Notes: Fallacies | Logical Reasoning for UGC NET PDF Download

Meaning 

 A fallacy is defined as 'an argument or an apparent argument that claims to be decisive on the matter at issue, while in reality, it is not.' These fallacies weaken arguments and consequently undermine the overall strength of our paragraph or assignment.

Common Categories of Fallacies:

• Using feelings
• Distracting from the argument
• Misinformation
• Generalizations (to make a powerful statement)
• Irrelevant connections

According to the NET syllabus, fallacies are primarily of two types: formal or informal. Regardless of their type, their use diminishes the validity and soundness of any argument. Furthermore, fallacious reasoning can harm the credibility of the message's originator and manipulate the emotions of the receiver.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies primarily involve errors in logic, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. This can occur when the premises are false or when the argument is invalid. Let's explore this concept further with examples and explanations.

Understanding Formal Fallacies

• Errors of Logic: Formal fallacies are mistakes in reasoning where the conclusion is not adequately supported by the premises.
• Premises and Conclusion: The premises may be untrue, or the argument may be structured in a way that makes it invalid.

Example of an Invalid Deductive Argument

• Premise 1: All black bugs are carnivores.
• Premise 2: All rats are carnivores.
• Conclusion: All rats are black bugs.

In this example, while both bugs and rats are subsets of carnivores, the conclusion is flawed because the two subsets do not overlap. The relationship between the premises does not support the conclusion, making the argument invalid.

Recognizing Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies can often be identified when a conclusion sounds illogical or does not follow from the given premises. These instances of poor logic occur frequently in everyday reasoning and can have real-world implications.

Example of a Fallacious Argument

• Premise 1: All Europeans are Christians.
• Premise 2: All Russians are Christians.
• Conclusion: All Russians are Europeans.

This argument is fallacious for two reasons:

• The premises are false because not all Europeans and Russians are Christians.
• The two groups are mistakenly assumed to overlap based solely on a shared characteristic.

Informal Fallacies

• Informal fallacies manifest in various forms in our daily lives.
• They occur when:
  • The relationship between premises and conclusion is flawed.
  • The premises are unsound.
  • They heavily rely on misuse of language and evidence.
• Informal fallacies often introduce irrelevant information or rely on incorrect assumptions.
• Identifying them may not always be straightforward.
• Some fallacious moves are universally incorrect, while others may be context-dependent.

Use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos to Test Arguments for Fallacies

• Ethos: Focuses on ethics, authority, and/or credibility.
• Logos: An appeal to logic.
• Pathos: An appeal to emotion.

Ethos, logos, and pathos can either strengthen an argument or inappropriately manipulate an audience through the use of fallacies. Some fallacies can belong to multiple categories. Formal and informal fallacies both represent errors of reasoning. Relying on fallacies, whether intentionally or unintentionally, weakens an argument.

Types of Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies, also known as non-logical fallacies or fallacies of irrelevance, occur when the premises and conclusion of an argument are mutually irrelevant. These fallacies can also arise from ambiguity in language. While there are numerous informal fallacies, we will focus on those that are important from an examination perspective. If one specific fallacy is missing, it does not guarantee the absence of other fallacies; they may still exist.

1. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)

• This common fallacy occurs when we assume what needs to be proved in our attempt to prove something. It essentially means proving something based on itself. We start from a position and end our argument by returning to the same position.
• For example, consider the argument: "Murder is morally wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong." While most people agree that murder is morally wrong, the second premise— that abortion is murder—may not be universally accepted. By presenting it as a premise, the argument creates a presumption of validity in all cases.

2. Accident (Sweeping Generalization)

• This form of fallacy has two types: direct fallacy and its converse. The fallacy arises from the inappropriate use of generalization in both cases.
• Direct Accident: This fallacy occurs when a general norm is applied to a special case without considering the difference between normal and special circumstances. For example, saying, "Murders are to be hanged, so all soldiers must be hanged," ignores the special circumstances surrounding soldiers.

3. Converse Fallacy of Accident

• This fallacy occurs when a norm applicable to a special case is blindly extended to general circumstances. An example can be found in a dialogue between Socrates and Polemarchus, where Socrates challenges the idea of justice in repaying debts under all circumstances.

4. Argument ad Verecundiam

• This fallacy is committed when an irrelevant premise is chosen to support a conclusion. It occurs when we seek support from a person, often a famous or highly respected individual, whose opinion is irrelevant to the argument. Logic dictates that what a person says is irrelevant, especially when the person is not an expert.
• An example of this fallacy is seen in advertisements where models endorse products despite lacking knowledge about them. Their authority is often supported by others without any real expertise.

