Philosophers in Dispute
Logical Fallacies
The study of logical fallacies is worthwhile for those who wish to exercise their intellectual center. And it is worth doing to identify the Hasnammusian methods that are so frequently used by those who wish to bamboozle weaker minds. You will no doubt recognize many of these.
Fallacies of Personal Attack and Diversion
This collection of fallacies attempt to discredit an argument by attacking the person presenting it, or by shifting the focus away from the actual issue. Very common.
– Ad Hominem (Attack on the Person): This involves attacking the individual making the argument, rather than addressing the argument itself. This can manifest as name-calling, labeling, or making offensive remarks.
– Straw Man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the actual argument, a distorted or fabricated version is presented and then refuted.
– Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. This changes the subject of the discussion to something entirely different. Politicians do this regularly.
– Tu Quoque (You Too): Attempting to discredit an opponent’s argument by pointing out that they also exhibit the behavior or characteristic they are criticizing. This is a specific type of ad hominem that deflects criticism by turning it back on the accuser, and is similar to “Two Wrongs Make a Right,” which tries to justify a wrong action by claiming someone else did something similar.
Fallacies of Misleading Language
These fallacies rely on the ambiguous or manipulative use of language to deceive or misrepresent.
– Ambiguity: Using words or phrases with multiple meanings in a way that misleads or distorts the truth.
– Loaded Questions: Posing a question that contains a hidden assumption, forcing the responder to acknowledge that assumption if they answer directly. (Have you stopped beating your wife?)
-Meaningless Question: Asking a question that is inherently nonsensical or cannot be answered logically due to ill-defined terms or contradictions.
– Reification Fallacy: Treating an abstract concept or hypothetical construct as if it were a concrete, physical entity. (We must make war on fear!)
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
These fallacies draw conclusions based on inadequate or biased evidence.
– Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ex Silentio): Claiming that something is true because there’s no evidence to prove it false, or false because there’s no evidence to prove it true.
– Appeal to Faith: Relying on belief without evidence or logic as the basis of an argument, making further rational discussion difficult or impossible.
– Anecdotal Evidence: Using personal experience or an isolated example to support a claim, often in defiance of broader statistical or scientific evidence.
– Confirmation Bias (Observational Selection): Focusing on evidence that supports existing beliefs while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. This is also described as Observational Selection and Texas Sharpshooter, where data is selectively chosen or patterns are found to fit a preconceived idea.
– Statistics of Small Numbers: Drawing broad conclusions from a small, unrepresentative sample size, often based on personal experience. This is just bad statistics.
– Burden of Proof: Shifting the responsibility of proving a claim onto the person who doubts it, rather than on the person making the claim. The cart placed before the horse.
Proving Non-Existence: Challenging an opponent to prove the non-existence of something, rather than providing evidence for one’s own claim of existence. (It is of course impossible to prove the non-existence of something.)
Fallacies of Faulty Logic and Reasoning
These fallacies involve errors in the structure or process of reasoning itself.
– Begging the Question (Assuming the Answer/Circular Reasoning): The conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly stated in one of its premises. This is synonymous with Circular Reasoning, where the argument goes in a circle, using its conclusion as a premise.
– False Cause (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc / Confusion of Correlation and Causation): Assuming that because two events occur together or one follows the other, that one must have caused the other. This encompasses Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (meaning “it happened after, so it was caused by”) and the broader Confusion of Correlation and Causation, which falsely assumes a causal link from a mere correlation. This is common among scientists, and often not intended.
– Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow): Drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises or evidence presented. Simply a logical error.
– Slippery Slope: Asserting that a particular action or change will inevitably lead to a series of undesirable consequences, without sufficient evidence for this chain reaction.
– Composition Fallacy: Incorrectly assuming that what is true of the parts of something must also be true of the whole, or vice versa.
– Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy/Black-or-White): Presenting only two extreme options as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. This is also called Black-or-White thinking.
– Gambler’s Fallacy: Believing that past events influence the probability of future independent events, especially in random processes.
– Half-Truths (Suppressed Evidence): Presenting a statement that is technically true but deliberately omits crucial information necessary for an accurate understanding, often with the intent to deceive.
– Middle Ground: Assuming that the truth must lie in a compromise or middle point between two opposing extreme positions, even if one position is clearly more valid.
– Personal Incredulity: Dismissing a claim as untrue simply because one finds it difficult to understand or believe.
– The Fallacy Fallacy: Presuming that because an argument contains a fallacy, the conclusion itself must be wrong.
– Misunderstanding the Nature of Statistics: Drawing incorrect conclusions from statistical data, often by misinterpreting what the numbers actually represent.
Fallacies Based on Appeals to Emotion or Popularity
These fallacies attempt to persuade by appealing to emotions or popular sentiment rather than logic or evidence.
– Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. This includes Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to fear or threat) and Argumentum ad Populum (appealing to popular support by exploiting sentimental weakness).
– Appeal to Nature: Arguing that something is good, justified, or ideal simply because it is perceived as “natural.”
– Appeal to Tradition (Bandwagon Fallacy): Claiming that something is valid or true simply because it has been traditionally practiced or believed by many people. This is essentially the same as the Bandwagon Fallacy, which asserts that an idea has merit simply because it is popular or widely believed.
– Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam/Argument from Adverse Consequences): Concluding that a belief or premise is true or false based on whether its consequences are desirable or undesirable. This also includes Argument from Adverse Consequences, which suggests that something must be true or false due to its potential negative outcomes.
Other Specific Fallacies
– Argument from Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam): Using the statement or belief of an “expert” or authority figure as the sole basis for an argument, without providing the underlying logic or evidence that supports their claim.
– Argument from Omniscience: Making claims that would require universal knowledge, often using absolute terms like “all,” “everyone,” or “everything.”
– Genetic Fallacy: Judging something as good or bad based solely on its origin or the source from which it came, rather than its inherent qualities.
– Special Pleading: Applying different standards or exceptions to a particular case without justifiable reason, often to protect a belief from contradictory evidence.
There is a good deal to chew on here. Understanding all these fallacies will significantly improve your ability to critically evaluate arguments and construct more sound ones yourself, assuming you sue them wisely.