Logical Fallacies

Fallacies of Relevance
Ad Hominem Fallacies
• It is rare for arguers in real life to state their ad hominem arguments
as explicitly as the ones discussed
• It is also rare to conclude explicitly that the opponent’s position is
false
• What is common is to launch into a personal attack in an attempt to
distract the listener or reader from the original argument
Ad Hominem Fallacies...
• The mayor said the biggest problem for the city administration has
been fighting people who have protested such things as industrial
development. “We’ve had people fight highways, the school
corporation, and county zoning,” he said. “I didn’t notice any of these
people coming up here on horses and donkeys. They all drove cars up
here, spewing hydrocarbons all over the place.”
Could Personal Attacks be Legitimate?
• There are two kinds of cases where attacks on a person are perfectly
legitimate
• Criticizing political candidates for various failings
• Defects in the person (as premises) are not irrelevant to the conclusion (that
the person should not be elected)
• Testimony
• Mickey has testified that he saw Freddy set fire to the building. But Mickey was recently
convicted on ten counts of perjury, and he hates Freddy with a passion and would love to
see him sent to jail. Therefore, you should not believe Mickey’s testimony.
• With typical ad hominem arguments, defects in the person (my critics also
damage the environment) are irrelevant to the conclusion (my damaging the
environment is not wrong)
Could Personal Attacks be Legitimate?...
• Personal criticisms could be appropriate in arguments by authority
• “The surgeon-general has said that babies should receive the MMR vaccine.
So, babies should receive the MMR vaccine.”
• If it can be shown that the authority is unreliable or corrupt, then this appeal
to authority can be undermined
• The attack on the person in not irrelevant to the conclusion because the
original argument made use of an implicit premise: the authority is reliable
Straw Man Fallacy
• The arguer attacks a misrepresentation of the opponent’s view
• The idea is to describe something that sounds like the opponent’s
view but is easier to knock down and then to refute
• Premise: A misrepresentation of the view is false
• Conclusion: The view is false
• Straw man fallacy results from a failure to be fair and charitable in
interpreting an argument
Straw Man Fallacy...
• One can see through a straw man fallacy by asking such appropriate
questions as:
• What were the exact words used in the original?
• Have any key words or phrases been changed or omitted?
• Does the context suggest that the author was deliberately exaggerating or
leaving obvious exception clauses unstated?
• These evolutionists believe that a dog can give birth to a cat. How
ridiculous!
Straw Man Fallacy...
• Sometimes a persuasive (i.e., biased) definition is used to set up a
straw man:
• Empiricism is the view that nothing should be believed in unless it can be
directly observed. Now, no one can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch protons,
electrons, or quarks. So, while empiricists pretend to be advocates of science,
their views in fact rule out the most advanced physical science of our times.

• Empiricism: “the thesis that all knowledge or at least all knowledge of matters
of fact (as distinct from that of purely logical relations between concepts) is
based on experience.”
Straw Man Fallacy...
• The straw man fallacy is also committed when a view or argument is
alleged to involve assumptions that it does not (or need not) involve.
• Fahad advocates the legalization of cocaine. But I cannot agree with any
position based on the assumption that cocaine is good for you and that a
society of drug addicts can flourish. So, I disagree with Fahad
Appeal to Force/Scare Tactics
• The appeal to force (or ad baculum fallacy) occurs when a conclusion
is defended by a threat to the well-being of those who do not accept
it.
• Mr. Jones, you helped us import the drugs. For this, the Boss is grateful. But
now you say you’re entitled to 50 percent of the profits. The Boss says you’re
entitled to 10 percent. Unless you see things the Boss’s way, you’re going to
have a very nasty accident. So, you’re entitled to 10 percent. Got it?
• “You can avoid harm by accepting this statement. So, the statement is
true.”
Appeal to Force...
• Lately there has been a lot of negative criticism of our policy on medical
benefits. Let me tell you something, people. If you want to keep working
here, you need to know that our policy is fair and reasonable. I won’t
have anybody working here who doesn’t know this.
• Listen, Nadia, I know you disagree with my view about the building
project. You’ve made your disagreement clear to everyone. Well, it’s
time for you to see that you are mistaken. Let me get right to the point. I
know you’ve been lying to your husband about where you go on
Wednesday afternoons. Unless you want him to know where you really
go, it’s time for you to realize that I’ve been right about the building
project all along. You follow me?
Appeal to Force or Not?
• If you smoke, you increase your risk of getting lung cancer. It’s not in
your interest to do something that increases your risk of getting lung
cancer. So, it’s not in your interest to smoke.

• If you don’t get off my property right now, I’ll call the police and have
you arrested. [It’s not in your interest to be arrested. So, it’s not in
your interest to stay on my property.]