FALLACIES

WEEK 4 – FALLACIES AND FALLACIOUS REASONING

AIMS

• To understand what a sound argument is

• To understand what a valid argument is
• To know what a fallacy is
• To know how identify fallacious reasoning in an argument
VALIDITY
• Validity is a very important concept in critical thinking
• A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the
premises
• An argument is valid if and only if there is no logically possible situation
in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false
• Whenever we have a valid argument, if the premises are all true, then
the conclusion must also be true
• This is to say that if you use only valid arguments in your reasoning, as
long as you start with true premises, you will never ed up with a false
conclusion
EXAMPLE

Fatmata is 20 years old

Therefore, Fatmata is more than 10 years old
VALIDITY IN ARGUMENTS

• In the previous example the argument is obviously valid since

it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the
premise is true
• However, notice that the validity of the argument can be
determined without knowing whether the premise and the
conclusion are actually true or not
• Validity is about the logical connection between the
premise and conclusion
EXAMPLE

Every bird can fly

Every bat is a bird
Every bat can fly
VALIDITY IN ARGUMENTS

• So it is possible to have a valid argument where both

premises are false
• You can also have a valid argument with false premises and
false conclusions as long as the conclusion follows on from
the argument
• What is not possible is to have a valid argument with true
premises but a false conclusion
INVALID ARGUMENTS

• Arguments are either valid or invalid

• This is not the same as them being true or false
• An argument is invalid as long as there is at least one logically possible
situation where its premises are true and the conclusion is false
• It does not really matter whether the situation is realistic or whether it
actually happens
• What is important is that it is coherent and does not have any contradiction
• A single invalidating counterexample is enough to prove an argument is
invalid
SOUNDNESS

• In a valid argument, all we know is that if the premises are true, so is

the conclusion
• But validity does not tell us whether the premises or the conclusion are
actually true
• If an argument is valid and all the premises are true, then it is called a
sound argument
• The conclusion of a sound argument must then be true
• An argument that is not sound is an unsound argument
SOUND ARGUMENTS

• Presenting a sound argument is the best way to support an opinion

• The conclusion of the argument will be true
• Anyone who disagrees would have to show that at least one premise is
false or that the argument is invalid or both
FALLACIES

• The word fallacy is often used to describe a popular mistaken belief

• E.g. ‘Fat is bad’
• However, such factual mistakes are not regarded as fallacies in critical
thinking
• A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning
• Under this definition, a person can commit a fallacy without making any
factual error
• One commits a fallacy when the reasons given in support of a claim
(conclusion) fail to justify its acceptance
EXAMPLE

Some cats have short tails

Some cats have black hair
Some cats have short tails and black hair
FALLACIES

• The previous argument is not a good argument because the conclusion

does not follow from the premises
• It is possible that those cats with short tails are different from those with
black hair
• Yes, some cats have both short tails and black hair, so the premises
and the conclusions are all true
• But it is still a bad argument
TYPES OF FALLACIES

Fallacies may be divided into four types

• Inconsistency – making an inconsistent or self-defeating claim
• Inappropriate assumption – assuming something without good
reason
• Irrelevance – appealing to irrelevant information
• Insufficiency – evidence too weak to support conclusion
FALLACIES OF INCONSISTENCY
• Fallacies of inconsistency are cases in which someone proposes or accepts
a claim that is contradictory or self defeating
• A contradiction entails both a statement and its negation
• E.g. ‘it is raining and it is not raining’
• Most contradictions we encounter hare usually not this obvious
• E.g. ‘we cannot know anything because we know from our experience that
perception is unreliable’
• This statement is a contradiction because if we know that perception is
unreliable then there is at least one thing we know
FALLACIES OF INCONSISTENCY

