The Jonathan Dolhenty Archive Select an Archive Category... Fundamentals Metaphysics Epistemology Logic/Statistics Ethics/Morality Current Affairs Main Page & Index
Academy Resources Glossary of Philosophical Terms Timeline of Philosophy A Timeline of American Philosophy Diagram: Development of Philosophic Thought Diagram: Divisions of Philosophy The Philosophy Resource Center The Religion Resource Center Books about Philosophy in The Radical Academy Bookstore Books about Religion in The Radical Academy Bookstore Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices Click Here for College Education Information & Study Resources Shop Amazon Stores in the Radical Academy Bookstore Magazine Outlet Music Store Classical Music Store Video Store DVD Store Computer Store Camera & Photo Store Computer/Video Games Software Store Musical Instruments Outlet Store Cellular Phones Toys & Games Tools & Hardware Automotive Store Outdoor Living Consumer Electronics Home & Garden Kitchen & Housewares Baby Superstore Apparel & Accessories Gourmet Food Grocery Store Sporting Goods Jewelry & Watches Health & Personal Care Beauty Store Academy Showcase Specials		THE NONSENSE TRAPS: A GUIDE TO THE LOGICAL FALLACIES - Part 1 Welcome to the Nonsense Traps by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.   A fallacy is any sort of mistake in reasoning or inference. The number and types of fallacies is very great and no complete list has ever been presented, and an argument may be fallacious for a wide variety of reasons. The logical fallacies to be discussed here are generally considered to be "informal" fallacies. We need to note, however, that all of them are formal fallacies, in the sense that they are formally invalid arguments. They are called informal because, although formally invalid, they exhibit a persuasiveness that rests on informal factors like ambiguity, prejudice, slanted language, fear, and so forth. Informal logical fallacies are very common. It is probably impossible to live through a single day (unless one is totally out-of-touch with the reality around him) without encountering at least a few of these fallacious arguments. They occur in television commercials, magazine advertisements, political speeches, and many times in ordinary human conversations. These informal fallacies can be relatively harmless or they can be seriously devastating. We all need to be aware all the time of the most common informal fallacies.   I. Fallacies of Relevance The first set of logical fallacies we'll discuss are classified as fallacies of relevance. These arguments contain premises which do not bear on the conclusions drawn in the argument. There is some type of irrelevance involved in such a fallacious argument that tends to confuse and, in many cases, divert attention away from the real debate. The real issues involved in such an argument are obscured by the perpetrator using some emotionally charged premise to sway the emotions, not the intellect, of any witnesses to the debate. The most common emotions appealed to are those of prejudice, hatred, pity, fear, vanity, and sympathy. These fallacies of relevance (they really should be called fallacies of irrelevance) show that almost anything will pass as a legitimate argument if only one can stir up enough emotional force to divert the attention away from the real issues involved.   Arguments Ad Hominem This fallacy is commonly called "an attack on the person." It is a direct attack against an individual, such as attacking a person's beliefs or assertions by attacking the person himself in one way or another. It appears in one of three forms. A. Abusive The abusive form uses epithets or factual but irrelevant data against an opponent in hopes of discrediting any statements an opponent may make. Those committing this fallacy hope to turn attention away from the facts of the argument to the person participating in the argument. It is a personal attack on the individual making the argument, not on the argument itself. This is very common in political debates, where the participants find it easier and advantageous to discuss personalities and engage in mudslinging, rather than discuss the issues in the debate. Example: "Although Mr. Smith, the defendant's chief witness, claims that he did not see the defendant selling heroin to Mr. Jones, there is no reason to accept Mr. Smith's statement. After all, we know that Mr. Smith is a pot-smoking communist-mongering hippie." (Mr. Smith's character in this situation has nothing to do with his testimony as such.) Example: "Senator Doe proposes to introduce a plan to permit Bible reading in the public schools. We all know, however that he is simply a bigoted, religious fanatic who is trying to destroy our public schools." (The fact that Senator Doe may be a religious fanatic has nothing to do with the debate over permitting Bible reading in the public schools. This proposed policy has to rise or fall on other concerns and evidence.) B. Circumstantial The circumstantial form cites the opponent's personal circumstances as sufficient reason for dismissing a statement the opponent has made. Or it may point out a contrast between the opponent's lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent's conclusions can be dismissed because the opponent is himself hypocritical. Example: "Of course, the workers at the factory favor unionization. They are the ones who will get a pay raise without having to pay for it." (What does this have to do with anything?) Example: "Mr. Jones, how can you favor gun legislation when you own a pistol?" (Does this mean you can't vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage if you've been divorced?) Example: "You should not listen to his arguments against legislation prohibiting the sale of cigarettes. He owns stock in two cigarette companies." (So what? The two circumstances are unrelated to one another.) C. Arguments Tu Quoque The tu quoque fallacy occurs when a person attempts to escape criticism of his position by attacking the position of his opponent, rather than by directly answering the charges against him. Example: Reporter -- "The CIA under your direction engaged in illegal domestic surveillance, a clear-cut violation of the CIA's charter." CIA Official -- "The CIA under the past three administrations has been required to pursue such action. To believe that such activity is not necessary and has not taken place before is naive. It is people like you who would like to see our country infiltrated with foreign spies." (The charges here are not answered by the CIA official. He attempts a diversion by attacking the reporter's position.) Example: "Far too much fuss has been made over our Central Intelligence Agency's espionage abroad. Other countries are just as deeply engaged in spying as we are." (So what? Do two wrongs make a right? Again this is a diversionary tactic.   