Fallacies

Remember that a fallacy is just an

invalid argument. An invalid argument
is one where even if the premises are
true, the conclusion can still be false.
So there are lots of fallacies.

However, there are certain tricky

patterns that often fool people. These
patterns come to have names.
Straw Man Fallacy
 Straw Man Fallacy
The Straw Man Fallacy (sometimes in
the UK called Aunt Sally Fallacy) is
when you misrepresent your opponent,
and argue against the
misrepresentation, rather than against
your opponents claim.
 http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOn7DInBWK4&feature=re
lated
 Assuming the Original
Conclusion
Assuming the original conclusion*
involves trying to show that a claim is
true by assuming that it is true in the
premises. It has the form:

X is true. Why? Because X.

*This is Aristotles name for the fallacy.

 Example:
It says in the Bible that God exists.
Since the Bible is God's word, and God
never speaks falsely, then everything
in the Bible must be true. So, God
must exist.
 Example
Premise 1: The bible is Gods word.
Premise 2: God never speaks falsely.
Conclusion: Everything in the bible is
true.

Premise 1: Everything in the bible is

true.
Premise 2: The bible says that God
exists.
 Note
The most common name of the fallacy
of assuming the original conclusion is
begging the question. Theres a long
story about why that is.

Sometimes people misuse begging

the question to mean inviting or
raising the question. You should know
that some people look down at you if
you do this.
Mark Liberman of Language Log found:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?
p=2290
if we search the NYT index for recent
uses of "beg the question", we find
that out of the first 20 hits, 15 use
"beg the question" to mean "raise the
question" and of the five that don't,
four are usage articles berating people
for misusing the phrase!
 False Equivocation
Equivocation (or false equivocation)
is when one word is used with two
meanings in the same argument,
rendering it invalid.
 Silly Example

God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is blind.
So, Ray Charles is
God.
 False Equivocation
If evolution is true, then we should
expect that creatures act selfishly.
If evolution is true, then creatures
ought to act selfishly.
But we know that its morally wrong to
act selfishly.
Creatures ought not to act selfishly.
So evolution is false.
 Begging the Question +
Equivocation
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 Richard Whately's
Elements of Logic (1826)
 Loaded Question Fallacy
Sometimes certain forms of words
presuppose certain things. For
example:

1. Johns son won the race.

2. Johns son did not win the race.

Both sentences presuppose that John

has a son.
So if I ask you Did Johns son win the
race? whether you answer yes or
no you are agreeing that John has a
son.
Suppose instead that I ask you:

At what age did you first use drugs?

Any answer to this question is an

admission that you used drugs at
some point.
Or consider:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

I stopped beating my wife and I

didnt stop beating my wife both
presuppose that at some point in the
past, you beat your wife. You cant
answer this question without admitting
guilt.
Masked Man Fallacy
 Inderscernability of
Identicals
Normally, if you have two things X and Y, but
X and Y are really one thing, because X = Y,
then if something is true of X, its true of Y. For
example:

Confucius was the greatest Chinese

philosopher.
Confucius = Kongzi.__________________
Therefore, Kongzi was the greatest Chinese
philosopher.
 Indiscernibility of Identicals
This also means that if something is
true of X, and its not true of Y, then X
and Y are different things:

This gas is deadly to humans.

Oxygen is not deadly to humans.
Therefore this gas not oxygen.
 Masked Man Fallacy
Sometimes, however, this argument
doesnt work:

I know who Bruce Wayne is.

I dont know who Batman is.
Therefore, Bruce Wayne Batman.
More serious example

I know that I have a

mind.
I dont know that I
have a
brain._____________
Therefore, the mind
brain.
 False Dilemma
An argument commits the false
dilemma fallacy when it presents two
options as the only options, even
though there are actually more
options.
 False Dilemma

Premise 1: We can either raise taxes

on everyone, or cut social programs.
Premise 2: Raising taxes on the poor
would be terrible, they cant afford it.
Conclusion: We should cut social
programs.
 Fallacy of the Mean
The fallacy of the mean is the
assumption that a middle point
between two views is the right one.
 Fallacy of the Mean

Candidate 1: We should raise taxes on

everyone
Candidate 2: We should cut social
programs
Therefore,
Compromise: We should raise taxes on
everyone a little and cut social
programs a little.
 Distribution Fallacy
The distribution fallacy is committed
when one assumes that individuals
have the properties of groups to which
they belong.

Lingnan has an excellent philosophy

department.
I am a philosopher at Lingnan._________
Therefore, I am an excellent
philosopher.
 Distribution Fallacy
Kooks and quacks will often try to
make their theories sound better by
association:
Having a PhD.
Making ones work sound science-
y.
Debating serious scholars.
Associating oneself with respectable
institutions (Stanford, Smithsonian,
etc.)
 Composition Fallacy
The converse of the distribution fallacy
is the composition fallacy, assuming
that groups have the properties of the
individuals that compose them.

