In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which has a valid logical form, but is false due to one or more of its premises being false.
The term fallacy is often used more generally to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason, whether it be a formal or an informal fallacy.
The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument’s premises or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or even more probable as a result of the argument (e.g. appeal to authority), but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described. By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one; for instance an inductive argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or causality can be said to commit a formal fallacy.
From theWikipedia article on logical fallacies
GenCob Guide to Logical Fallacies
by Michael Hall
The Appeal to Force Logical Fallacy • The Appeal to the People Logical Fallacy • The Argument Against the Person Logical Fallacy • The Accident Logical Fallacy • The Straw Man Logical Fallacy • The Red Herring Logical Fallacy • The Appeal to Unqualified Authority Logical Fallacy • The Appeal to Ignorance Logical Fallacy • The Missing the Point Logical Fallacy • The Hasty Generalization Logical Fallacy • The False Cause Logical Fallacy • The Appeal to Pity Logical Fallacy
The Appeal to Force Logical Fallacy
The Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) logical fallacy occurs when an individual in any way implies that harm will come to the individual if they do not agree with their conclusion. This threat can be either physical or psychological.
We see this threat most often among the arguments of children. For example:
Child to friend: “Superman” is the coolest superhero ever. If you don’t believe me, I’m not going to be your friend anymore.
In this example, the child claims that Superman is the best superhero. But he doesn’t offer any evidence to support his claim. Instead, he psychologically threatens his companion by stating if he does not agree with him, he will no longer be his friend.
But it also occurs among adults, for example:
An Adult arguing over a parking spot: This spot is mine. If you don’t move, I’m going to kick your a**!
In this example, the adult claims that the spot just taken by another adult is hers. But instead of offering evidence to support this claim, such as I was here first, citing road-rules etiquette, or etc, she physically threatens the other adult.
Force is never a suitable premise for supporting a stated conclusion. These fallacies are usually pretty easy to spot.
I’m sure you can think of many times you’ve heard arguments such as these.
The Appeal to the People Logical Fallacy
The Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) logical fallacy can either be direct or indirect.
The direct form occurs when an individual excites the emotions, either positively or negatively, of a large number of people, which thereby invokes a kind of mob mentality, which is then used to support his or her conclusion. Politicians often use this technique in political campaigns and conventions. This was the main technique of Adolf Hitler prior to World War II. I also suggest this was a main technique of George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union address.
The indirect form occurs when an individual targets an individual by showing their relationship to the larger crowd. This form comes in three different forms: bandwagon argument, appeal to vanity, and appeal to snobbery. You can see these fallacies widely used in marketing.
An example of a bandwagon argument:
Advertiser to Consumer: Of course you should buy a cell phone. Almost everyone else already has one.
This fallacy works by making the targeted individual feel left out if they do not comply with the conclusion.
An example of the Appeal to Vanity form:
A tobacco ad showing an average man smoking a cigarette while being surrounded by a bunch of beautiful women in bathing suits.
This fallacy works by associating the listener or viewer with a situation that is better than his current situation. The man is led to believe that he will be well-liked and popular if he is to smoke this particular brand of cigarettes.
An example of the Appeal to Snobbery form:
Advertiser to consumer: The City Heights Country Club is frequented only by a select class of members. If you qualify after you submit your application, you will be invited to a banquet with some of the city’s most affluent citizens.
This fallacy works by making the listener or viewer feel that they will be a part of that “selected” class if they become a member at the club.
The Argument Against the Person Logical Fallacy
The Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem) logical fallacy occurs between two people. It occurs when one individual states their argument and the other person responds not back to the argument, but to the arguer himself.
The argument against the person occurs in three distinct forms: ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and tu quoque.
The ad hominem abusive fallacy occurs when the person responding to the argument verbally attacks the proposer of the argument.
For example:
Sadaam Hussein is in favor of a ban on human cloning. But Hussein’s argument is worthless. Why should we listen to him? He is a ruthless tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people.
Although Hussein may be a ruthless, murdering tyrant, that makes his argument no less logical. His personal characteristics in no way alter the validity of the premises that support his conclusion. So we must think of an argument as an entity that is independent from the arguer.
The ad hominem circumstantial fallacy is very similar to the ad hominem abusive argument, but is different in its method. In the previous argument, the responder verbally abused the arguer in his response. But in this form, the responder attempts to discredit the arguer with specific issues that relate to the arguer. The goal of the responder is to show some sort of reason why the individual is arguing in this way.