5. Argument ad Populum

• This fallacy occurs when a speech appeals to emotions, stirring up love or hatred. Political speeches often fall into this category.
• A classic example is found in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, where Mark Antony incites the crowd to seek revenge for Caesar’s killing.

6. Argument ad Misericordiam

• This fallacy appeals to pity and was observed in ancient Greece where criminals used this method to evade punishment. Its effectiveness in cases of genuine guilt is questionable.

7. Argument ad Baculum

• This fallacy involves a threat rather than an appeal. It is often employed by those in power or supported by political authorities to impose their ideology, whether religious or social.
• Threats may be directed at life, property, or position, and this approach reflects a totalitarian mindset, making it undemocratic.

8. Argument ad Ignorantiam

• This common fallacy, often seen in academic circles, involves appealing to ignorance. It argues that a proposition must be accepted unless someone can prove otherwise.
• The argument relies on a lack of evidence rather than any evidence. The truth of the argument is established because no one has disproven it.
• For example, the statement "God exists because reason has failed to prove that God does not exist" illustrates this fallacy. The thesis is accepted when its antithesis cannot be established by the opponent.

9. Argument ad Hominem

• This fallacy occurs when the focus shifts from the argument's premises to the personality or character of the person making the argument.
• While the arguments of ‘X’ may be valid and supported by evidence, if ‘X’ is perceived as having a generally poor character, the argument may be dismissed based on this.
• This fallacy is rare in academic discussions but more common in political contexts, often driven by rivalry.
• For example, saying, “Madan roots for an Indian football team. Clearly he is unfit to be a police chief in a small city,” shifts focus from the argument to Madan’s character.
• Another example is the statement, “All people from Island are liars,” which attacks the character of a group rather than addressing the argument.

10. Ignoratio Elenchi

• This fallacy differs from others in that the premises chosen are irrelevant. Instead of proving what is intended, a different conclusion is reached.
• It is not a case of missing the bus but rather the bus missing its route, indicating reasoning going astray.

11. Complex Question

• Complex question is a manipulation technique often seen in legal contexts. It involves framing a question in such a way that it allows only two possible answers, trapping the accused or opponent regardless of their choice.
• The question is designed to hide certain aspects, making it impossible for anyone to respond in any other way.

12. Strawman Argument

• The Strawman argument involves attacking a position that the opponent does not actually hold, making it easier to defeat their argument.
• Just as a scarecrow is harmless and lifeless, the Strawman argument targets a weakened version of the opponent's stance.
• For example, claiming, “The MP thinks we can solve all our ecological problems by driving a Hybrid car,” misrepresents the MP's position.
• In contrast, the MP argues that the environment is in such a poor state that individual car choices or driving habits have minimal impact.

13. Slippery Slope

• This fallacy arises when we assume that one action will trigger a chain of events leading to an undesirable outcome.
• Slippery slope reasoning ignores the possibility of various other intervening factors between the initial event and the final, negative consequence.
• For instance, the argument that teaching sex education in college will inevitably lead to a series of negative outcomes, such as unplanned pregnancies and dropouts, exemplifies slippery slope reasoning.
• It overlooks the fact that learning about sex does not automatically imply engaging in sexual activity, nor does it guarantee negative consequences like dropping out of college.

14. Red Herring (Irrelevant Thesis)

• In this fallacy, an irrelevant topic or fallacy is introduced into an argument to divert the listeners’ or readers’ attention from the main issue.
• Red herring is commonly found in detective or suspense novels, where it misleads the audience to draw false conclusions.
• For example, when a teacher catches a student cheating during an exam, and the student responds by saying, "I know I have made a mistake. Kindly think of my parents. They will feel very bad," the student uses a red herring to distract the teacher from the actual issue of cheating.

Fallacies Due to Ambiguity

• Ambiguity is of three types - use of ambiguous words, ambiguous structure of sentence, and differing accent.
• Equivocation is due to Ambiguous Words. 'Good' is one such ambiguous word. For example, "Rama is good. Rama is a teacher. Therefore, Rama must be a good teacher." This example illustrates the fallacy of equivocation where the different meanings of the word 'good' are ignored.
• Amphiboly is due to the manner in which words are combined and the hidden meaning which such combination suggests. An example is how Socrates understood the oracle at Delphi differently from others, leading to misunderstandings.
• Accent can also lead to fallacy where the premise emphasizes one aspect while the conclusion emphasizes another. For instance, Jesus advising his disciples to 'love their neighbor' can be misinterpreted based on accent.
• Another important fallacies are as follows:

Composition Fallacies

• First Fallacy: Proceeding from parts to whole.
• Second Fallacy: Proceeding from whole to parts.
• Explanation: These fallacies occur during attribute scrutiny.
• Example - J S Mill: "Every man desires his own happiness. All men desire the happiness of all."