Fallacies are arguments that may sound logical, but are not. When you look at some of the examples below, you may see some with conclusions you agree with and some you don't.
But the truth, in the empirical sense, is not what is at issue: What these examples are all about is logical argument. All these examples are illogical and based in fallacious thinking.
For example, one fallacy is called "sweeping generalization." Someone may argue: "That is the richest sorority on campus; so Sue, who belongs to that sorority must be one of the richest women on campus." Well, Sue may be one of the richest; or she may be one of the poorest. It doesn't matter whether the conclusion is true or not in the literal sense. The argument is illogical. It means nothing at all to say that, if a group has a certain quality, then a member of the group must have that quality, too.
Probably everyone has been guilty of inadvertently using them. Most of us fall for them even if we know better. And there are some people (propagandists, advertisers, and many politicians) who use them all the time. It would be wise to become familiar with the fallacies in order to protect ourselves from the unscrupulous. But by no means is this list meant to encourage the use of fallacies!
Affirmation of the consequent: "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true" This is confusing, sometimes, because it looks so much like good logic: "A implies B, A is true, therefore B is true," known as Modus Ponens or affirmation of the antecedent, is one of the basic valid syllogisms. But affirmation of the consequent is definitely a fallacy:
"If the universe had been created by a
supernatural being, we would
see order and organization everywhere. And we do see order, not
randomness
-- so it's clear that the universe had a creator."
"If there is indeed a collective
unconscious, then we will find that
the mythologies of all the world’s cultures have profound
commonalities.
And indeed they do -- therefore, there must be a collective
unconscious!"
This is the converse of denial of the antecedent (below).
A slight variation of affirming the consequent is converting a conditional: "If A then B, therefore if B then A". This fallacy is similar to the affirmation of the consequent, but phrased as a conditional statement.
"When educational standards are lowered,
the quality of shows on
television
worsens. So if we see television getting worse over the next few years,
we'll know that our educational standards are still falling."
"If the latest drugs work well, we will
see a great improvement n
mental
health. So, if mental health improves, we will know that these
drugs
were effective!"
Denial of the antecedent: "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false" This is the converse of the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. It too looks like good logic: "A implies B, B is false, therefore A is false," which is called Modus Tollens, or denial of the consequent. Denial of the antecedent, on the other hand, is illogical:
"If the God of the Bible appeared to me,
personally, that would
certainly
prove that Christianity was true. But God has never appeared to me, so
the Bible must be a work of fiction."
"If there were such a thing as penis
envy, we would expect women to
be easier on their sons than on their daughters. But penis envy
is,
of course, not real -- so naturally women do not treat their sons
better
than their daughters."
There is also a version that says “if A, then B, therefore, if not A, then not B.”
“If you have a PhD in psychology, you
must be pretty knowledgeable
in
the field. Therefore, if you don’t have the PhD, you must be
abysmally
ignorant of psychology.”
Fallacy of composition: the idea that a property shared by a number of individual items, is also shared by a collection of those items; or that a property of the parts of an object, must also be a property of the whole thing.
"This new truck is made entirely of
lightweight aluminum components,
and is therefore very lightweight."
"A ton of feathers should weigh less than
a ton of lead!"
"Since neurons are either excitatory or
inhibitory, the brain itself
must have excitatory or inhibitory states."
"The
medicine
made from that plant must be poisonous, because that plant is
poisonous."
"The humanitarian work we do may well
come out of our need to look
good
in front of our fellow man. So humanitarian work is basically
egotistical!"
“Humans are conscious and are made of
cells; therefore, each cell
has
consciousness”
"You are studying at a rich college.
Therefore you must be rich."
"Since the team could solve the problem
so easily, I assume that
each
member of the team could do it just as well alone."
"Cats are a form of animal based on
carbon chemistry, dogs are a
form
of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs and cats basically
identical?"
“They’re both students, so I can expect
the same from both.”
"Since they are both schizophrenics, they
should both have the same
reaction to this new medication."
Sweeping generalization (The fallacy of accident, dicto simpliciter): Applying a general rule to special case; A general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable.
"Christians generally dislike atheists.
You are a Christian, so you
must dislike atheists."
“The majority of people in the United
States die in hospitals, so
stay
out of them.”
"Men are statistically more aggressive
than women. Therefore,
I, a male, must be more aggressive than you, a female."