For example:
Dick Cheney argues that the United States needs to keep U.S. troops in Iraq until the insurgency ceases. But of course he is going to say that. His old company, Haliburton, is making hundreds of millions of dollars from the conflict.
The circumstances alone that surround Cheney can not discredit the argument. This is because as long as Cheney can provide logical premises that inevitably lead to his conclusion, it is logical and therefore a sound argument. If one were to pursue the coincidental circumstances of Cheney, he or she would need to form an argument with solid premises that would effectively counter this argument.
The tu quoque fallacy begins just like the other two arguments, but in this form the responder tries to make the arguer appear hypocritical. This very often follows a format such as “Who are you to tell me to do ‘Y,’ you have done ‘Y’ yourself.”
For example:
CHILD to PARENT: Why shouldn’t I start smoking? You’ve been smoking since you were my age.
In this argument, the parent is trying to teach his child the importance of not smoking and the problems that are associated with it. The child says the argument is baseless since the parent smokes himself. But the personal characteristics of the arguer in no way lessen the strength of the premises of the given argument.
The Accident Logical Fallacy
The Accident fallacy occurs when a general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case.
For example:
It is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Therefore, we should give Bob in cell 8 his semi-automatic rifle back.
The general rule in this example is the right for every citizen to bear arms. The specific case is the incarcerated male deprived of his weapon for misusing it. Therefore, the general rule does not apply in this circumstance.
The Straw Man Logical Fallacy
The Straw Man logical fallacy occurs when the respondent incorrectly paraphrases, or distorts, the arguer’s initial argument, then knocks down the new argument and claims that the initial argument has been defeated.
For example:
Alex Jones has argued against the PATRIOT ACT. Obviously Mr. Jones is anti-government. But we know that any society without a government will descend into anarchy. The result would be complete chaos. Is that the kind of country we want to live in? I think not. So clearly, Mr. Jones’ argument is absurd.
In the above example, Alex Jones has proposed an argument against the PATRIOT ACT. The respondent counters with an illusory straw man by manipulating the original argument. The respondent distorts the original argument into a new argument which can easily be knocked down, and thus, claims to have won the debate. The flaw in the above statement was relatively easy to spot. However, these can be increasingly difficult to locate in larger arguments. And yes, this is a very common fallacy.
The Red Herring Logical Fallacy
The Red Herring fallacy is very similar to the Missing the Point fallacy, but a little different. It occurs when an arguer states a premise or suggests a conclusion and then subtly changes the direction of the argument into a similar, but different, subject to draw the listener off track. The arguer then either concludes the new argument or ends the discussion without ever stating a conclusion.
For example:
There are many people who suggest that the War in Iraq is groundless and illegal. But in many cases throughout history, war is the only option available. In World War II, America tried to stay neutral, but was drawn into the conflict after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And if it wasn’t for America, all of Europe would be speaking German right now.
In the above argument, the arguer initially addresses the issue of the legality of the War in Iraq. In a normal and logical argument, the subsequent sentences would have either supported or attacked this view with concrete premises. However, in the above argument the arguer switches the subject to America’s heroic actions in World War II that led to the liberation of Europe. After this, the arguer ends the discussion and seemingly wins. This technique is used quite frequently with politicians during political campaigns and debates.
The Appeal to Unqualified Authority Logical Fallacy
The Appeal to Unqualified Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) logical fallacy occurs when the cited authority lacks credibility. This lack of credibility could be for a number of reasons, such as: not enough experience, biased or prejudiced, motive to lie, or lack the ability to perceive or recall information.
For example:
Hey, that old man sitting inside a shopping cart on the street corner told me the world is about to end. Therefore, we better say our prayers because we don’t have very much time left.
In the above example, an argument from an authority was put forward as a premise to arrive upon a conclusion. But the authority, in this case, has lost it and can not be considered credible. However, had the authority been a professional astronomer who had just seen a giant asteroid on a collision course with earth through his telescope, than the witness would be considered credible.
The Appeal to Ignorance Logical Fallacy
The Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam) logical fallacy occurs when the arguer states a premise that involves something that has not yet been proved or is incapable of being proved, and then concludes with a definite, concrete assertion based on that premise.
For example:
People have never been able to successfully prove the inexistence of God. Therefore, God exists.
Or
People have never been able to successfully prove the existence of God. Therefore, God does not exist.