• A self-refuting statement is like a contradiction, but not quite the same

• E.g. ‘I cannot speak English’
• This statement is self-refuting because the speaker has just spoken in
English
• It is not contradictory however, because the sentence describes a
logically possible situation
• E.g. ‘I do not want to comment on my horrible ex-boyfriend’
• It is logically possible that someone says nothing about their horrible
ex-boyfriend, but to say someone is horrible is to pass a comment
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION
• Fallacies of inappropriate assumption are fallacies for which an assumption
has been made, but the assumption is not justified in the context in question
• In a circular argument, the conclusion appears as a premise
• E.g. ‘life sucks because it does’
• Sometimes the conclusion might not be the same as the premise
• E.g. ‘we should study critical thinking because critical thinking is a worthwhile
subject’
• But it is still circular because in effect the conclusion is equivalent to the
premise
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION

Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman

Therefore, gay marriage is unacceptable
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION
• This is strictly speaking not a circular argument because the conclusion is not
equivalent to the premise
• It rules out not just gay marriage but also marriage with children, pets, etc.
• But the arguments those who support gay marriage surely would not agree to
the proposed definition
• For them, it is unclear why marriage cannot be understood more broadly as a
pact of lifelong commitment between two adults deeply in love, without regard
to gender
• So this argument is problematic because it assumes something its opponent
is likely to deny
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION

• In false dilemma, a set of alternatives is assumed without good reason

to be the only ones worth considering
• In this an argument might assume either P or Q is true, when in fact
there are other realistic possibilities
• An author might offer certain alternatives because it supports the point
they are trying to make, whilst leaving out other which may counter their
point
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION
Is human nature good or evil? Before jumping to a conclusion, note that
the question assumes (a) there is such a thing as human nature, and (b)
it
is either good or evil. Are they really justified? Maybe there is no fixed
nature
and it all depends on the environment. Or perhaps some people have
a good nature and others an evil one. And can human nature be morally
neutral? These are all alternatives we should explore.
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE
ASSUMPTION
• Fallacies of inappropriate assumption also include loaded questions
• E.g. ‘did you wash your hands after killing the victim?’
• This presupposes that you did kill the victim
• Whether you answer yes or no, you confess that you are the killer
• But if it has not be proven that you have killed anyone, it would be wrong to
force you to give either an affirmative or negative answer
• A loaded question combines more that one question that should be broken
up
• ‘did you kill the victim? If so, did you wash your hand afterward?
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

• In fallacies of irrelevance, irrelevant information is used in reasoning

or a discussion
• Personal attack is one example, in which a claim is criticised not by
evaluating the claim itself but by attacking the background or the
character of the person who made the claim
Businessman: The government should lower profit tax
Commentator: You say that because you are a greedy capitalist
• It might be true that the businessman is greedy, but it is irrelevant to the
issue of whether tax should be lowered
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

• A rational discussion about the correctness of the businessman’s claim

should focus on the real issues of tax instead
• This is not to say that motive and character are always irrelevant, it is
legitimate to consider these factors if they bear on the reputation and
reliability of the person
• Fallacies of irrelevance are arguments by which something is argues to
be true based on an inappropriate appeal to irrelevant sources
EXAMPLES

• It has been an established tradition in the Japanese town of Taiji to

hunt and kill thousands of dolphins every year. It is therefore wrong for
foreigners to criticize it. (appeal to tradition)
• Arthur Conan Doyle, who created Sherlock Holmes, probably had a
drinking problem. His father was an alcoholic, (fallacy of origin, or
equivalently, genetic fallacy)
• MIT Professor Negroponte said (in 2010) that physical books will be
dead in five years. So that must be true, (appeal to authority)
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE

• It is not always a fallacy to appeal to tradition, origin, or authority

• But we should only do so if we have goo independent reasons for
taking them into account
• E.g appealing to origin can be legitimate - a fish from a heavily polluted
lake is likely to be polluted as well, but only because we know nasty
chemicals can transfer from the water to the fish
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENCY

• Fallacies of insufficiency apply to arguments, for which the premises

are too weak to support the conclusion, even it they are relevant. These
include;
• Hasty generalisation (or overgeneralisation)
• Ignoring alternatives
• Invalidity due to wrong argument pattern
• Weak analogy
HASTY GENERALISATION

• This is the mistakes of thinking that a few limited cases we have

observed are representative of the whole situation
• Suppose someone argues that it is useless to go to university because
successful entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark
Zuckerberg all drop out of university
• This decision would be too hasty because not everyone ends up as
successful entrepreneurs
IGNORING ALTERNATIVES