Hasty generalization is the converse of sweeping generalization: A special case is used as the basis of a general rule. A general rule is created by examining only a few specific cases which aren't representative of all possible cases.
"I know a union representative and he's a
terrible person. I
wouldn't
trust any of them."
"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian.
Therefore all
Christians
are insincere."
"This schizophrenic has paranoid
delusions. It stands to
reason
that they all do."
“My parents smoked all their lives and they
never got
cancer.”
"The five subjects in our experiment
responded well to our
intervention.
We can therefore recommend the procedure to everyone."
"All of these people who prayed for a
cure survived their
disease.
Prayer is clearly to be recommended!"
“Just last week I read about a girl who
was dying of cancer. Her
whole
family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured. That
only proves the power of prayer!"
"Uncle Joe got over his rheumatism by
drinking his own urine!"
“Urban myths” are usually good examples!
Bifurcation ("black or white," excluded middle, false dichotomy): Presuming an either-or distinction. Suggesting that there are only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. Instead of black or white, we can have shades of gray... or even rainbows of colors!
"We must choose between safety and
freedom. And it is in the
nature
of good Americans to take the risk of freedom."
"A patient either gets better or they
don’t."
"Come on now-- is he or isn’t he
bipolar?"
“He's either guilty or not guilty.”
Begging the question (petitio principii ). Assuming as a premise the conclusion which you wish to reach. Instead of offering real proof, we can just restate the conclusion we are supposed to come to, and hope the listener doesn't notice.
"Government ownership of public utilities
is dangerous, because it
is
socialistic."
“We must encourage our youth to worship
God to instill moral
behavior.”
"Qualitative methods are essentially
worthless because they don’t
involve
measurement or statistics."
"We know that God exists because the
Bible tells us so. And we know
that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."
"Your arguments against Freud are due to
your unresolved unconscious
conflicts."
"Your arguments against Skinner are due
to your conditioning."
"Your arguments against existentialism
are indicative of your
inauthenticity."
"If you accept the Lord, you will
understand!"
"If you would only take Maslow at his
word, you would finally get
it!"
"This criminal is charged with the
most vicious crime known to man."
Often hard to identify (and so very dangerous) is the ad hoc argument: Giving an after-the-fact explanation which doesn't apply to other situations.
“I see that John’s cancer is in
remission.”
“Yes, our prayers have been answered!”
“But didn’t you pray for Susan, too, and look what happened to her.”
“I’m sure God had a special reason for taking her.”
"Those people who don’t follow the
expected pattern of
strong-mother/weak-father
leading to homosexuality are no doubt hiding their true orientation!"
Complex question (loaded question, trick question, leading question, fallacy of interrogation, fallacy of presupposition): Interrogative form of begging the question (above). Ask a question that leads others to believe that a previous question has been answered in a certain way.
"Answer yes or no: Did you ever
give up your evil ways?"
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
"So, are you gay, or just in denial?"
"And when will you come out of the
closet?"
"Yes or no: Is democracy ultimately
the best system of
government?"
"How would you explain the presence of
aliens on our planet?"
False cause (non causa pro causa, non sequitur): Something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:
"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and
my headache disappeared.
So
God cured me of the headache."
"Artists often suffered from depression
as adolescents. So, if
you want your child to be a great artist, don’t put them on Prozac!"
"You should go to Harvard, because
Harvard graduates make more
money."
“She got sick after she visited China, so
something in China caused
her sickness.”
“There was an increase of births during
the full moon. Therefore,
full
moons cause birth rates to rise.”
"Literacy rates have steadily declined
since the advent of
television.
Clearly television viewing impedes learning."
"He started using drugs just about the
time he started seeing that
girl.
I knew she was a bad influence!"
“More chess players are men, therefore,
men make better chess
players
than women.”
"Far more women than men suffer from
depression. We can assume that
there is something about a woman’s physiology that leads to
depression."
Missing the point (irrelevant thesis, ignoratio elenchi, irrelevant conclusion, ignoring the issue, befogging the issue, diversion, red herring, etc.). Demonstrating a point other than the one at issue. Diverting attention by changing the subject. Escaped convicts in Elizabethan England would smear themselves with rotten (red) herring to throw the dogs off the scent.