For example: A point doesnt have any

length; lines are made out of points;
therefore, a line doesnt have any
length.
 Condorcet Paradox
One example of the composition
fallacy is the Condorcet Paradox,
where every voter can have rational
preferences (doesnt prefer A to B, B to
C, and prefer C to A), but the
preferences of all the voters taken
together are irrational.
 Condorcet Paradox

First Choice Second Choice Third Choice

Voter #1 George Bill Barry
Voter #2 Barry George Bill
Voter #3 Bill Barry George
 Condorcet Paradox
Here, the preferences of the group are
irrational:

A majority like George better than Bill.

A majority like Bill better than Barry.
A majority like Barry better than
George.
 Ecological Fallacy
Heres an ecological inference.

Countries where, on average, people

consume more fat have higher rates of
breast cancer.

Therefore, consuming more fat leads

to a higher risk of breast cancer.
Theres a potential problem here with
confounding variables.

Maybe countries that consume more fat, on

average, are also countries that have more
pollution, on average (perhaps because
pollution and fat consumption both correlate
with poverty). So maybe its the pollution
and not the fat that causes breast cancer.
 Ecological Fallacy
But lets assume we know there arent
any confounding variables. Does the
premise support the conclusion:

Premise: Countries that on average

consume more fat on average have
higher rates of breast cancer.
Conclusion: Consuming fat leads to a
higher risk for breast cancer.
 Ecological Fallacy
But the conclusion doesnt follow.

Suppose that in Country A (10 people):

5 people eat 4 pounds of fat a day.
5 people eat 0 pounds of fat a day.

Average fat consumption: 2 pounds/

day.
 Ecological Fallacy
In Country B (also 10 people):

5 people eat 2 pounds of fat/ day

5 people eat 1 pound of fat/ day

Average fat consumption 1.5 pounds

fat/ day.
Country B on average consumes less
fat.
 Ecological Fallacy
Now assume that in Country A, all 5
people who consume no fat get breast
cancer. And in Country B, no one gets
breast cancer.

So on average, Country B consumes

less fat and has a lower rate of breast
cancer. Country B consumes more fat
and has a higher rate of breast cancer.
 Ecological Fallacy
But still, this doesnt mean people who
consume more fat are more likely to
get breast cancer.

Its the people who consume no fat

that get cancer!
 Ecological Fallacy
A famous (purported) instance of the
ecological fallacy was Durkheims
argument that since suicide rates in
Catholic countries were lower than in
Protestant countries, Catholics were
less likely to commit suicide than
Protestants.
 Prosecutors Fallacy
Suppose you are arrested on the basis
of some evidence you have very large
feet, just like the footprints we found
at the scene of the crime.

If someone is the killer, theres a 100%

chance that they have very large feet.
If someone is not the killer, theres a
95% chance they dont have very large
feet.
 Prosecutors Fallacy
The Prosecutors Fallacy is to assume
that therefore you must be guilty.

Why does this not follow?

What other fallacy (already discussed)

is identical to the Prosecutors Fallacy?
 Argument from Ignorance
The argument from ignorance goes like
this:

You cant prove that God doesnt

exist. Therefore God exists.

It assumes that because there is no

argument against a position, that that
position must be correct.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
A similar fallacy is shifting the burden of
proof. It goes:

God exists. If you think otherwise, prove that

he doesnt!

Here, you make a claim (God exists) but

instead of giving evidence for it, you require
that your opponent give evidence for the
opposite.
 Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy seeks to evaluate a claim
on the basis of its origin.

So, for example, someone might say,

Eugenics is wrong, because the Nazis began
it and did horrible things for its sake.

Eugenics may be wrong, but the fact that the

Nazis began it is irrelevant to this claim.
 Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy seeks to evaluate a
claim on the basis of its origin.

So, for example, someone might say

Clearly God does not exist. The reason I
know this is that your argument for his
existence is fallacious. Since you
provided a fallacious argument that God
exists, it follows that God does not exist.
 Appeal to Motive
Sometimes people argue that a certain
claim must be false, or an argument
invalid, because of the motives of the
person making the claim/ argument.
 Appeal to Motive
For example:

My opponent claims that the

government should give free cookies
to everyone. But he stands to benefit
most, because he likes cookies so
much!
 Tu Quoque
Tu quoque is Latin for you too. Its
a defense of an invalid argument that
goes:

Youve made a similar argument. So

you cannot criticize the flaws in this
argument.

Just because other people are doing it

doesnt make it right!