Fallacy
A fallacy is an argument based on false assumptions and/or poorly executed reasoning. Fallacies undermine both the clarity and development of a paper or speech and detract from the overall logic of the piece. When used a fallacy disrupts the argumentation and causes the chain of points to deviate from the intended purpose of support.
Fallacies can be broken down into three main areas:
Deductive or Informal Fallacies
A Deductive or Informal Fallacy is a failure to accurately follow a series of statements. It's an unclear connection between points or support.
Affirming the Consequent: If x then y; y; therefore x.
i.e. If hippies controlled the US we'd have a lot more peace and happiness, and since we see less violence and people enjoying themselves in hippy communities it would be best if hippies controlled the country.
Denying the Antecedent: If g then h; not g; therefore not h.
i.e. If communism was so great it would still be existent; communism is basically gone in the world therefore communism isn't great.
Either/or Fallacy: Simplification of a complex and multifaceted issue into a simplistic dichotomy, creating only two alternatives when numerous others exist.
i.e. Either humans are creatures created in the image of Lord or we are just the creations of happenstance and random occurence.
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow): drawing conclusions from logically unrelated proof. i.e. Since Buddha understood humanity so well, he must've been a killer anthropologist. Inductive or Informal Fallacies An Inductive or Informal Fallacy employs evidence to incorrect ends. Faulty Analogy: assuming that if two things share similarities, that they must be similar in all ways. i.e. Americans are a fear-based, apocalypse-obsessed people. Similarly, totalitarian dictatorships rely on fear and religion to control the masses. America must be totalitarian dictatorship. Faulty Cause: assuming that when one event is followed by another the first caused the second. ie. The monkey picked his nose and made the world shook. We must restrain that monkey and chop off his arms, we must not allow the world to shake again. Faulty Generalization ( Hasty Generalization): relying on too few resources or facts to make an assumption or argument. ie. That dog bit me, therefore all dogs will rip any person's face off if given the chace.
Hybrid Fallacies
A Hybrid Fallacy is a mixture of both Inductive or Informal Fallacies and Deductive or Formal Fallacies.
Ad Crumenam: assumption that money denotes veracity.
ie. Steve Jobs is rich because of his ipod. The ipod must be the best portable mp3 on the market.
Ad Hominem (Against the Man): there are two forms of Ad Hominem. The first is the abusive form. In an attempt to invalidate a claim, one calls into question the character of the advocate and draws attention away from the claim.
i.e. This man's belief is completely erroneous, he is pathological liar.
Or, the second is by comparing the advocate's claim to other reviled proponeAnts.
i.e. That may seem valid but Hitler, Stalin and Guerva were for universal health care and a socialist system as well.
Ad Misericordiam: Appeal to pity.
i.e. When I ran that elderly woman over my head was elsewhere. My wife left me. I lost custody of my two children. She took everything: my house, my savings and the best years of my life. Haven't I been punished enough?
Ad Nauseam: The use of constant repitition to reinforce assumption.
i.e. God created the world in seven days. It says He did it right in Genesis. Only seven days. There is no room for interpretation. Evolution can't be right. God created the world in only seven days. Just read Gensis to know the truth. It's right there. Seven days.
Ad Populum (to the people): using emotive language and the audiences's biases/prejudices in order to garner support for an issue.
i.e. America is the greatest country on the face of the earth, the greatest nation that has ever existed and by allowing gay marriage we sully the very reputation of this nation that is based on the Christian values of our intelligent founding fathers.
Anecdotal Evidence: An argument that relies on anecdotes and isolated examples.
ie. Flouride is detrimental to the human body. My neighbor's daughter drank water and she wound up almost dying.
Petito Principii (Begging the Question): supporting ones conclusion by restating the conclusion in different language; assuming that the issue is inherently valid.
i.e. My pastor says the world is two thousand years old. He got it from the Bible. The Bible is true. Therefore, my pastor is correct.
Plurium Interrogation: the use of a closed ended question to dichotomize a multifaceted topic. Often involves the use many questions.
i.e. "Is California so large it needs to be divided? Why won't the other states and the federal government allow it? Because it creates more electoral votes? Does it, yes or no?"
Red Herring: by introducing irrelevant but seemingly related evidence it diverts attention away from the actual issue.
i.e. You think that this war is a lost cause? What about the war widows of Iraq? Their husbands die, and we have the audacity to want to end things now? We cannot let their deaths be in vein we must continue to fight this war for those that have given the ultimate sacrifice.
Slippery Slope: predicts, without justification or warrant, that should the issue be allowed then it will lead, unaviodably, to another, often less appealing than the first.
ie. If gay marriage is allowed then polygomists will want the same rights. Then every pervert will come out of the woodwork and demand their rights to marry animals, children, terrorists and inanimate objects.
