cause of the child being problematic.

All causal fallacies involve an error in causal reasoning. However, this fallacy differs from the other causal fallacies in terms of the error in reasoning being made. In the case of a Post Hoc fallacy, the error is that a person is accepting that A is the cause of B simply because A occurs before B. In the case of the Fallacy of Ignoring a Common Cause A is taken to be the cause of B when there is, in fact, a third factor that is the cause of both A and B. For more information, see the relevant entries in this program.

Examples of Confusing Cause and Effect
1. It is claimed by some people that severe illness is caused by depression and anger. After all, people who are severely ill are very often depressed and angry. Thus, it follows that the cause of severe illness actually is the depression and anger. So, a good and cheerful attitude is key to staying healthy.
2. Bill sets out several plates with bread on them. After a couple days, he notices that the bread has mold growing all over it. Bill concludes that the mold was produced by the bread going bad. When Bill tells his mother about his experiment, she tells him that the mold was the cause of the bread going bad and that he better clean up the mess if he wants to get his allowance this week.

11. Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented. (My parents told me 2+2=254)
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited). (Since my parents told me, it must be true.)

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious.
"Bill claims that 1+1=2.
However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

Examples of Genetic Fallacy
1. "The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a fascist program."
2. "I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."
3. "Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."

12. Fallacy: Guilt By Association Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
2. Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

Examples of Guilt By Association
1, Will and Kiteena are arguing over socialism. Kiteena is a pacifist and hates violence and violent people.
Kiteena: "I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think that the government should take control of vital industries."
Will: "So, you are for state ownership of industry."
Kiteena: "Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place."
Will: "Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?"
Kiteena: "Oh, no! I don't want to be associated with those butchers!"

2. Jen and Sandy are discussing the topic of welfare. Jen is fairly conservative politically but she has been an active opponent of racism. Sandy is extremely liberal politically. Jen: "I was reading over some private studies of welfare and I think it would be better to have people work for their welfare. For example, people could pick up trash, put up signs, and maybe even do skilled labor that they are qualified for. This would probably make people feel better about themselves and it would get more out of our tax money."
Sandy: "I see. So, you want to have the poor people out on the streets picking up trash for their checks? Well, you know that is exactly the position David Count endorses."
Jen: "Who is he?"
Sandy: "I'm surprised you don't know him, seeing how alike you two are. He was a Grand Mooky Wizard for the Aryan Pure White League and is well known for his hatred of blacks and other minorities. With your views, you'd fit right in to his little racist club."
Jen: So, I should reject my view just because I share it with some racist?"
Sandy: "Of course."

13. Fallacy: Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of Eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."
During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."
After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

Examples of Poisoning the Well
1. Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."
2. "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."
3. You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.
4. My opponent is a well known homo sapiens and his sister is a thespian!

 

[turnorburn]

Is that another way of saying this?

Ecclesiastes 1: 1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

12 I the Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

14 I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

15 That which is crooked cannot be made straight: and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

16 I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

17 And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.

18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

 

[Jim Parker]

14: Fallacy: Red Herring A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."


Argument" for a tax cut:
"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:
"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

15. Fallacy: Straw Man The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man
1. Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

2. "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

3. Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

16. Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule or Mockery The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
2. Therefore claim C is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"

It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim.

For example: "Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill's claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacists are not racist organizations."
Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremacists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
1. "Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."
2. "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"
3. "Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!"

 

[Jim Parker]

Is that another way of saying this?

no

 

[By Grace]

When we discuss our views we do our best to make a logical presentation of how we come to our conclusions or why we disagree with someone else's conclusion. But we don't always get the logic right.
So, it seemed good to me (as Luke said) to provide a list of the logical fallacies, their definitions and some examples. It may take a couple of posts. because there are 16.

Do you have any Scripture to support this? It is part of the tos to cite Scripture in this forum.

 

[OzSpen]

Jim,

You seem to have taken these descriptions directly from The Nizkor Project: Fallacies. Don't you think you should have given them credit for this content? Otherwise, it's plagiarism - stealing somebody else's material without giving credit.

However, this list of fallacies provides an excellent overview of what happens in teaching, preaching, on forums, and in conversation. I notice it especially with online newspapers in the 'Comments' section (which used to be letters-to-the-editor in hard copy).

On this forum I find 2 of the most common fallacies are: (1) red herring and (2) straw man.

I congratulate you for starting a thread to address this dangerous method of attacking the content of a person's post. I think that many times it is done without a person's understanding of the danger of erroneous reasoning in a conversation.

