4.3 Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are bald mistakes; . . . fallacies of irrelevance, because they arise when there is no real connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument. Because tht connection is missing, the premises offered cannot possible establish the truth of the conclusion drawn.

R1. The Appeal to the Populace (Argumentum ad Populum)

arousing the feelings of the multitude. . . . the instrument on which every demagogue and propagandist relies when faced with the task of mobilizing public sentiment. . . . relies on expressive language and other devices calculated to excited enthusiasm for or against some cause. Patriotism . . .

An emotional defense of belief lacks intellectual merit, but the conclusion of that bad argument may be supportable by other premises of a more rational sort. Still, offered as the premises of an argument, sheer emotion is fallacious. [Example: "Patrick Henry's speech: Give me liberty or give me death!"]

A qualification . . . . If the passions of the speaker are used to convince his listeners that some beliefs are true, the argument" = "fallacious. However, if the speaker and his listener are in complete agreement in their beliefs, and the speaker aims only to spur his listeners to act in support of those mutual beliefs, the emotion he exhibits may serve a useful purpose. There is a distinction to be drawn between emotions used improperly as premises in argument and emotions used reasonably as triggers for appropriate conduct."

Main example of argumentum ad populum: "commercial advertizing." Breakfast cereal: youth, athleticism, good health; whiskey: luxury and achievement; car: beautiful chick magnet.

". . . the mere association of some product with an agreeable feeling or satisfying emotion is by itself no argument at all."

"'bandwagon fallacy' . . . to do what others do because so many others are doing it." Advertisement on TV: "Why are so many people attracted to the Pontiac Grand Prix? It could be that so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix because--so many people are attracted to the Grand Prix!"

[Could actually work in the reverse. Many "elites" reject what the mass wants because the mass wants it.]

People in public polling need to be careful here--can be guilty of push polling: wording a poll question in such a way to get people to give you the response they want. Are you for or against affirmative action vs. are you for or against racial preferences?

R.2 Appeals to Emotion

• Appeal to Pity (ad Misericordiam)
  

  misericordiam: "merciful heart." . . . appeal to pity.
  

  Although we temper justice with mercy, we should never substitute mercy for justice. If a party is guilty, he is guilty, no matter how we feel about him. Because of mitigating circumstances we may lessen his punishment, we do not declare him innocent. To declare the person innocent, though undeniably guilty, because of pity—constitutes "appeal to pity" (misericordiam) or "appeal to emotion."
  

  Example: poor helpless individual versus greedy, impersonal corporation.
  

  Socrates rejected just this sort of appeal in his Apology to the Athenian court—although some of his fellow defendants had used their families as reason to be acquitted.
  

  Appeal to envy: ad invidiam; appeal to fear: ad metum; appeal to hatred: ad odium; and to pride: ad superbium

R3. The Red Herring

Red Herring: "any deliberately misleading trail." A device used to lead away from the discussion, from the main point. Those who wanted to protect the fox would take a smoked red herring and put it in the path of the hounds. The smell would overpower the scent of the fox and distract the hounds from pursuing the fox.

R4. The Straw Man

Easier to argue against a straw man than against one who is flesh and blood. "If one argues against some view by presenting an opponent's position as one that is easily torn apart, the argument is fallacious . . . the straw man.

"an effort to shift the conflict from its original complexity into a different conflict, between parties other than those originally in dispute."

"The extreme position in any dispute—the claim that conduct of a certain kind is always wrong, or always justified--is likely to be difficult if not impossible to defend. Therefore it is often a fallacious device to contend that what one aims to defeat is indefensible because it is categorical or absolute."

Straw man arguments may end up hurting its proponent: the audience may realize that the proponent is being disingenuous and they end up siding with the person attacked.

R5. Argument Against the Person (Argumentum ad Hominem)

Arguing not against the conclusion but against the person who is making the argument/conclusion.

• Argumentum ad Hominem, Abusive
  

  to deny a person's intelligence or reasonableness, their understanding, their seriousness or integrity. Has everything to do with the person and not the argument they are making. Can use a person's religion against him: he's a Catholic and therefore cannot be believed. Associated with people who are bad (President Obama and Ayers)--guilt by association.
  