"I fail to see why hunting should be
considered cruel when it gives
tremendous pleasure to many people and employment to even more."
“Christianity is the only true
religion: It has clearly been
of
great help to many people."
No matter how well he argues how much it
has
helped people, he will not have shown that Christian teachings are
true.
"It is very clear that we prescribe
psycho-active medications to
people
who don’t really need them. We should outlaw these drugs
altogether!"
“Evolutionists think that everything came
about by random
chance.
How could that be?”
Most evolutionists think in terms of natural
selection
which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on
random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects
the
purpose of the argument.
"To summarize Freud, he believed that it
all boils down to
sex.
Let me show you why Freud is therefore full of crap!"
"What is consciousness? You can’t
find it anywhere in the
human
brain, so we must reject the concept."
“How high is up?”
“Does anything really exist?”
"How can we experience the collective
unconscious directly?"
"Take the fraction 16/64. Now,
cancelling a six on top and a six on
the bottom, we get that 16/64 = 1/4."
"Wait a second! You can't just cancel the six! Your math is wrong: 16/64 does not equal 1/4!"
Very common are half truths (suppressed evidence): An statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.
And one of the worst versions of missing the point is false analogy: An analogy or metaphor illustrates or elaborates; it doesn't prove anything:
"The American Indian had to make way for
Western civilization; after
all,
you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
"Since the mind is essentially a wet
computer, our task is to figure
out how we can best program it!"
There are many fallacies that involve the misuse of words.
Very common is special pleading: Here, we use a double-standard of words.
"The ruthless tactics of the enemy, his
fanatical, suicidal attacks
have been foiled by the stern measures of our commanders and the
devoted
self-sacrifice of our troops."
"Ellis’s therapy is authoritarian and
aggressive!"
"Rogers’s therapy is laissez faire, even
lazy!"
"What could be more affordable than free
software? But to make sure
that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must
place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
redistributable."
The "no true Scotsman..." fallacy: Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar on his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." By disparaging Angus's Scottishness, I basically limit the meaning of the word "Scotsman."
“How can he do that to her if he loves
her?”
“Ah, but that’s not true love, see?”
"No caring
therapist would use methods like that!"
"No well-trained
scientist would come to those conclusions!"
"Christians turn the other cheek."
"But I've seen many Christians return violence for violence."
"Yes, but those aren't good Christians. They aren't even real Christians at all!"
“All men are created equal...”
implies that women are not.
“All men are created equal...” suggests that they don’t end up equal.
“Two pizzas for one special price.” Two
for one? Or both
at the same “special” price?
Personal attack (argumentum ad hominem): Attacks the person instead of the argument. In personal attack, we ask the listener not to consider the argument, but to consider where it is coming from:
"This theory about a new cure for cancer
has been introduced by a
man
known for his Marxist sympathies. I don't see why we should
extend
him the courtesy of our attention."
"You can’t trust Freud -- he used
cocaine!"
"You can’t trust Adler -- he was a
socialist!"
"You can’t trust Horney -- she suffered
from depression!"
Then there’s the abusive form of the personal attack:
"You claim that atheists can be moral --
yet I happen to know that
you
abandoned your wife and children."
"You don’t agree with
experimentation? I’ve read that you were
never able to get any of your own research published!"
"It is perfectly acceptable to kill
animals for food. Since you are
wearing leather shoes, I am sure you won’t argue with that."
"You don’t agree with Rogers -- yet I
notice you use reflection in
your
own practice!"
"Of course you'd argue that affirmative
action is a bad thing.
You're
white."
"Don’t listen to her criticisms of
existentialism -- she’s an
experimentalist!"
"If you think communal living is such a
great idea, why aren't you
living in a commune?"
"If psychology is so great, how come you
have so many problems?"
“If smoking is so bad for you, why do you
smoke?”
Appeal to the masses (argumentum ad populum, appealing to the people, mob appeal, appealing to the gallery, appeal to popular pieties). This involves theatrical appeals to our lowest instincts, such as selfishness, greed, jealousy, or vanity rather than using facts and reasoning...
"Because
you are a college audience, I know I can speak to you about difficult
matters
seriously."
“Most people believe in God; therefore,
it must be true.”
Once upon a time, everyone thought the earth was flat!
"All I'm saying is that millions of
people believe in astrology, so
there must be something to it."