You have demonstrated the need for Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) in action on this forum: 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'. You are sharpening us to be more accurate in our reasoning on a Christian forum. Erroneous reasoning can be so dangerous in conversation. Your list of logical fallacies demonstrates the falsehood that can be perpetrated in conversation, whether in person or online.

Oz

When we discuss our views we do our best to make a logical presentation of how we come to our conclusions or why we disagree with someone else's conclusion. But we don't always get the logic right.
So, it seemed good to me (as Luke said) to provide a list of the logical fallacies, their definitions and some examples. It may take a couple of posts. because there are 16.

Here goes:

1. Fallacy: Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"

Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

2. Fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque Also Known as: "You Too Fallacy"

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Bill: "Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start."
Jill: "Well, I certainly don't want to get cancer."
Bill: "I'm going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?"
Jill: "Well, I guess smoking can't be that bad. After all, Bill smokes."

Jill: "I think the gun control bill shouldn't be supported because it won't be effective and will waste money."
Bill: "Well, just last month you supported the bill. So I guess you're wrong now."

Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong!"

3. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.

4. Fallacy: Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

There are also cases in which what people believe actually determines the truth of a claim. For example, the truth of claims about manners and proper behavior might simply depend on what people believe to be good manners and proper behavior. Another example is the case of community standards, which are often taken to be the standards that most people accept. In some cases, what violates certain community standards is taken to be obscene. In such cases, for the claim "x is obscene" to be true is for most people in that community to believe that x is obscene. In such cases it is still prudent to question the justification of the individual beliefs.

Examples of Appeal to Belief
1. At one time, most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (at least most of those who had beliefs about such things). However, this belief turned out to be false.
2. God must exist. After all, I just saw a poll that says 85% of all Americans believe in God.

Of course there is nothing wrong with drinking. Ask anyone, he'll tell you that he thinks drinking is just fine.

 

[OzSpen]

Do you have any Scripture to support this? It is part of the tos to cite Scripture in this forum.

In Isaiah 1:18 (ESV), the Lord states: '“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool'.

Could you imagine the perfect LORD God engaging in fallacious reasoning or accurate reasoning?

There is the added issue that this is an 'Apologetics & Theology' forum. I live in a post-Christian society where most often it is not appropriate to start with quoting a Scripture in defending the faith. This is in an Australian society that give the thumbs down to Scripture. Dealing with Scripture comes AFTER one has established common ground, as Paul did on the Areopagus in Acts 17:22-34 (ESV).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Do you have any Scripture to support this? It is part of the tos to cite Scripture in this forum.

I notice you did not quote Scripture in your post. By your example, you are demonstrating to us that there are circumstances when it is not appropriate or necessary to quote Scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks for explaining the Strawman Fallacy. I keep hearing about it but there's no such thing here and I could never understand what it meant.

What I find is that sometimes one will post a scripture that has nothing to do with what they're trying to say.

I'll read them all but doubt they'll be stored into the Memory File. It's getting full up in there.
Oz has been trying to make a point of one of these fallacies on a different thread, but it falls on deaf ears.

It's good to know them. It let's you be more aware.
And maybe we all use one or the other at times? Purely by mistake.

Good post Jim Parker.

Wondering

 

[Jim Parker]

Do you have any Scripture to support this?

You have got to be kidding.
Really. I hope you are joking.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Sorry for the long post, but I guess I've had a long time considering conversations where a person says "that's a Red Herring," because the subject matter moved on, or focused on an element one person didn't want to address. Since then I've just noticed more and more in certain conversations, people calling fallacy in one way or another as a means to discredit or ignore what another person says. sometimes good points are lost because another person is talented in presenting another person's views as a fallacy.on what counts as a fallacy. (They might even makes up some fallacies too.)

 

[Jim Parker]

Sorry for the long post, but I guess I've had a long time considering conversations where a person says "that's a Red Herring," because the subject matter moved on, or focused on an element one person didn't want to address. Since then I've just noticed more and more in certain conversations, people calling fallacy in one way or another as a means to discredit or ignore what another person says. sometimes good points are lost because another person is talented in presenting another person's views as a fallacy.on what counts as a fallacy. (They might even makes up some fallacies too.)

I posted the information so that people can apply it to their arguments.
It's not something to debate.
It's a list of tools to help people avoid posing illogical arguments.
That's all.

sometimes good points are lost because another person is talented in presenting another person's views as a fallacy.on what counts as a fallacy.