Both of the above arguments commit a fallacy. This is because the premises of an argument are supposed to support the conclusion with concrete evidence. But these arguments merely state the inability of people to find a proof for or against the nature of God. Just because someone has yet to find an answer does not prove or disprove the existence of the deity.
The Missing the Point Logical Fallacy
The Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi) logical fallacy occurs when an arguer states a conclusion that does not follow from the preceding premises, but the actual conclusion which does follow from the premises is not identified in the argument. In other words, when A and B equal C, the arguer states A+B=D.
For example:
Fuel prices have been increasing at an alarming rate. The conclusion is obvious: the government for now on needs to give free fuel to all of its citizens.
Although this may sound nice, it is not at all logical. The premise is that fuel prices are increasing. One obvious conclusion could be to lower taxes on gasoline. But to say the government should provide free fuel for all citizens does not logically follow from that premise.
The Hasty Generalization Logical Fallacy
The Hasty Generalization fallacy occurs when the arguer makes a claim about a whole group based off of a small section that is not representative of the entire group.
For example:
Al-Qaeda is a terrorist group whose members are all Islamic fundamentalists. Obviously members of the Islamic community are not to be trusted.
The above statement is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that a select few members of the Islamic faith choose to participate in terrorist actions does not constitute that all members of the faith have the same tendencies. Just as in the example above, this logical fallacy is used often in racial and religious prejudice.
The False Cause Logical Fallacy
The False Cause logical fallacy occurs when the arguer uses a premise that he or she presupposes is linked to bringing about the conclusion, but in fact the premise’s connection to the conclusion is very loose or imaginary. The fallacy comes in four forms: post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore on account of this”), non causa pro causa (“not the cause for the cause”), oversimplified cause, and the gambler’s fallacy.
The post hoc ergo propter hoc form of the fallacy occurs when an arguer presupposes that just because some event took place before another event, the first event inevitably caused the second event. This was a common fallacy used very often during the Salem witch trials.
For example:
Two months ago, Mrs. Robinson walked past my farm. Now my cow’s dead. It is obvious that Mrs. Robinson killed my cow.
In the above example, the arguer tries to connect two totally separate events to establish causality. This is just not logical and is completely ridiculous.
The non causa pro causa form of the fallacy is very much like the post hoc ergo propter hoc form except that it is based on more than just two events in sequence.
For example:
Students who have higher GPAs do better in college. Therefore, if we begin to ease the grading so more students can get high GPAs, more students will find college easier.
The above example tries to link the psychological effect of just having a good GPA to doing better in college. But we know that the GPA is the effect of the cause of studying and hard work while in school. So in this example, the effect is mistakenly identified as a possible cause for another effect.
The oversimplified cause form of the fallacy is when the arguer acknowledges a certain cause for an effect, but in reality, that cause is one of many causes responsible for the effect.
For example:
The U.S. government is becoming less effective year after year. Obviously the president is not doing his job.
Although this may be true, the president is not the only one responsible for the failing government. The government comprises many people, including members of the legislative and judicial branches, not to mention the thousands of workers in the executive branch. To say that it is entirely one person’s fault is to commit this form of the fallacy.
The gambler’s fallacy occurs when the arguer’s conclusion depends upon a supposition that events in a game of chance are causally linked.
For example:
The roulette table has hit red the last five spins. Therefore, it is extremely likely it will land on black during the next spin.
The problem with the above example is that it is no more likely for the ball to land on black than during any other spin. No matter how many times a particular number or color comes up, it in no way increases the chance of another number or color turning up.
The Appeal to Pity Logical Fallacy
The “Appeal to Pity” (Argumentum ad Misericordiam) logical fallacy occurs when an individual tries to uphold a conclusion by appealing emotionally to either the individual concerned or another.
For example:
Woman to Police Officer: Officer, I’m sorry I was going 82 mph in a 30 mph zone. But if you only knew the week I had. My mother just died after a long battle with cancer and my children are all at home sick with the flu. If that wasn’t bad enough, my husband ran off with his secretary and I just found out he left me with $30,000 in credit card debt. So please, officer, I can’t be responsible for this small digression considering what I’ve been through.
Although it the woman’s story may be extremely sad and unfortunate, it does not exempt her from following the rules of the road. Every premise she gave to support her conclusion of not being responsible was made using an emotional appeal, which has no grounds in a logical debate. To successfully support this argument, she would have had to provide some logical proof other than pure emotion.
Leave a reply