Logical Fallacies
8:52 AM
I was surfing the internet and on my social media, I found some people were debating their arguments. It's like they're making the 3rd war, because it's like never ending comments. I looked what they're talking about and through their comments I found some logical fallacies.
Anyway, what is logical fallacy?
Logical fallacy is a fallacy in logical argumentation.
A. Fallacies of Distraction
- Ad baculum (‘veiled threat’): L. "to the stick:"
Definition: threatening an opponent if they won’t agree with you;
Ex: "If you don’t agree with me you’ll be sorry!"
- Ad hominem (‘personal attack’; ‘poisoning the well’): L. "to the man;"
Def: attacking a person’s habits, personality, or reputation;
Ex: "His argument must be false because people say he’s a liar."
- Ad ignorantium (‘appeal to ignorance’): L. “to ignorance”
Def: arguing that if something hasn’t been proved false, then it must be true;
Ex: "U.F.Os must exist, because no one can prove that they don’t."
- Ad populum (‘popularity appeal’): L. "to the people"
Def: appealing to the emotions and/or prejudices of a group;
Ex: "Everyone believes in global warming so it must be true."
- Bulverism: (named for C.S. Lewis’s imaginary character: Ezekiel Bulver)
Def: attacking a person’s identity (race/gender/religion);
Ex: "You only think that because you’re a (man/woman; Black/White;
Catholic/Baptist; Democrat/Republican; Christian/Atheist; etc.)"
- Chronological Snobbery (Ad annis: L. “to the years”)
Def: appealing to the age of something as proof or disproof of its truth;
Ex: "Sin and hell are so old-fashioned—how can you believe such antiquated
ideas? Today you should realize that you’ve got to believe in yourself.”
- Ipse dixit (‘false authority’): L. "He said it himself"
Def: appealing to an illegitimate authority;
Ex: "Global warming must be true because the Vice President said so."
- Red herring (‘changing the subject’):
Def: diverting attention; changing the subject to avoid the point of the argument;
Ex: "You can’t accuse our public schools of failing. That’s unpatriotic!"
- Straw Man (‘misrepresentation’):
Def: misrepresenting the opponent's argument; exaggerating or oversimplifying
Ex: "Einstein's theory must be false! It makes everything relative--even truth!"
- Tu quoque: L. "You also"
Def: defending yourself by attacking the opponent
Ex: "Who are you to condemn anyone? Do you claim to be perfect?"
B. Fallacies of Ambiguity
- Accent:
Def: confusing the argument by changing the emphasis in the sentence
Ex: “You said that you were IN FAVOR of the legislation!” “No, I said
I was in favor of legislation THAT WORKS!”
- Amphiboly: [Gk. "to throw both ways"]
Def: confusing an argument by the grammar of the sentence;
Ex: "Croesus, you will destroy a great kingdom!" (your own!)
- Composition:
Def: assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole;
Ex: "Chlorine is a poison; sodium is a poison; so NaCl must be a poison too;"
"Micro-evolution is true (change within species); so macro-evolution must be true
too (abiogenesis [life arising from non-life] and transmutation of species]."
- Division:
Def: assuming that what is true of whole must be true of the parts;
Ex: "The Lakers are a great team, so every player must be great too."
- Equivocation:
Def: confusing the argument by using words with more than one definition;
Ex: "You are really hot on the computer, so you’d better go cool off."
C. Fallacies of Form
- Apriorism (’hasty generalization’):
Def: leaping from one experience to a general conclusion;
Ex: "Willy was rude to me. Boys are so mean!"
- Complex question (‘loaded question’):
Def: framing the question so as to force a single answer;
Ex: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
- Either/or (‘false dilemma’):
Def: limiting the possible answers to only two; oversimplification;
Ex: "If you think that, you must be either stupid or half-asleep."
- Petitio principii (‘begging the question’; ‘circular reasoning’):
Def: assuming what must be proven;
Ex: "Rock music is better than classical music because classical music is not as good."
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (‘false cause’): "after this, therefore because of this."
Def: assuming that a temporal sequence proves a causal relationship;
Ex: "I saw a great movie before my test; that must be why I did so well."
It's true that during a debate on an issue if you simply point out your "opponent" a logical fallacy that he/she has just made, it generally gives you the upper hand. But then, merely having the upper hand is not the goal, truth is. Nevertheless, logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful. Good luck!
"The vanity of intelligence is that the intelligent man is often more committed to 'one-upping' his opponent than being truthful. When the idea of intelligenve, rather than intelligence itself, becomes a staple, ther is no wisdom in it."
Criss JAMI, Killosophy
0 comments