Chapter 21 Fallacy Round-Up

Equivocation occurs when a keyword is used in two or more senses in the same argument and the apparent success of the argument depends on the shift in meaning. Or two different words that look or sound the same may become confused and lead to fallacious inference.

A shift in the meaning of terms in a deductive argument blocks transitivity. Terms must have agreed-upon meaning for an argument to work.

Arguments and claims need to have clearly defined terms. Do what you can to pay attention to the meaning of individual words. Ask yourself, Are they being used in the same sense?

The fallacy of amphiboly is when there is a structural ambiguity in the grammar of a sentence that the argument or claim depends on.

Arguments need to have sentences with clear meaning (one proposition). This means they need functional grammar that avoids ambiguity.

Construct each sentence with care, and make sure that enough context is provided to rule out all possible, or at least all the likely, unintended interpretations.

The fallacy of accent arises when there is an ambiguity of meaning because it is unclear where the stress should fall in a statement or what tone of voice is intended.

An arguer may be stretching the meaning of a phrase or sentence that allows for agreement or deduction that is not warranted.

Construct sentences that cannot have a shift in meaning depending on which words are accented and how. Pay attention to how different stresses on terms or phrases lead to different meanings. Ask questions about background assumptions.

The fallacy of composition is when one argues invalidly from the properties of the parts of a whole to the properties of the whole itself and when one reasons invalidly from properties of a member to properties of a class.

Because it inappropriately attributes properties to a whole that doesn’t have that property. Here the reasoning doesn’t pay enough attention to the kind of thing under discussion.

Pay attention to whether arguments contain reasoning from parts to wholes. Look for compositional heredity and what kind of whole and parts are being talked about (Is it a member of a class?).

The fallacy of division is when one argues invalidly from the properties of the whole itself to properties of a part and when one reasons invalidly from properties of a class to properties of a member.

Because it inappropriately attributes properties from a whole to a member. Here the reasoning does not pay enough attention to the kind of thing under discussion.

Pay attention to whether arguments contain reasoning from wholes to parts. Look for divisional heredity and what kind of whole and parts are being talked about. (Is it a class with members?).

The fallacy of hypostatization consists of regarding an abstract word or a metaphor as if it were a concrete one.

Good arguments use specific language. Metaphors don’t have clear truth conditions.

Look for abstract entities given concrete properties or abilities. Ask whether the “thing” under discussion exists or if it is a metaphor. When arguing, replace metaphor with literal terms.

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when we reject someone’s claim or argument simply by attacking the person rather than the person’s claim or argument.

Claims and arguments have truth conditions independent of the speaker.

Address the argument and not the person.

Fallacy of abuse is name-calling and abusive words that are used to direct attention away from the issue at hand and toward those who are arguing.

A dialogue aimed at truth must stay on topic. Also, name-calling is harmful.

Address the argument and not the person. Avoid slanted and negative terms to refer to your interlocutor.

The fallacy of poisoning the well occurs when we criticize a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim rather than examining the worth of the argument or claim itself.

A person’s motivation is separable from their argument. In any case, it does not by itself undermine the argument the person is making.

Avoid calling motives into question. Address arguments directly. Ask yourself if the motive is the topic of the argument itself or is a distraction.

In the fallacy of tu quoque, a person is charged with acting in a manner that is incompatible with the position they are arguing for.

A person’s previous behaviour is not by itself a reason to undermine their argument. This distracts from the dialogue. Behaviour is independent of the truth conditions of a claim.

Avoid calling out a person’s behaviour. Address their claims. Ask yourself if the behaviour is what is under discussion, or if it is a distraction.

Mob appeal can be described as attempting to sway belief with an appeal to our emotions, using theatrical language, or appealing to group-based or special interests.

Arguments should be dialectically acceptable, meaning they stand up to scrutiny by the public, not just a specific group’s feelings or interests.

Notice if you are trying to appeal to someone’s group memberships or interests. Take a step back and imagine you are appealing to a general audience who will test your claim for dialectic acceptability.

The fallacy of appeal to pity occurs when we attempt to evoke feelings of pity or compassion in order to cause you to assent to our claim.

Arguments, in our sense, are strengthened strictly by the dialectical acceptability of the premises and the strength of the logic between the premises and the conclusion.

Use claims in your argument that are emotion-neutral. Or use emotional claims when appropriate.

The appeal to force or fear consists of the use of threats of force or unfortunate consequences to cause acceptance of a conclusion.

Arguments, in our sense, are strengthened strictly by the dialectical acceptability of the premises and the strength of the logic between the premises and the conclusion.

Notice if you are threatening bad consequences in order to sway belief, and rephrase your argument if you are. Use reason instead, focusing on claims that are dialectically acceptable.

In two wrongs make a right, the arguer attempts to justify their claim or behaviour by asserting that the person they are trying to convince would do the same thing.

The other claim being pointed to might also be wrong. So it cannot act as justification.

Focus on the strength of your claim, not whether someone else would also hold that belief if they were in your position. Offer independent justification.

The appeal to authority is a fallacy where we take something as fact just because an expert claims it to be true (without supporting considerations about their expertise and how that relates to their claim).

Just because a claim is supported by an authority does not by that very fact make it true.

Pay close attention to expertise, the area of expertise, bias, the nature of the claim being made, and expert consensus.

The fallacy of snob appeal tries to motivate belief by saying that if you support this claim, you will be a part of an exclusive and thus superior group.

Social superiority is not a reason to believe an argument.

Take note of arguments that play on vanity and special interests.

In the fallacy of the appeal to tradition, the fact that a social or cultural practice has been done a certain way in the past is taken to be reason for it to be done in the future.

Past traditions are not by themselves reasons to believe claims or arguments.