Sources:
Dowden, Bradley. "Fallacies". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2006. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 25 Nov. 2007. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm>
Unlike the site above, with its questionable author, this site appears to be one of the most reliable sources I have come across. It was done by a professor from Sacramento State and it is incredibly well done. Links are situated throughout the paper every possible synonym to a fallacy is listed, and is then bounced up to the main article. The definitions, though, were a little on the longer side and sometimes only compounded my confusion and sometimes made me angrier than I had been prior to seeing the page. I included it though because it did help corroborate the source above. Another downside of the site is its propensity to use that same insipid education-speak that so many find so incredibly useless. The site was useful though in helping to decipher or write my own meanings for some of the fallacies. Atheism tended to be annoyingly short and hard to rephrase or phrase in a seemingly more concise manner but this site gave me room to breathe and also allowed me to see what was confusing for me, and in my mind other beginning students, and to effectively counter that. This is
"Fallacies: A List of Common Fallacies". BC Skeptics.
"Logic and Fallacies: Constructing a Logical Argument." Atheism: Logic and Fallacies. 1997. Internet Infidels. 11 Nov. 2007. <http://www.infidels.org/library/moder/mathew/logic.html>
This was probably the best and most useful site that I came across. The author really sells the Atheism portion of his site, keeping his fallacies politically charged. This actually helped me immensely when it came time for me to discern the subtle differences between some kinds fallacies. It was also immensely useful in locating the illogical portion of the argument or the other errors. The site also had funny sentences as well. And when researching a topic that one has little to no knowledge beforehand, or lacks the ambition or drive to complete fallacy assignments, humor helps. This site also had the largest collection of fallacies I could find, and some that were idiosyncratic to this site alone. Overall a great site I would suggest to all students who are just beginning to delve into the world of fallacies.
McVay, Ken. "Fallacies". The Nizkor Project. 2005. The Nizkor Project. 21 Nov. 2007. <http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/>
I didn't quite understand this sites need for fallacies--the site is dedicated to constantly keeping the Holocaust fresh in the minds of people--but after seeing a few sites after this one I knew that the information was correct. Fallacies aren't incredibly difficult things to corroborate. I found it fairly easy to know if a site was reputable or not. Most of the sites I came across did not make bold claims but rather substantiated ones that were later reaffirmed by other sites. This site in particular, being the first site I came across, had all of the common fallacies and then had the definition. It did do somethings I found a bit weird, the site was set up awkwardly and then the examples given on the main page seem to contain errors. I did find this source useful when trying to corroborate others or when I was looking for similar terms from the Critical Writing handout. I think a site dedicated to the memory of Holocaust survivors and their deceased relatives that then discusses fallacies is quite the non sequitur. I find the irony amusing.
Whitman, Glen. "Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate." Glen Whitman's Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate. 29 January 2001. CSU Northridge. 15 Nov. 2007. <http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/index.html>
Where I usually despise the use of latin names for the fallacies, I found that with this site it was not a destraction or a deterrent. The site is again done by a professor from another CSU college and is therefore done in a similar education speak. I found that this source was far more accessible to a student audience. The author writes down each problem with the fallacy and implicates the difficulty in finding the fallacy, or the commonality. He does not for one second treat his audience like an ignorant mass of incoming students but instead seems to hold a dialogue between himself and each student individually. He allays fears and discusses common misconceptions--things like the relative ease of spotting a non sequitur and then talks about how, though recognizably bad, the fallacy is incredibly common. Whitman's site is not arrogant and it attracted me when I couldn't grasp some of the fallacies listed on other sites. I did not feel stupid when I looked there I just felt new.
Writing Lab. "Logic in Argumentative Writing: Logical Fallacies." The OWL at Purdue. 2007. OWL. 15 Nov. 2007. <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/03/>
When I saw Purdue I was giddy, when I saw that it too had a Writing Center I gave birth. I believe that in the course of things if Purdue should produce anything pertaining to education it should be included. This site briefly discusses fallacies and defines some major ones but the reason I found this site so appealing was its way of handling fallacies. Fallacies weren't their own entity removed, sterile-like, from the realm of critical writing and given their own page, entities to stand alone; instead the site lumps it in with developing writers. It makes it a small portion of the overall discussion of writing. I found that quite appealing. It is especially useful for disenchanted students who may have problems discerning the necessity for memorizing and practicing these fallacies. It grounds fallacies in something else, making it a cog in a machine rather than its own cyborg. For fallacies alone this site is nothing special but in critical writing it is excellent.
Last Updated: November 25, 2007
by Derek McCoy
dsm31@humboldt.edu
