Fallacies of Defective Induction 2

What is a fallacy?
Fallacies of Relevance Defective Induction Fallacies of Presumption Ambiguity Summary
Logic 2: Fallacies
Jan. 17, 2014
Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What is a fallacy? Fallacies of Relevance Defective Induction Fallacies of Presumption Ambiguity Summary
Overview I
What is a fallacy?
Definition
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Fallacies of Relevance
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Force
Argument Against the Person
Irrelevant conclusion
Summary
Defective Induction
Fallacy of Ignorance
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority
False Cause
Hasty Generalization
Overview II
Summary
Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacy of Accident
Complex Question
Begging the Question
Summary
Ambiguity
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of Division
Summary
Summary
Definition Formal and Informal Fallacies
When an argument goes wrong. . .
An argument can go wrong in many ways.

some (or all) of the premises are obviously false
the conclusion does not follow — it has the wrong form
(invalid argument)
inductive arguments can also go wrong in many ways
But sometimes these mistakes are very subtle and hard to
notice.
Fallacy:
When the premises of an argument appear to support the
conclusion, but do not in fact do so, we say that the argument is
fallacious. By ‘fallacy’ we mean typical errors that often occur, and
are often deceiving.

Definition Formal and Informal Fallacies
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Note: all we will talk about here are informal fallacies, that is,
cases where the argument goes wrong in some obvious way, and we
do not need formal logic to discover the fallacy. (This means that
there are also formal fallacies, and we will treat them later.)

Appeal to Emotion Appeal to Pity Appeal to Force Argument Against the Person Irrelevant conclusion Summary
Example
“As all clear-thinking residents of our fine state have already
realized, the Governor’s plan for financing public education is
nothing but the bloody-fanged wolf of socialism cleverly disguised
in the harmless sheep’s clothing of concern for children. Therefore,
the Governor’s plan is bad public policy.”
What’s wrong with this? Does the conclusion follow? Why?
Appeal to emotion — ad populum

The argument relies on emotion rather than on reason: In place of
evidence, it uses expressive language to excite enthusiasm for or
against some cause. But the occurrence of this enthusiasm has
nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

Example
“I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of
my children. If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license
and be unable to drive to work. If I cannot work, my children and I
will become homeless and may starve to death. Therefore, you
should not give me this traffic ticket.”
What’s wrong now? Can the premises be true and the

conclusion false?
Appeal to pity — ad misericordiam

Again, the argument relies on emotion rather than on reason: it
tries to convince you by pointing out the unfortunate consequences
that will otherwise follow, for which we would then feel sorry. The
truth of the premises, again, has nothing to do with the truth of
the conclusion.
Example
“If you do not agree with my opinions, you will receive a grade of
F for this course. I believe that Aristotle was the greatest
philosopher of all times. Therefore, Aristotle was the greatest
philosopher of all times.”
Can the premises be true and the conclusion false? What if

the conclusion is also true?
Appeal to force — ad baculum

Someone in a position of power threatens to bring about
unfortunate consequences for anyone who dares to disagree with
his/her proposition. While this might be an effective way to get
you to agree (or at least to pretend to agree) with my position, it
offers no reasons for believing it to be true.

Example
“Before he died, poet Allen Ginsberg argued in favor of legalizing
pornography. But Ginsberg’s arguments are nothing but trash: he
smoked marijuana and was an advocate of the drug culture.”
It is one of the most common fallacies; very often occurs, and

we don’t even notice it.
Argument against the person — ad hominem

Instead of arguing against someone’s opinion, the argument
attacks the person who holds that opinion by showing him as
disreputable in some way. So it is saying that the opinion must be
false because of the person who believes it to be true. (But again,
personality is irrelevant to truth!)

Example
“All children should have ample attention from their parents.
Parents who work full-time cannot give ample attention to their
children. Therefore, mothers should not work full-time.”
Do we have an argument here? Does the conclusion follow?

Why?
Irrelevant conclusion — ignoratio elenchi

The speaker tries to establish the truth of a proposition by offering
an argument that actually provides support for an entirely different
conclusion. It can often distract the audience, and we don’t notice
that the conclusion just misses the point.

2 especially common cases of irrelevant conclusion:
Red herring:
A deliberate attempt to change the subject or
divert the argument from the real question at
issue to some side-point.
Example
“I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other
people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and
the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent
tax-paying citizen like me.”

2 especially common cases of irrelevant conclusion:
Straw man:
An attempt to establish a conclusion by
overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying
the arguments of the opposing side.
Example
I say: “New York should increase funding to unemployed single
mothers during the first year after childbirth because they need
sufficient money to provide medical care for their newborn
children.” The other side: “My opponent believes that some
parasites who don’t work should get a free ride from the tax money
of hard-working honest citizens. I’ll show you why he’s wrong . . .”