• Argumentum ad Hominem, Circumstantial
  

  that person's employment, nationality, political affiliation: a person's circumstances require or reject his/her conclusion.
  

  tu quoque: "Look who's talking!" Who is Bill Clinton to attack anybody's morals in light of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Yet fallacious argument. Osama Bin Laden: the U.S. can't accuse me of terrorism in light of all the terrorist acts the U.S. has perpetrated around the world.
  

  Poisoning the well. Charging a person with untrustworthiness because he belongs to a group: prejudice.
  

  Now different in a court of law in which you undermine the witness' trustworthiness based upon showing contradictions in his testimony, or show that he has something to gain by testifying.
  

  "an attack on the person of the witness does not establish the falsehood of what had been asserted. . . . may [simply] cast doubt on the reliability of the speaker, but the truth or falsity of the factual claim made can be established only with evidence that bears directly on that claim."
  

  
  

"Threats or strong-arm methods to coerce one's opponents." Argumentum ad Baculum literally means "appeal to the stick." "Might makes right." Threaten people with a lawsuit or with the loss of their job.

R7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

"Irrelevant conclusion and mistaken refutation. It arises when the argument goes awry . . ., there is a 'disconnect' between the premises and the conclusion. . . . [may] be an instrument of deliberate deception . . . [or] the product of sloppy thinking." elenchi Latin word from Greek which means "disproof" or "refutation": a mistaken refutation, "one that goes haywire because the person presenting it does not fully understand the proposition in dispute."

"Objectives stated in general terms--national security, a balanced budget--are easy to ebdorse; the difficult questions in dispute are likely to be whether some particular proposed measure . . . will in fact promote the end sought, and whether it is likely to do so as effectively and efficiently as its alternatives.

"Premises that are not relevant--red herrings, straw men, personal attacks--all miss the point . . . But we reserve this name for those fallacies of irrelevance that do not fit into other categories. . . . [it is] is a catchall class of fallacies: fallacies in which the premises simply fail to connect to the intended conclusion with the coherence that rational argument requires.

non sequitur: "does not follow." "the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.

4.4 Fallacies of Defective Induction

Fallcies of defective induction: "in which the premises are relevant and yet are wholly inadequate."

D1. The Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

argues something is true (or false) because it hasn't shown to be false (or true). "Just because some proposition has not yet been proved false, we are not entitled to conclude that it is true. . . . Ignorance sometimes obliges us to suspend judgment, assigning neither truth nor falsity to the proposition in doubt."

In science: "plausible claims are held to be false because evidence of their truth cannot be provided." In archeology and paleontology: time may have destroyed evidence; therefore, cannot prove one way or the other. Suspend judgment then.

Phrases used wrong (argument from ignorance): "How do we know it will work? How do we know that it is safe?"

"the fact that certain evidence or results have not been obtained, even after they have been actively sought in ways calculated to reveal them, may have substantial argumentative force." Also, be careful about setting the standard too high...if applied evenly, you wouldn't be able to prove or conclude ANYTHING! "not to draw a conclusion . . . is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion."

Good use of argument from ignorance: our courts "presumed innocent until proven guilty"--the reasoning behind this is that it is better to err on protecting the innocent (with a few guilty getting off free) than to err on punishing the guilty (with a few innocent getting punished).

D2. The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

"when someone argues that a proposition is true because an expert in a given field has said that it is true. . . . predicated upon the feeling of respect that people have for the famous. . . . experts disagree, and even when they are in agreement they may be wrong. However, reference to an authority in an area of competence may carry some weight, but it doesn't prove a conclusion. . . . even experts need to rely upon empirical evidence and rational inference."

"The fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority arises when the appeal is made to parties who have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. . . . in an argument about morality, an appeal to the opinions of Darwin . . . would be fallacious . . ." {appeal to Hawking in the area of philosophy is committing this fallacy.]

Middle Ages appealed to Aristotle about the moon whereas Galileo appealed to the evidence from the telescope.

