FALLACIES

Definition
Fallacies are errors in reasoning or logic that can make an argument or claim
appear more convincing or valid than it actually is. They are often used to deceive
or mislead people, and can be unintentional or intentional.
Division of Fallacies
Fallacies are generally divided into two broad groups - formal and informal.

1. Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies are most conveniently discussed in connection with certain
patterns of valid inference to which they bear a superficial resemblance.
Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur due to a flaw in the logical
structure of an argument. In other words, a formal fallacy is a mistake in the way
an argument is presented, rather than a problem with the content or evidence used
to support the argument.
Content is ok but how it is presented is wrong.
Examples of formal fallacies include:
❖ Affirming the consequent: Inferring the truth of an idea/principle, based on
the truth of its conclusion when there are other possible explanations for the
conclusion.
❖ Denying the antecedent: Inferring the falsity of a argument/ idea/ principle
based on the falsity of its conclusion when there are other possible
explanations for the conclusion.
❖ False dilemma: Presenting a situation as a choice between two options,
when there are other possible alternatives.
❖ Non sequitur: Drawing a conclusion that does not follow logically from the
assumptions.
❖ Begging the question: Assuming the truth of a conclusion in the principles
of an argument.
 1. Informal fallacies
Are errors in reasoning into which we may fall either because of
carelessness and inattention to our subject matter or through being misled by
some ambiguity in the language used to formulate our arguments.
Informal fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur due to a flaw in the
content or context of an argument. Unlike formal fallacies, which involve a
flaw in the logical structure of an argument, informal fallacies can occur in
both deductive and inductive arguments.
Content is wrong but presented as if true.
Informal fallacies can be more difficult to identify than formal fallacies, as they
often involve subtle or deceptive language that can be used to mislead or deceive
the audience.
Informal fallacies are divisible into
i. fallacies of relevance
ii. fallacies of ambiguity.
I. Fallacies of Relevance

The fallacies of relevance are a category of informal fallacies that involve

arguments that are irrelevant to the issue at hand. These fallacies attempt to
persuade or distract the audience by appealing to emotions, biases, or irrelevant
information, rather than by providing evidence or logical reasoning.

Common to all arguments that commit fallacies of relevance is the fact that their
premises are logically irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of establishing the
truth of their conclusions.
Examples of fallacies of relevance include:

1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force): is an informal fallacy in

which an argument is made through the use of threats or force, rather than
through the use of evidence or reasoning. In other words, this fallacy is an
attempt to persuade someone to accept a claim or conclusion by using
intimidation or coercion.
 Examples of Argumentum ad Baculum might include:
"You need to vote for me or else I'll make sure you regret it."
"If you don't accept my proposal, I'll make sure your business will fail."
"Agree with me or else I'll physically harm you."
This type of argument is that it does not actually provide any evidence or valid
reasoning to support the claim being made. Instead, it relies on fear or force to
persuade the listener, which is not a reliable or ethical way of arguing.
2. Argumentum ad ignorantam (argument from ignorance): is an informal
fallacy that occurs when an argument is based on the absence of evidence or
knowledge, rather than on the presence of evidence or valid reasoning. In
other words, this fallacy occurs when someone argues that something must
be true simply because there is no evidence to prove it false, or conversely,
that something must be false simply because there is no evidence to prove it
true.
Examples of Argumentum ad ignorantam might include:
"Aliens must exist because we have no evidence that they don't."
"Ghosts must be real because no one has been able to prove they aren't."
"There must be a god because we have no scientific explanation for the
origin of the universe."
The problem with this type of argument is that it assumes that absence of evidence
is equivalent to evidence of absence, which is not necessarily true. The lack of
evidence for a claim does not prove that the claim is false, nor does it prove that
the claim is true. To evaluate the truth of a claim, it is necessary to rely on
evidence and valid reasoning, rather than on the absence of evidence.

3. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to pity): is an informal fallacy in

which an argument is made by appealing to the emotions of the listener,
rather than by providing evidence or logical reasoning. In other words, this
fallacy involves attempting to persuade someone to accept a claim or
conclusion by appealing to their emotions, such as sympathy or compassion,
rather than by providing a rational argument.
 Examples of Argumentum ad misericordiam might include:
"Please let me pass the exam, I've been through so much hardship lately."
"Please give me a discount on this product, I'm struggling financially."
"Please let me off the hook for this mistake, I'm going through a difficult
time."
The problem with this type of argument is that it does not actually provide any
evidence or valid reasoning to support the claim being made. Instead, it relies on
the emotions of the listener, which is not a reliable or ethical way of arguing.
4. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses): also known as an appeal
to the masses or the bandwagon fallacy, is an informal fallacy in which an
argument is made by appealing to the popularity of a belief or proposition,
rather than to its truth or validity. In other words, this fallacy involves
attempting to persuade someone to accept a claim or conclusion simply
because many other people believe it or agree with it.
Examples of Argumentum ad populum might include:
"Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good."
"Most people believe in astrology, so it must be true."
"If so, many people are against this policy, it must be bad."
The problem with this type of argument is that popularity does not necessarily
equate to truth or validity. Just because many people believe or agree with
something, it does not mean that it is necessarily correct or rational. An argument
should be based on evidence, logic, and sound reasoning, rather than on appeals to
popularity.
5. Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority): This is the appeal to
authority- that is, to the feeling of respect people have an informal fallacy in
which an argument is made by relying on the authority of someone who may
not be an expert on the subject at hand, or who may have biases or conflicts
of interest. In other words, this fallacy involves attempting to persuade
someone to accept a claim or conclusion simply because an authority figure
or celebrity endorses it.
 Examples of Argumentum ad verecundiam might include:
"Dr. X, who is a famous television personality, says that this product
is effective, so it must be true."
"The CEO of the company supports this policy, so it must be the best
option."
"My professor says that this theory is correct, so it must be true."
The problem with this type of argument is that it does not necessarily provide any
evidence or valid reasoning to support the claim being made. Instead, it relies on
the authority of the person making the claim, which is not a reliable or ethical way
of arguing.

II. Fallacies of ambiguity

Fallacies of ambiguity are a type of informal fallacy that occur when an argument
contains language that is unclear, vague, or ambiguous, making it difficult to
understand or evaluate the argument's reasoning.
These include:

a. Fallacy of Equivocation:
This occurs when a word or phrase is used with different meanings in different
parts of an argument, leading to confusion or misunderstanding.
For example,
"I wouldn't take your argument seriously because you're always arguing" -
where "arguing" is used with two different meanings.

Most words have more than one literal meaning, as the word “pen” which may
denote either an instrument for writing or an enclosure for animals. When we keep
these two meanings apart, no difficult arises. But when we confuse the different
meanings a single word or phrase may have, using it in different senses in the same
context, we are using it equivocally. A traditional example of this fallacy is:
The end of a thing is its perfection.
Death is the end of life.
Therefore, death is the perfection of life.
This argument is fallacious because two different senses of the word “end” are
confused in it. The word end may mean either “goal” or “last event.” Both
meanings are of course legitimate. But what is illegitimate is to confuse the two, as
in this argument. The premises are plausible only when the word “end” is
interpreted differently in each of them, as: “the goal of a thing is its perfection,”
and “death is the last event of life.”

b. Fallacy of Amphiboly:
This occurs when the structure of a sentence or phrase is ambiguous, leading to
confusion or misunderstanding. For example,
"I shot an elephant in my pajamas."
where it is unclear whether the speaker or the elephant was wearing pajamas.
Examples of amphibolous statements include:

"She saw him with the telescope."

This sentence is unclear because it is not clear whether she was using the telescope
to see him, or whether she saw him with the telescope.

"I caught the fish and the crab with a net."

This sentence is unclear because it is not clear whether the net was used to catch
both the fish and the crab, or whether two separate nets were used.

"The dog bit the man in the park."