Summary: Fallacies of Relevance
Fallacies of relevance are bald mistakes; they might better be

called fallacies of irrelevance: they point to the absence of any real
connection between the premises and the conclusion of the
argument.
Since there is no connection, the premises cannot possibly
establish the truth of the conclusion.
But the premises are usually psychologically relevant: they
have some emotional impact on the readers.

Summary: Fallacies of Relevance
1 Appeal to emotion
2 Appeal to pity
3 Appeal to force
4 Argument against the person
5 Irrelevant conclusion

Fallacy of Ignorance Appeal to Inappropriate Authority False Cause Hasty Generalization Summary
Example
“No one has conclusively proven that there is no intelligent life on
the moons of Jupiter. Therefore, there is intelligent life on the
moons of Jupiter.”
Again, the conclusion does not follow; the opposite has not
been proven either.
Notice that the procedure is sometimes used rightly! E.g., in
court.
Fallacy of ignorance — ad ignorantiam

The speaker asserts something only because the opposite has not
been proven. But from this, the conclusion does not follow: the
opposite might still be true, just no proof found (yet), or maybe it
cannot be proven for some reason.

Example
“The former Governor believes that aliens have landed in the
Arizona desert, so aliens must have landed in the Arizona desert.”
Why does it matter what the Governor believes?
Appeal to inappropriate authority — ad verecundiam

Tries to establish a conclusion by appeal to an improper authority,
such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable for
some reason (e.g., biased authority). Since we know the person, or
believe that he has some sort of knowledge, we assume that he has
knowledge about things outside his expertise too.

Example
“A black cat crossed my path at noon. An hour later, my mother
had a heart-attack. So the black cat must have caused the bad
luck.”
“The death penalty in the US has given us the highest crime rate
and greatest number of prisoners per 100,000 population in the
industrialized world.”
From the fact that one event was before another one, can we
infer that the latter was caused by the former?
False cause — post hoc, ergo propter hoc

A fallacy that occurs when the writer mistakenly assumes that,
because the first event preceded the second event, it must mean
the first event caused the later one. Sometimes it does, but
sometimes it doesn’t. But if it does, we have to establish it instead
of just assuming.
Example
“Take my son, Martyn. He’s been eating fish and chips his whole
life, and he just had a cholesterol test, and his level is below the
national average. What better proof could there be than a fryer’s
son?”
Is the sample a good sample? Did we examine enough /

representative cases before drawing the conclusion?
Hasty generalization — dicto simpliciter

Draws a general conclusion without examining all the relevant
data. Of course, very often we can’t examine everything; but still,
the sample must be carefully selected, and large enough.

Summary: Fallacies of Defective Induction
Unlike in the previous category (fallacies of relevance), in this case

the premises are relevant to the conclusion. The problem is that
they are inadequate: they are simply insufficient to establish the
conclusion.
1 Fallacy of ignorance
2 Appeal to inappropriate authority
3 False cause
4 Hasty generalization

Fallacy of Accident Complex Question Begging the Question Summary
Example
“Suppose that a friend in his right mind has deposited arms with
me and asks for them when he is not in his right mind. Ought I to
give the weapons back to him? Of course: everyone agrees that
you should give back what you borrow.”
Is the general rule correct? How general is it?
Fallacy of accident
It occurs when one applies a general rule to a particular case when
accidental circumstances render the general rule inapplicable.
What is true in general might not be true absolutely universally
and without qualification.

Example
“With all of the hysteria, and phony science, could it be that
man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on
the American people?”
What kind of question is it? What answer is the speaker

expecting?
Complex question fallacy

A question is asked in a way that presupposes the truth of some
proposition hidden within the question. The question is often
rhetorical, no answer is genuinely asked. But if we analyze it, it
might turn out that the questioner is presupposing something false.

Example
“To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech, must always
be, on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly
conducive to the interests of the community that each individual
should enjoy a liberty, perfectly unlimited, of expressing his
sentiments.”
Which are the premise and the conclusion? Do they really

differ?
Begging the question — petitio principii

Occurs when one assumes the truth of what one tries to prove.
Can be very obvious, but not always! Also occurs in circular
arguments, when I show that a is true because of b, b is true
because of c, and c is true because of a.

