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 2 Welcome to the Nonsense Traps by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.   II. Fallacies of Ambiguity The fallacies included in this category are arguments that are unsound because of ambiguity and are commonly referred to as fallacies of ambiguity. A certain word or combination of words in the argument can be understood in more than one sense. Many debates end up in total confusion because the participants do not define their terms and explain their ideas clearly and/or end up using them inconsistently. The impreciseness of our English language accounts for much of this problem. Many words in English mean quite different things to different people. Equivocation This fallacy involves the use of a word or phrase that can be interpreted in two or more different ways in a given context. The equivocal element may be used in one sense in the premise(s) and in another in the conclusion. It may also be used in different senses in different premises. And it may be used in such a way that it is impossible to determine the sense in which it is being used. Example: "Man is a social animal, and no woman is a man. Therefore, no woman is a social animal." (Do you see the problem here? The term "man" in the initial premise is used as a generic term to include all human beings regardless of gender. The second premise uses "man" in a specific sense as applying only to the male gender. The term is used in two different senses and the fallacy of equivocated is committed.) Example: "The end of a thing is its perfection. Death is the end of life. Therefore, death is the perfection of life." (This argument is fallacious because two differences meanings of the term "end" are confused in it. The term "end" may mean "goal" or it may mean "final event." While both of these meanings is perfectly legitimate, it is fallacious to use them in this example as if they mean the same thing. The argument should read: "The goal of a thing is its perfection. Death is the final event of life." And, of course, no conclusion can be validly drawn because we have no consistent middle term in the premises.) Special care should be taken in the use of some common words and phrases. For instance, the term "right" or "rights" must be carefully defined in an argument. There is a fundamental difference between "natural" rights and "civil" rights. The same holds true with the term "soul." This term is commonly used by religious people as a substitute for the term "human being," like in the sentence: "There are fifty souls in the congregation today." The term "spirit" is sometimes used as a synonym for "soul." On the other hand, in classical realistic philosophy, the term "soul" refers to the "principle of life" or that which makes a living thing to be living. There are, then, "vegetative" souls in plants, "animal" souls in brute animals, and "human" souls in human beings. Consider the following statements: Bill is the brother of Mary. All men are brothers. Joe and John are fraternity brothers. "Oh, brother!" Most of us have no problem recognizing that the term "brother" is being used in a difference sense in each of the statements. None of us would confuse "brother" in the first statement with "brother" in the third statement. This seems quite self-evident, so what's the problem? Well, then, look at this argument: All men are brothers in a common fraternity. All brothers in a common fraternity are college students. Therefore, all men are college students. Do you see the problem here? At first glance it may seem like a valid argument. But the term "brothers" is being used in different senses in the two premises of the argument. And this, of course, leads to an invalid conclusion.   Amphiboly The fallacy of amphiboly results because of poor sentence construction. We do not understand the meaning of the whole sentence and the whole sentence is ambiguous or the sentence may be grammatically ambiguous. Example: "Four out of five dentists recommend Sugarfree gum so it is obviously good for you." (The inference here is that four out of every five dentists have recommended the gum. But that is not what the statement actually says. It may mean that only five dentists were surveyed and four of them recommended the gum. This is a common type of misleading statement in advertising commercials. One needs to ask: "How many dentists in all took part in the survey?") A problem, involving what are called "dangling participles," occurs when we fail to attach a noun to a participial phrase which precedes it. (Some of these become very humorous. You may want to try your hand at generating some of your own.) Example: "The sailboat 'Newport Beach' was far ahead of the others when she crossed the finish line. Her nose up in the air, saltwater pouring across her bows, Mrs. Williams guided her skillfully past the cheering crowd." (This actually appeared in a story in a newspaper. One can only hope that the reporter has learned to do better since then. The fallacy here should be obvious. The first part of the second sentence really belongs with the first sentence. It is not "attached" properly.) Example: "Water the plant when thoroughly potted." (Oh, really? Does this mean to be "intoxicated" when watering your plant. Or must the plant be placed in a pot first?) Fallacies of amphiboly can turn up in the strangest places and the perpetrators of such fallacies should really know better. Study these actual examples which have publicly appeared.   A wartime poster: "Save Soap and Waste Paper." A slogan: "Safe Driving is No Accident!" Newspaper Brief: "The farmer blew out his brains after taking affectionate farewell of his family with a shotgun." Sign on Bulletin Board: "Clean and decent dancing, every night except Sunday." Newspaper Announcement: "The marriage of Miss Pauline Smith and Mr. Robert Novak, which was announced in this paper a few weeks ago, was a mistake and we wish to correct it." Newspaper Story: "Police authorities are finding the solution of murders more and more difficult because the victims are unwilling to cooperate with the police."   Fallacy of Composition The fallacy of composition involves two forms of erroneous reasoning. The first occurs when a person erroneously argues that a whole which is a single entity has a certain characteristic because each of its components parts has that characteristic. The second form occurs when a person invalidly concludes that a collection of elements has a certain characteristic because each element in the collection has this characteristic. Example: "Each brick in that building was rectangular in shape, so the building must be rectangular in shape." (The fallacy of this argument should be immediately obvious.) Example: "If you drop a feather from a ten-story building, it will float to earth very slowly. Therefore, if you drop that pillow from a ten-story building, it too will float to earth slowly." (While the pillow is composed of feathers, there is a significant difference between a feather and a pillow. What can be applied to a single feather cannot be applied to the group of feathers contained within the pillow.) Example: "With a laissez-faire policy, each member of society acts in a way that will advance his or her own economic interest. Consequently, all individuals and ultimately society as a whole achieves the maximum economic advantages." (This is not an uncommon argument, by the way. But it is fallacious. What can be said of an individual member of a society cannot necessarily be said of the society as a whole or of all individuals within that society.)   Fallacy of Division The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. The first form occurs when it is invalidly argued that each part in a whole has a particular attribute because the whole itself has that attribute. The second form occurs when it is erroneously argued that what is true of a collection of items must also be true of each component item. When the attribute being considered is a distributive attribute, that is, when it refers to properties possessed by the individual members of a collection, the inference will be valid. However, when it is a collective attribute, that is, when it refers to a property possessed only the totality of members of a collection, the inference will be invalid. Example: "The American judicial system is a fair system. Therefore, Defendant Smith got a fair trial." (Generally speaking, the American judicial system is fair. Fairness is an attribute of the judicial system. But this does not mean that every trial within that system is fair in itself.) Example: "In the latest poll, 60% of the American people favored the President's handling of the economy. Therefore, of the ten Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, exactly six favor the President's handling of the economy." (The fallacy here should be obvious.) Example: "Cats are frequently seen on city streets. Tigers are cats, Therefore, tigers are frequently seen on city streets." (Here the second type of division fallacy is committed. One cannot argue from attributes of a collection of elements [cats] to the attributes of the elements themselves [tigers].) And, finally, this old riddle involves the confusion generated by the fallacy of division: "Why do white sheep eat more than black ones?" The answer, "Because there are more of them," treats collectively what seemed to be referred to distributively in the question. To Page Three 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.