This sentence is unclear because it is not clear whether the man or the dog was in
the park at the time of the bite.
An amphibolous statement may be true on one interpretation and false on another.
When it is stated as the premise with the interpretation which makes it true, and a
conclusion is drawn from it on the interpretation which makes it false, then the
fallacy of amphiboly has been committed.
Amphibolous statements can be used intentionally or unintentionally to create
confusion or ambiguity in an argument. It is important to clarify the intended
meaning of an amphibolous statement to avoid misunderstandings or
misinterpretations.

c. Fallacy of Accent:
An informal fallacy that occurs when the meaning of a sentence is changed by
placing emphasis on a particular word or phrase in a way that is misleading or
deceptive. This type of fallacy can occur in spoken or written language, and can be
used intentionally or unintentionally to manipulate the listener or reader's
understanding of an argument.

For example, consider the following sentence

 ❖ "I didn't say she stole the money." Depending on which word is
emphasized, the meaning of the sentence can be changed:

"I didn't say she stole the money" (implying that someone else said it)
"I didn't say she stole the money" (implying that she did something else with
the money)
"I didn't say she stole the money" (implying that someone else stole the
money)
In each of these examples, the emphasis on a different word changes the meaning
of the sentence and can be used to create confusion or to mislead the listener.

The fallacy of accent can be difficult to recognize, as it relies on subtle variations

in emphasis and intonation to change the meaning of a sentence. It is important to
carefully evaluate arguments and to pay attention to the context in which they are
presented in order to avoid being misled by this type of fallacy.

d. Fallacy of Composition:
A type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that what is true of
the parts is also true of the whole. This fallacy arises from a faulty inference, where
a person infers that a property or characteristic that is true of individual members
or parts of a group or system must also be true of the group or system.

For example, if we consider the statement.

"Each brick in the wall is small and lightweight, therefore the wall itself
must be small and lightweight,"
we can see that this statement commits the fallacy of composition. While each
brick may be small and lightweight, the wall itself may be heavy and massive due
to the large number of bricks used.

"Each member of the team is highly skilled, therefore the team as a whole
must be highly skilled."
However, the team may not necessarily be highly skilled as a whole, as factors
such as teamwork, coordination, and leadership can affect the team's overall
performance.

The fallacy of composition can also occur in other contexts, such as in economics,
where it is known as the "fallacy of aggregation." For instance, if a person
assumes that because each individual in a country is wealthy, the country as a
whole must be wealthy, it would be a fallacy of composition.
There are many different types of fallacies, including:

❖ Ad hominem: Attacking the character of the person making an argument,

rather than addressing the argument itself.

❖ False dichotomy: Presenting a situation as an either/or choice, when in

reality there are other options or alternatives available.

❖ Hasty generalization: Drawing a broad conclusion based on insufficient or

unrepresentative evidence.

❖ Slippery slope: Arguing that a small action will lead to a chain of

increasingly negative consequences, without providing evidence to support
this claim.

❖ Straw man: Misrepresenting or exaggerating an opponent's argument to

make it easier to refute.

How to avoid Fallacious Thinking

Fallacies are pitfalls into which any of us may tumble in our reasoning. There is no
sure way to avoid fallacies.
To avoid fallacies of relevance requires constant vigilance and awareness of the
many ways in which irrelevance can intrude.
Fallacious thinking can be avoided by cultivating critical thinking skills and being
aware of common types of logical fallacies. Here are some tips:

1. Learn about logical fallacies: Educate yourself about common types of

logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, and appeals
to authority. Understanding these fallacies can help you recognize them
when they occur and avoid them in your own thinking.

2. Check your assumptions: Be aware of your assumptions and biases and

question them. Ask yourself if your beliefs and opinions are based on
evidence or simply on what you want to believe.

3. Seek out diverse perspectives: Expose yourself to a range of viewpoints,

even those you may disagree with. This can help you avoid confirmation
bias and broaden your understanding of complex issues.
 4. Evaluate evidence critically: When evaluating evidence, be sure to consider
its source, reliability, and relevance. Don't accept information blindly
without checking the facts.

5. Be open-minded: Be willing to change your mind if presented with new

evidence or arguments. Avoid the temptation to cling to your beliefs simply
because they are familiar or comfortable.

6. Use logic and reason: Make sure your arguments are logical and based on
reason, rather than emotion or personal attacks.

By following these guidelines, you can avoid fallacious thinking and develop a
more rational and informed approach to decision-making and problem-solving.