If the point is based on a fallacy then it is not a "good" point.
BUt I understand what you mean. The person has an accurate understanding of reality but does not present it properly so it is rejected. It happens all the time. It's a tough world.
By using this information, I hope that people will be able to be more effective in making their points.
It is unfortunate that high schools schools do not teach this. But then, it seems they are more interested in teaching students what to think than in how to think.
jim

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I posted the information so that people can apply it to their arguments.
It's not something to debate.
It's a list of tools to help people avoid posing illogical arguments.
That's all.

Fair enough. Thankyou for for that then.

 

[GodsGrace]

I posted the information so that people can apply it to their arguments.
It's not something to debate.
It's a list of tools to help people avoid posing illogical arguments.
That's all.

We will never avoid posting illogical arguments. I'll bet I've done this.
We post what we post and then we go on from there.
We can't be philosophers too!!
But they're still good to know.

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks for explaining the Strawman Fallacy. I keep hearing about it but there's no such thing here and I could never understand what it meant.

What I find is that sometimes one will post a scripture that has nothing to do with what they're trying to say.

I'll read them all but doubt they'll be stored into the Memory File. It's getting full up in there.
Oz has been trying to make a point of one of these fallacies on a different thread, but it falls on deaf ears.

It's good to know them. It let's you be more aware.
And maybe we all use one or the other at times? Purely by mistake.

Good post Jim Parker.

Wondering

Thank you for engaging in this iron sharpening exercise on CFnet: Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) in action on this forum: 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

The straw man fallacy is sometimes seen here when a person's views are misrepresented.

Jim's description of 'begging the question' fallacy (circular reasoning) is another one that evangelical Christians promote too often. It can come in this form: They start by stating that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and conclude with the Bible being the infallible Word of God. When the premise is smuggled into the conclusion, it is using a circular reasoning fallacy and is erroneous reasoning.

The way to deal with this accurately is to go to Scripture to determine what the Bible says about itself. Can we demonstrate from Scripture that the Bible is inerrant/infallible? We need to provide the evidence instead of assuming it is true. This is where some Christians struggle. They don't know how to defend the infallibility of Scripture.

One of the finest defenders of inerrancy of the original documents of Scripture is Dr Norman Geisler. He has edited a book, Inerrancy, that was published by Zondervan. He has made some of his material available online, 'How should we define biblical inerrancy?' (Norman Geisler) I thank God for Bible teachers who now make material available free online.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you for engaging in this iron sharpening exercise on CFnet: Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) in action on this forum: 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'.

The straw man fallacy is sometimes seen here when a person's views are misrepresented.

Jim's description of 'begging the question' fallacy (circular reasoning) is another one that evangelical Christians promote too often. It can come in this form: They start by stating that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and conclude with the Bible being the infallible Word of God. When the premise is smuggled into the conclusion, it is using a circular reasoning fallacy and is erroneous reasoning.

The way to deal with this accurately is to go to Scripture to determine what the Bible says about itself. Can we demonstrate from Scripture that the Bible is inerrant/infallible? We need to provide the evidence instead of assuming it is true. This is where some Christians struggle. They don't know how to defend the infallibility of Scripture.

One of the finest defenders of inerrancy of the original documents of Scripture is Dr Norman Geisler. He has edited a book, Inerrancy, that was published by Zondervan. He has made some of his material available online, 'How should we define biblical inerrancy?' (Norman Geisler) I thank God for Bible teachers who now make material available free online.

Blessings,
Oz

Me too Oz!
I can't get books written in English here.
Will be checking out the link.
Defending the infallibility of scripture. Wouldn't that make a good thread?

W

 

[OzSpen]

I posted the information so that people can apply it to their arguments.
It's not something to debate.
It's a list of tools to help people avoid posing illogical arguments.
That's all.

If the point is based on a fallacy then it is not a "good" point.
BUt I understand what you mean. The person has an accurate understanding of reality but does not present it properly so it is rejected. It happens all the time. It's a tough world.
By using this information, I hope that people will be able to be more effective in making their points.
It is unfortunate that high schools schools do not teach this. But then, it seems they are more interested in teaching students what to think than in how to think.
jim

Jim,

Do you or do you not consider it is legitimate to point out a person's use of a fallacy?

I have found it necessary to be able to label that erroneous reasoning by a specific name, such as a red herring fallacy, rather than a generic comment that 'that is a logical fallacy'. We need to explain why it is that kind of fallacy and what it has done to logical explanation of the point being discussed.

I'm interested in how you go about correcting a person's fallacious reasoning in person or on a forum.

Oz