• This overlaps with the fallacy of false dilemma

• A lot of reasoning in science and everyday life is a matter of inferring a
conclusion based on limited evident
• Think of a doctor who tries to establish the cause of an illness by
observing the symptoms
• Many different hypotheses might be compatible with the evidence,
some more plausible than other
• Our conclusion will be too weak if we fail to consider all relevant
alternatives before selecting the one we think is most likely
INVALIDITY DUE TO WRONG ARGUMENT
PATTERN

• Sometimes people might think the conclusi9on of their argument must

be true given their premises but the argument is in fact not valid
• This might be due to a misunderstanding about the patterns of
arguments that guarantee validity
• That is to say they do not understand what it means to create a valid
and sound argument
WEAK ANALOGY

• Analogy - a comparison between one thing and another, typically for

the purpose of explanation or clarification
• Analogical reasoning is common and very useful
• Analogies are something that we use in everyday life
• However, we need to make sure that the things being compared are
relevantly similar to make an analogy work and make sense
• When they are not similar enough it leads to a weak analogy
OTHER FALLACIES
RED HERRING

• The red herring fallacy is used as a technique to throw someone off the
scent of an argument by distracting them with an irrelevant piece of
information
• When an irrelevant premise(s) is given as a reason for accepting the
conclusion being advance, the red herring fallacy is committed
• E.g. The judge should rule against the charge of false accounting
against the President. The President is very popular, and presides over
an extremely healthy economy.
RED HERRING

• In the example the arguer seems to push the President’s popularity as

the reason to rule against the charge of financial corruption
• If we make the reasonable assumption that the judge should rule
strictly on the basis of the President’s guilt or innocence, then the
President’s popularity is irrelevant
• In general, the red herring fallacy is that of inferring a conclusion from a
premise that is strictly irrelevant to it, but in a way that has the potential
to fool the audience into accepting the inference
RED HERRING

• Normally, the acceptance of the irrelevant premised is accomplished by

a premise that tends to instil some sort of positive attitude towards the
conclusion
• In this case, the premise is intended to make the audience feel
supportive towards the presented, and they unreceptive to the idea that
he should be convicted of misconduct
SLIPPERY SLOPE

• This fallacy occurs when an arguer wrongly assumes that to permit or

forbid a course of action will inevitable lead to the occurrence of further
related and undesirable events
• Without providing good reasons to suppose that the further events will
indeed inevitably follow
• So, to allow the first is the to tread on a slippery slope down which we
will slide to the other events
SLIPPERY SLOPE

• Since its rhetorical power is derived from fear or dislike of the

undesirable event, it is closely related to the appeal to fear
• Slippery slope arguments are sometimes used to justify particularly
harsh laws or sentences
• As such, they frequently occur in debates surround legal issues
EXAMPLE

The decriminalisation of cannabis would be just the start. It

would
lead to a downward spiral into widespread abuse of harder
drugs
like heroin and cocaine.
SLIPPERY SLOPE

• The implicit conclusion is that cannabis should not be decriminalised

• The only explicit premise is that if cannabis were decriminalised then
the use of hard drugs would increase

If cannabis were to be decriminalised, the use of hard drugs would

increase
Cannabis should not be decriminalised
SLIPPERY SLOPE
• As the argument stands it is invalid
• To correct this, we need to add a premise to make good the connection
between the flexible premise and the non-flexible conclusion
• Thus, ending up with the following;

If cannabis use were decriminalised, the use of hard drugs would

increase
Anything that leads to increased use of harder drugs should be avoided
Cannabis should not be decriminalised
SLIPPERY SLO0PE

• The immediate problem is that we have not been given a reason to

think that premise 1 is true
• That is, no reason to think that decriminalisation of cannabis will
unavoidably be the beginning of a slippery slope to an increase in the
use of hard drugs
• As the argument stands it is fallacious, because the arguer has not
given a reason for supposing it is inevitable that allowing the first event
will lead into even worse events
READING

https://www.zarvana.com/8-critical-thinking-fallacies-youre-likel
y-falling-for-on-social-media/