Summary: Fallacies of Presumption
These are arguments that are based on some tacit (therefore

unjustified) assumption. The assumption might even be true, but
if it is unjustified, it cannot help to establish the conclusion. That
the assumption is implicit might be either deliberate (when the
author tries to hide some questionable claims), or just an
oversight. It also might be the case that the author thinks the
assumption is obvious, when in fact it is not.
1 Fallacy of accident
2 Complex question
3 Begging the question

Equivocation Amphiboly Fallacy of Composition Fallacy of Division Summary
Example
“An elephant is an animal. Therefore, a small elephant is a small
animal.”
“Apples are fruits. My computer is an apple. Therefore, my
computer is a fruit.”
What is funny in these arguments?
Equivocation
Occurs when a term or phrase is used in different senses in the
premises and in the conclusion. It often occurs with relative terms
(‘small’, ‘tall’, etc.), and those cases can be harder to notice.

Example
“The tour guide said that standing in Greenwich Village, the
Empire State Building can easily be seen. Thus, the Empire State
Building is in Greenwich Village.”
What is the misleading point here?
Amphiboly — “two in a lump”

Depends on an amphibolous statement, the meaning of which is
indeterminate because of the way its words are combined. An
amphibolous statement might be true in one interpretation and
false in another; when it is used in the premise in one
interpretation, and the conclusion is drawn based on the other one,
that’s a fallacy.

Example
“Since a bus uses more gas than an automobile, therefore all buses
use more gas than all automobiles.”
“Since every part of a helicopter is lightweight, it follows that the
whole helicopter is lightweight.”
Why does not the conclusion follow? Are there cases when it
would follow?
Fallacy of Composition
An inference from the property of the parts to the property of the
whole. Sometimes such inference is a valid one, but not always —
we need to check whether it works in the actual context.

Example
“American Indians are disappearing. That man is an American
Indian. Therefore, that man is disappearing.”
“Many people have dogs. Afghan hounds are dogs. Therefore,
many people have Afghan hounds.”
Why does not the conclusion follow? Are there cases when it
does?
Fallacy of Division
The opposite of the fallacy of composition; here, it argues that
what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. Again,
sometimes such an argument works, but we must be very careful
with the form of the argument.

Summary: Fallacies of Ambiguity
The meaning of words of phrases may shift as a result of

inattention, or deliberately within a course of an argument: a term
may have one sense in a premise, but a different sense in the
conclusion. If the inference depends on such changes in meaning,
the argument is fallacious.
1 Equivocation
2 Amphiboly
3 Fallacy of composition
4 Fallacy of division

Summary: The ways an argument can go wrong
Fallacies of relevance Fallacies of defective induction

1 Appeal to emotion 1 Fallacy of ignorance
2 Appeal to pity 2 Appeal to inappropriate
3 Appeal to force authority
4 Argument against the 3 False cause
person 4 Hasty generalization
5 Irrelevant conclusion
Fallacies of ambiguity
Fallacies of presumption 1 Equivocation
1 Fallacy of accident 2 Amphiboly
2 Complex question 3 Fallacy of composition
3 Begging the question 4 Fallacy of division

Fallacies of Defective Induction 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fallacies of Defective Induction 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is a fallacy?

Fallacies of Relevance Defective Induction Fallacies of Presumption Ambiguity Summary

Jan. 17, 2014

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

When an argument goes wrong. . .

An argument can go wrong in many ways.

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Formal and Informal Fallacies

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What’s wrong with this? Does the conclusion follow? Why?

Appeal to emotion — ad populum

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What’s wrong now? Can the premises be true and the

Appeal to pity — ad misericordiam

Can the premises be true and the conclusion false? What if

Appeal to force — ad baculum

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

It is one of the most common fallacies; very often occurs, and

Argument against the person — ad hominem

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Do we have an argument here? Does the conclusion follow?

Irrelevant conclusion — ignoratio elenchi

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

2 especially common cases of irrelevant conclusion:

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

2 especially common cases of irrelevant conclusion:

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Summary: Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are bald mistakes; they might better be

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Summary: Fallacies of Relevance

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Fallacy of ignorance — ad ignorantiam

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Why does it matter what the Governor believes?

Appeal to inappropriate authority — ad verecundiam

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

False cause — post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Is the sample a good sample? Did we examine enough /

Hasty generalization — dicto simpliciter

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Summary: Fallacies of Defective Induction

Unlike in the previous category (fallacies of relevance), in this case

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Is the general rule correct? How general is it?

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What kind of question is it? What answer is the speaker

Complex question fallacy

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Which are the premise and the conclusion? Do they really

Begging the question — petitio principii

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Summary: Fallacies of Presumption

These are arguments that are based on some tacit (therefore

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What is funny in these arguments?

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

What is the misleading point here?

Amphiboly — “two in a lump”

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Logic 2: Fallacies Jan. 17, 2014

Summary: Fallacies of Ambiguity