If appealing to tradition, offer additional support for the belief beyond it being traditional.

In the fallacy of the appeal to nature, one argues that if something occurs in nature, it is good, and if it is unnatural, it is bad.

Nature is extremely complex and also a vague term. Our understanding of it impacts our interpretation of nature.

When you are appealing to nature, the claim must be made with adequate context. Reasons for “goodness” or “badness” must be offered independent of what is observed in nature.

In the appeal to anonymous authority, claims are asserted on the basis of being held by an authority that is not clarified or given.

Anonymous authority cannot offer support for a claim because the expertise of the authority cannot be evaluated.

If we are taking it to be true that a claim is worth evaluating, we need some sense of how the claim has arisen. This means a claim should be taken seriously only when it can be tied to an expert or a person who is engaged in a dialogue.

In the appeal to ignorance, one takes the failure to disprove a claim as an adequate reason to take the claim seriously. It inappropriately argues that negative evidence can prove a positive claim.

Negative evidence cannot support a positive claim. It is not enough to have an argument against an opposing claim to prove your claim true.

Use negative evidence to support a stance of neutrality. Notice how when proving your claim, you need to both dispute opposing claims and provide support for your own.

The fallacy of false analogy is the comparison of two things that are only superficially similar or that, even if they are very similar, are not similar in the relevant respect.

The understanding being transferred from one thing to another is inappropriate.

Use analogies with relevant features, paying attention to dissimilarities. Keep analogies within their scope.

The fallacy of false cause is actually a family of related fallacies that occur when an arguer gives insufficient evidence for a claim that one thing is the cause of another.

Arguments with causal conclusions must be supported with adequate evidence.

Most causal claims need to be made tentatively. Pay attention to intervening factors and correlations.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this therefore because of this”) occurs when we assume, without adequate reason, that one event B was caused by another event A because B happened after A.

Because temporal sequence is not by itself reason to conclude there is a causal chain.

Find adequate support in addition to temporal sequence.

Here we assume that B was caused by A merely because of a positive correlation between A and B.

Because it misidentifies a cause and obscures the actual cause of something.

Offer information that rules out other intervening factors, and offer evidence that the positive correlation is indeed causal.

Here we conclude that A causes B when B causes A, so there is a causal connection but not the connection we believe.

Because it offers a false explanation of a causal sequence.

The point of causal reasoning is to gather evidence that represents the causal sequence. Getting it backwards is wrong.

Here we conclude that A is the cause of C when in fact both A and C are the effects of some event caused by B.

Because it misidentifies a cause and ignores the actual cause.

Consider all possible causal factors and what might rule in or out alternative explanations.

In this fallacy of slippery slope, a person asserts that some event or consequence must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.

Adding conjectured consequence after consequence without a guarantee that they are necessary is fallacious. Each step away from the initial claim provides a point of reasoning and discussion.

If a claim has bad consequences, you must provide evidence that the consequence is probable or likely.

In the fallacy of irrelevant thesis, an arguer attempts to sidetrack their audience by raising an irrelevant issue and then claims that the original issue has been effectively settled by the diversion. In short, the attempt is made to prove a thesis other than the one at issue.

It doesn’t stick to the issue at hand.

Stay on topic. Dialogue needs to progress with related arguments.

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is committed when an argument that depends on the application of a generalization or rule to a particular case is improper because a special circumstance (accident) makes the rule inapplicable to that particular case.

Rules and generalizations usually have boundary conditions that discern when and where the rule applies. The application of a rule should pay attention to the circumstances of application.

Note the scope of any rule or generalization you are using. Ask yourself where it is designed to apply and whether there are special circumstances.

The fallacy of hasty generalization is committed when an argument that develops a general rule does so in an improper way because it reasons from a special case (accident) to a general rule.

Rules should be developed from a set of examples that share enough relevant features to develop a rule. If rules are developed from special cases, then they do not apply to other members of that group.

When developing a generalization, note whether you are generalizing from special cases or representative samples. Then when communicating the rule, be subtle in how that is stated.

The fallacy of bifurcation is when an arguer treats a distinction of classification as exclusive and exhaustive of the possibilities when in fact other alternatives exist. In this fallacy, one confuses contraries with contradictories.

If other options exist, then they should be considered on their own merits. A false choice should not be used to force agreement.

Consider the range of relevant options available. Use “or” in a way that doesn’t present a false choice.

In the case of the straw person fallacy, an arguer constructs their dialogue partner’s view out of “straw” (to make it easy to knock down), which effectively creates a new person, the “straw person,” who is refuted (rather than the original dialogue partner).

It isn’t fair to the opponent, and it doesn’t support your view to knock down a weak argument.

Represent the views of others fairly. Use the principle of charity.

The fallacy of begging the question is assuming what you intend to, or should be, proving. It is a failure of the support relationship.

A conclusion cannot support itself. It needs independent support.

Pay attention to repetition in an argument. Make the support relationship very clear.

Question-begging epithets use slanted language that is question begging because it implies what we wish to prove but have not yet proved.

It is wrong to paint a view in such a bad way that its falsity is assumed rather than proven.

Use neutral language to avoid circularity. Make the support relationship appropriate.

The fallacy of complex question is when the arguer asks a question that presupposes the truth of the question at issue.

In the way the arguer asks the question, they force agreement with a claim.

Follow appropriate rules of interrogative inquiry. One claim at a time, aimed at the truth.

Special pleading is when we use slanted or loaded language for others when we do the same ourselves and use neutral or positive language.

It is biased toward the speaker, taking latitude to describe two things differently.

Stick as closely as you can to the facts when describing something. Check to see if you describe something you do in more positive terms than when others do the same thing.