"The enormous popularity of books on
dream analysis alone suggests
its
validity!"
"Everyone knows that men and women are
psychologically the same!"
“People need to believe in something. Everyone
knows that.”
"Everyone is moving into cognitive
style research -- there must be
something
to it!"
Appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): This is where we bring up famous people, reference groups, science, tradition, religion, universality....
“Professor Boeree says behaviorism is
dead.”
The great philosopher Santayana said “Those who remain ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.” But Henry Ford said “History is bunk!” So who is right?
"Freud said.... -- and who are we
to argue with a genius of
his
caliber?"
"Camel cigarettes. They're not for
everybody!”
"Chez Merde -- the wine for the true
connoisseur!"
"All those who can afford it prefer
Freudian therapy!"
"Psychologists have always agreed
that...."
“It’s the latest!”
“Windows Vista is much better than older
version of the Windows OS. How could it not
be,
coming after so many years of experience!”
"The most recent studies show that...."
Appeal to riches (argumentum ad crumenam): The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right, or that something that costs more is intrinsically better.
"Microsoft software is undoubtedly
superior; why else would Bill
Gates
have gotten so rich?"
“It costs twice as much -- it must be
twice as good!”
"You get what you pay for!"
"You get what you pay for!"
"I’ll have to side with the
psychiatrists. After all, they
make
a lot more money than the PhD psychologists!"
"Monks are more likely to possess insight
into the meaning of life,
as they have given up the distractions of wealth."
“A simple loaf of bread, made lovingly by
hand -- what could be
better?”
"Since John does so much of his work pro bono, he must be a much
more
honest therapist."
Appeal to nature (the natural law fallacy): Arguing that, because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural'. A common fallacy in political arguments.
"The natural world is characterized by
competition; animals struggle
against each other for ownership of limited natural resources.
Capitalism,
the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an
inevitable
part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
"Of course homosexuality is unnatural.
When's the last time you saw
two animals of the same sex mating?"
"Our attraction to 'beautiful' people
parallels the instincts of
birds
and mammals. Love, therefore, is nothing but an instinct!"
Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam): This is an appeal to your tender emotions, your sympathy: Listen, if you can bear it, to any telethon. Or listen to advertisements that try to sell computers to parents.
"You wouldn't want your kids to be left
behind on the information
super-highway,
would you? What kind of parent are you anyway?"
"I did not murder my mother and father
with an axe! Please don't
find
me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan.”
"Qualitative methods are used by a small
group of dedicated
researchers
working in a hostile environment of experimentalism."
Appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ex silentio): Arguing that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or arguing that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true. That is, my position is right because there is no evidence against it. Or yours is wrong because there is no evidence for it.
“We have no evidence that God doesn't
exist. Therefore, he must
exist.”
"There is intelligent life in outer
space, for no one has been able
to prove that there isn't."
"We don’t know whether holistic medicines
actually help
psychological
disorders, so we might as well use them!"
A common accompaniment to the appeal to ignorance is shifting the burden of proof: The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. So, when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove him wrong.
“Prove God doesn't exist, then!”
“Prove UFO's aren't real, then!”
"I believe that homosexuality is based on
biological differences --
I dare you to prove me wrong!"
Appeal to fear (argumentum ad baculum, appeal to force): Don't argue with me, it's dangerous!
"If you do not convict this murderer, one
of you may be his next
victim."
“If you don't believe in God, you'll burn
in hell”
"You better learn your stats:
You’ll never be able to get your
doctorate if you don’t!"
“The accused must be found guilty,
otherwise others will commit
similar
crimes”
“Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a
mile!”
“Pass the equal rights for women
amendment and before you know it,
we’ll
all be using unisex bathrooms!”
"If we legalize marijuana, then more
people would start to take
crack
and heroin, and we'd have to legalize those too. Before long we'd have
a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize
marijuana."
“If we allow physician-assisted suicide,
then eventually the government
will control how we die.”
"If you start people on Prozac, they will
become dependent on it,
then
on drugs in general, and never learn to deal with their problems on
their
own!"
Argumentum ad nauseam: This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you're sick of hearing it. See almost any commercial, or take a look at the practice of having children memorizing Bible verses.
"Classical conditioning must be at the
root of all learning -- I had
that drummed into my head at Penn State!"
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/fallacies.html
No comments:
Post a Comment