Arguments Ad Populem This fallacy involves an appeal to the "people." It is an attempt to manipulate passions, prejudices, and identity of specific audiences. A fallacious argument of this type does not deal with the evidence, the facts, or properly drawn conclusions. The arguments are an appeal to the passions of the mob, not the intellect of the individual. This fallacy is so common today that it is almost totally ignored; which is unfortunate, particularly in a democratic society. Example: Leader talking to crowd -- "We can't permit him to be arrested because he is one of us. When they arrest him they arrest each of us in a little way. Fight for your rights! This police-state action should be opposed in your own name." (If the only reason you don't want him arrested is because he is "one of us," you are arguing fallaciously by appealing to the mob, rather than presenting good evidence or giving good reasons why he should not be arrested.) Example: TV Commercial -- "You should wear Brand X shirts; they are for the discriminating man who is concerned with quality, not price." (This is an obvious appeal to vanity. Are Brand X shirts really better? Do I really just want to go along with the crowd?) Example: School Board Member -- "No one in this room wants to deny any child a decent education. But let's remember that this is our school and it belongs to our children." (No valid argument is provided for the case the school board member is supporting. This is merely an attempt to stir up a crowd emotionally.)   The Appeal to Pity The technical term for this fallacy is argumentum ad misericordiam, literally an argument addressed to our sense of mercy. It is the introduction of irrelevant considerations that will arouse sympathy and detract attention from pertinent evidence. In some cases, however, an appeal to pity may not be completely fallacious. This fallacy may appear to be the same as the appeal to the mob, but it is distinct in so far as it emphasizes a single emotion, that of sympathy, rather than a range of emotions that typifies the fallacy of an appeal to the people. Example: Defense Lawyer -- "I ask the court to set free this man accused of murdering a policeman. If he is sent to jail, his poor children will have to grow up without a father, and will suffer from the taunts of their schoolmates that their father is a convicted felon. Who could do this to such innocent helpless children." (This is, of course, a play for the sympathy of the judge or the jury. There may be many good reasons to set free an accused criminal, lack of evidence for instance, but to spare his children from suffering is obviously not one of them.) Example: TV Commercial -- "When television means so much more to a child than entertainment alone, can you deny it to your family any longer?" (This, by the way, was an actual advertisement promoting the purchase of television sets. It was soon withdrawn after being criticized for bad taste. According to this argument, you should not deny your poor, pitiful children the alleged advantages of television in your home. Oh, really?)   The Appeal to Force or Might This fallacy is also known as the appeal to fear, swinging the big stick, or as argumentum ad baculum. It involves arousing fears and intimidating a person into agreement. The appeal may involve threats of immediate physical violence or threats against a person's status and general well-being. You'd be surprised how often this is used in a subtle way by politicians and others to get their agenda adopted. Most people do not seem to be able to identify it when it is used in the background of an argument. Example: Police Detective -- "You really should sign this confession now. Otherwise, you will be tried and eventually found guilty. Then there will be no chance of leniency; you'll be given the maximum sentence of life in prison." (One has to wonder, in light of the number of convictions being overturned lately of people who have spent years in prison, how commonly such a threat is used during police interrogation.) Example: TV Commercial -- "If you want to avoid the embarrassment of perspiration-stained clothing, you should use 'Dry,' the new antiperspirant deodorant." (Do you see the appeal to fear?) Example: Political Party Leader -- "Of course, you realize that if you fail to vote against the gun control bill, our organization will not support your next election drive with a donation as it has done in the past." (There may be good, valid reasons for voting for or against a gun control bill. Unfortunately, the fear of losing votes or financial support is not one of them.)   The Appeal to Authority The appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, cites the opinion of a person or persons who possess no special expertise on a subject as reinforcement for one's own opinion. We make an appeal to authority whenever we try to justify an idea by citing some source as a reason for holding that idea. This does not mean, of course, that legitimate authorities cannot or should not be cited in an argument. The criterion here is one of genuine expertise. Example: Ad Agency Creative Director -- "We will advertise this insurance company as solid and well-managed. After all, three famous football players have provided us with endorsements." (And what do football players know about evaluating an insurance company?) Example: College Physics Student -- "God does not exist. I know this is true because Professor Smith, who is an eminent physics researcher, says it is true." (Is Professor Smith also a trained theologian or philosopher? Does he have professional expertise in these fields?) Example: Businessman -- "This idea of supporting research on AIDS is ridiculous. Some of my company officers and I were discussing it at lunch today, and we all agreed it's a colossal waste." (Since when are ordinary businessmen experts in scientific research?) Example: Religious Leader -- "The institution of marriage is as old as human history and thus must be considered sacred." (This is a fallacy known as the authority of tradition. I threw this in deliberately because it is an appeal too often made and should not be. Marriage needs to be justified on other grounds than its historical survival. Otherwise, what about prostitution? It is as old as human history; are we to consider it sacred, too?) To Page Two Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine... Main Page & Index
-- Top of Page -- [Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer] Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.