Flagrant examples: advertising testimonials: Tiger Woods promoting a certain brand of car, football player promoting a foundation repair company, etc.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam: phrase coined by John Locke "whose criticism was directed chiefly at those who think that citing learned authorities is enough to win any argument, who think it 'a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question authority,' and 'who style it impudence in anyone who shall stand out against them.'" From An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.

"however, if the experts we chose deserved their reputations for knowledge, it was not fallacy to consult them even if they erred."

D3. False Cause (Argumentum non Causa pro Causa)

"any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of some thing or event what is not really its cause must be seriously mistaken. . . led to suppose, that we understand some specific cause-and-effect relations when in fact we do not."

Sometimes there may be a dispute on whether or not there is direct cause and effect. Simply because something follows something else in time does NOT mean there is a cause-and-effect relationship going on. "Mere temporal succession does not establish a causal connection." post hoc ergo propter hoc: "after this, therefore because of this."

The slippery slope argument is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Yet Copi admits that some actions actually can set a precedent which will lead to other decisions which will produce more harmful effects.

D4. Hasty Generalizations

Stereotyping things, people, situations, etc.

General claims . . ."The universality of their application ought never be accepted or assumed without justification. . . . when we draw conclusions about all the persons or things in a given class on the basis of our knowledge about only one (or only a very few) of the members of that class." We can stereotype people, governments, cultures, etc.

One person who eats fatty goods and yet has low cholesterol levels does NOT mean that fatty foods do not raise cholesterol levels.

4.5 Fallacies of Presumption

"an unjustified assumption. . . . the reader, the listener, and even the author of the passage may be led to assume the truth of some unproved and unwarranted proposition. When such dubious propositions, buried in the argument, are crucial for the support of the conclusion, the argument is bad and can be very misleading."

P1. Accident

A generalization may be good in most cases; however, there can be special circumstances--called "accidents"—which may unravel that generalization. For example, "hearsay" evidence is really not good evidence in a court of law; HOWEVER, if the person is dead and cannot give his testimony, somebody who HEARD him SAY and who may actually suffer because he repeats the hearsay testimony—that hearsay evidence may be appropriate in determining the outcome of the case.

P2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

"to ask a question in such a way as to presupposed the truth of some conclusion that is buried in the question. The question itself is likely to be rhetorical with no answer actually being sought. But putting the question seriously, thereby introducing its presupposition surreptitiously, often achieves the questioner's purpose—fallaciously.

Yellow journalism: Headline--"Judge took bribe?" A loaded question is another example. Unfairly complex.

Robert's Rules of Order: divide the question into its component parts and then answer or respond to each part individually. "The denial of only one presupposition may lead to the assumption of the truth of the other. In law, this has been called 'the negative pregnant.'"

P3. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

"of assuming the truth of what one seeks to prove." "to 'beg' the question is to ask, or to suppose, that the very matter in controversy be conceded." The arguments are circular. "The presumption that is the heart of the fallacy is buried in the verbiage of the premises, sometimes obscured by confusing or unrecognized synonyms."

Major example: David Hume questioned the assumption that the future will always be like the past because up to this point the future has always been like the past. Because of his pointing out that this was begging the question, philosophers now ponder other issues: "How can we know that future futures will be like past futures. They may be so, of course, but we cannot assume that they will be for the sake of proving that they will."

The words "beg the question" are sometimes used wrongly or not in the way a logician would use them. E.g., "The President's decision to invade Iraq begs the question . . . " Has NOTHING to do with logic.

4.6 Fallacies of Ambiguity

"The meaning of words or phrases may shirt . . . A term may have one sense in a premise but quite a different sense in the conclusion. . . fallacies of ambiguity . . .'sophisms.'"

A1. Equivocation

"Most words have more than one literal meaning, and most of the time we have no difficulty keeping those meanings separate by nothing the context and using our good sense when reading and listening. Yet when we confuse the several meanings of a word or phrase . . .fallacy of equivocation."

Alice in Wonderland:
"Who did you pass on the road?"
"Nobody."
"Quite right . . . this young lady saw him too. So of course Nobody walks slower than you."

