Formal fallacy

In philosophy, a formal fallacy (also called

deductive fallacy) is a pattern of
reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its
logical structure that can neatly be
expressed in a standard logic system, for
example propositional logic.[1] An
argument that contains a fallacy is invalid.
However, this may not impact the truth of
the argument since validity and truth are
separate in formal logic. For example,
there could be a correlation between the
number of times it rains and whenever a
day is Tuesday, which could lead one to
believe that "Tuesdays are days when it
rains." However, in this case one would
commit the ad hoc fallacy because there
is no causal link between a day of the
week and how often it rains. So, although
it may be true in one's own perception it is
impossible to validate using logic.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an

informal fallacy, which may have a valid
logical form and yet be invalid because
one or more premises are false.
"Fallacious arguments usually have the
deceptive appearance of being good
arguments."[2] Recognizing fallacies in
everyday arguments may be difficult since
arguments are often embedded in
rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical
connections between statements.
Informal fallacies may also exploit the
emotional, intellectual, or psychological
weaknesses of the audience. Recognizing
fallacies can develop reasoning skills to
expose the weaker links between premises
and conclusions to better discern between
what appears to be true and what is true.
Argumentation theory provides a different
approach to understanding and classifying
fallacies. In this approach, an argument is
regarded as an interactive protocol
between individuals that attempts to
resolve their disagreements. The protocol
is regulated by certain rules of interaction,
so violations of these rules are fallacies.

Fallacies are used in place of valid

reasoning to communicate a point with the
intention to persuade. Examples in the
mass media today include but are not
limited to propaganda, advertisements,
politics, newspaper editorials and opinion-
based “news” shows.
In contrast to informal fallacy
Formal logic is not used to determine
whether or not an argument is true. Formal
arguments can either be valid or invalid. A
valid argument may also be sound or
unsound:

A valid argument has a correct formal

structure. A valid argument is one where
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must be true.
A sound argument is a formally correct
argument that also contains true
premises.
Ideally, the best kind of formal argument is
a sound, valid argument.

Formal fallacies do not take into account

the soundness of an argument, but rather
its validity. Premises in formal logic are
commonly represented by letters (most
commonly p and q). A fallacy occurs when
the structure of the argument is incorrect,
despite the truth of the premises.

As modus ponens, the following argument

contains no formal fallacies:

1. If P then Q
2. P
3. Therefore Q
A logical fallacy associated with this
format of argument is referred to as
affirming the consequent, which would
look like this:

1. If P then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P

This is a fallacy because it does not take

into account other possibilities. To
illustrate this more clearly, substitute the
letters with premises:

1. If it rains, the street will be wet.

2. The street is wet.
3. Therefore, it rained.
Although it is possible that this conclusion
is true, it does not necessarily mean it
must be true. The street could be wet for a
variety of other reasons that this argument
does not take into account. However, if we
look at the valid form of the argument, we
can see that the conclusion must be true:

1. If it rains, the street will be wet.

2. It rained.
3. Therefore, the street is wet.

This argument is valid and, if it did rain, it

would also be sound.

If statements 1 and 2 are true, it absolutely

follows that statement 3 is true. However,
it may still be the case that statement 1 or
2 is not true. For example:

1. If Albert Einstein makes a statement

about science, it is correct.
2. Albert Einstein states that all quantum
mechanics is deterministic.
3. Therefore, it's true that quantum
mechanics is deterministic.

In this case, statement 1 is false. The

particular informal fallacy being
committed in this assertion is argument
from authority. By contrast, an argument
with a formal fallacy could still contain all
true premises:
1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is
rich.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Though, 1 and 2 are true statements, 3

does not follow because the argument
commits the formal fallacy of affirming
the consequent.

An argument could contain both an

informal fallacy and a formal fallacy yet
lead to a conclusion that happens to be
true, for example, again affirming the
consequent, now also from an untrue
premise:
1. If a scientist makes a statement about
science, it is correct.
2. It is true that quantum mechanics is
deterministic.
3. Therefore, a scientist has made a
statement about it.

Common examples
"Some of your key evidence is missing,
incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm
right!"[3]

"The vet can't find any reasonable

explanation for why my dog died. See! See!
That proves that you poisoned him! There’s
no other logical explanation!"[4]
"Adolf Hitler liked dogs. He was evil.
Therefore, liking dogs is evil."[5]

See also
Informal fallacy
List of fallacies
Apophasis
Cognitive bias
Demagogy
Fallacy
Fallacies of definition
False statement
Informal logic
Invalid proof
 Paradox
Sophism
Soundness
Validity
Modus tollens
Syllogistic fallacy
Scientific misconceptions

References
Notes
1. Harry J. Gensler, The A to Z of Logic
(2010) p. 74. Rowman & Littlefield,
ISBN 9780810875968
2. Damer, T. Edward (2009), "Fallacious
arguments usually have..." , Attacking Faulty
Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free
Arguments (6th ed.), Belmont, California:
Wadsworth, p. 52, ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4,
retrieved 30 November 2010  See also
Wikipedia article on book
3. "Master List of Logical Fallacies" .
utminers.utep.edu.
4. Daniel Adrian Doss; William H. Glover, Jr.;
Rebecca A. Goza; Michael Wigginton, Jr. (17
October 2014). The Foundations of
Communication in Criminal Justice
Systems . CRC Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-
4822-3660-6. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
5. "Hitler Ate Sugar" . TV Tropes.org.
Bibliography
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations , De
Sophistici Elenchi.
William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca.
1323) Part III.4.
John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica
Book VII.
Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols
in Novum Organum Scientiarum,
Aphorisms concerning The
Interpretation of Nature and the
Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff .
The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst,
Recht zu behalten – The Art Of
Controversy (bilingual) , by Arthur
Schopenhauer
John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic –
Raciocinative and Inductive . Book 5,
Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion .
C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies . Methuen
London, 1970.
Fearnside, W. Ward and William B.
Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of
Argument , 1959.
Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A
Crash Course in Reflection and
Expression, New York: Automatic Press /
VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies:
Toward a Logic of Historical Thought,
Harper Torchbooks, 1970.
Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A
handbook for critical argumentation.
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst,
Argumentation, Communication and
Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical
Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum and
Associates, 1992.
Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z,
Routledge 1998.
Sagan, Carl, The Demon-Haunted World:
Science As a Candle in the Dark.
Ballantine Books, March 1997 ISBN 0-
345-40946-9, 480 pp. 1996 hardback
edition: Random House, ISBN 0-394-
 53512-X

External links
Wikiversity has learning resources about
Recognizing Fallacies

The Fallacy Files by Gary N. Curtis –

real examples posted regularly
ESGE Logical Fallacies – European
Society for General Semantics
Logical Fallacies .Info
Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical
Fallacies
Marilyn vos Savant explains Logical
Fallacies
 Overview of fallacies
Logic: An Invalid Approach [1]

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Formal_fallacy&oldid=814848034"

Last edited 1 month ago by Jim1138

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.