"The misuse of 'relative' terms, which have different meanings in different contexts." "Tall" and "small" are relative terms. The tall man and the tall building...are 2 different contexts. Small animal and small elephant. You can legitimately say, "That is a small elephant," but ridiculous to say, "That small elephant is a small animal."

A2. Amphiboly

"when one is arguing from premises whose formulations are ambiguous because of their grammatical construction. . . . the loose or awkward way in which its words are combined. An amphibolous statement may be true in one interpretation and false in another. When it is stated as premise with the interpretation that makes it true, and a conclusion is drawn from it that makes it false"--this is amphiboly.

Beware of dangling participles and phrases: "Dr. Salick donated, along with his wife, Gloria, $4.5 million to Queen's College." Was Gloria tax-deductible?

A3. Accent

"the shift is the result of a change in emphasis on a single word or phrase, whose meaning does not change. When the premise of an argument relies on one possible emphasis, but a conclusion drawn from it relies on the meaning of the same words emphasized differently:--fallacy of accent.

Example: "We should not speak ill of our friends."
"WE should not speak ill of our friends."—but OTHERS can speak ill of them.
"We should not SPEAK ill of our friends."—but we can DO ill towards our friends, just don't speak ill of them.
"We should not speak ill of our FRIENDS."—but we can speak ill of our enemies.
In all 3 instances, the shift in emphasis can lead to different conclusions.

Ripping statements out of context can really lead to committing this fallacy OR quoting just part of a statement (This is NOT the funniest show of the year" can become "Funniest show of the year!"

Literal truth may be spoken in a way to mislead: Captain: "The first mate is drunk today." First mate: "The captain is sober today." Another example: "He didn't beat his wife today," thereby implying he beats her on other days.

A4. Composition

reasoning fallaciously from the attributes of the parts of a whole to the atributes of the whole itself. E.g.: because evry part of a machine is light, the whole machine is light. (There may be so many parts, though, that the machine is heavy.)

reasoning from attributes of the individual elements or memebrs of acollection to attributes of the collection or totality of those elements: a bus uses more gas than a car; therefore, the buses in the US use more gas than the cars (but there are so many more cars that this statement is false.) The problem is not distinguishing between the "distributive" use of a term and its "collective" use. This college studnet studied theology; therefore, all college students study theology--FALSE!

an invalid inference that what may truly be predicated of aterm distributively may also be truly predicated of the term collectively. "the nuclear bpmbs dropped during World War II did more damage that did the ordinary bombs dropped--but only distributively. The matter is exactly reversed when the two kinds of bombs are considered collectively, because so many more conventional bombs were dropped than nuclear ones.

A5. Division

the reverse of the fallacy of composition. . . . the inference proceeds in the opposite direction. . . . arguing fallaciously that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts. Because First Baptist Church is large, the pastor of FBC is large. Because the USA is important, I (one of its citizens) am important. A machine is heavy; therefore, its component parts individually are heavy.

when one argues from the attributes of a collection of elements to the attributes of the individual] elements themselves: E.g.: College students ("collectively") study bio, zoo, English, phil, math, socio-, nursing, mechanics; since Carey ("distributively" or individually) is a college student, he studies bio, zoo, English, phil, math, socio-, nursing, mechanics (which would not necessarily be true).

Dogs are frequently found in the streets; Irish Terriers are dogs; therefore, Irish Terriers are frequently found in the streets.--FALSE!
American Indians are disappearing; that man is an American Indian; therefore, that man is disappearing.

Don't confuse Hasty Generalization with Composition:
Because 2 parts of a machine are in good shape, all parts of the machine are in good shape--Hasty generalization.
Because all the parts of a machine are in good shape, the machine is in good shape--Composition ambiguity (all the parts may not have been connected properly).

Don't confuse fallacy of division with fallacy of accident:
Accident: because some rules apply in general, there are no special circumstances in which they may not apply.
Division: because a race has a certain attribute, each member of that race has that attribute; an army is invincible; therefore, every member of that army is invincible.