Reasoning and Fallacies

Engel, Morris. The Study of Philosophy. California: Collegiate Press, 1987.

Aristotle and the Art of Thinking

How do we make decisions? How do we assess other decisions and arguments? How do we
know what is right and wrong, good and evil? These are fundamental questions of ethics.

Ethics is the study of moral behavior, its underlying moral principles, and their rational
justifications. Ethics involves critical reflection on and self-confrontation with the moral choices
that arise daily. Whatever our decisions are in countless situations involving questions of right
and wrong, they should reflect an understanding of sound moral principles and the importance of
rational justification for choices and actions.

There is no greater skill that one can acquire in life than the ability to think.

Two schools were founded in Athens: one by Plato, known as Plato's Academy and one by
Aristotle, the Lyceum.

The two schools were very different in their orientation, each tending to reflect the temperament
of its founder: the Academy was devoted to the study of the rational sciences – mathematics and
astronomy; the Lyceum to the study of the empirical sciences, especially biology.

Among Aristotle's work on logic was on entitled Of Sophistical Refutations, which dealt with
what has come to be known as the common fallacies. These are errors of reasoning which
Aristotle discussed. In ordinary speech "fallacy" refers to any false belief that happens to be
widely held, in logic a fallacy is an argument which appears sound to us but for various reasons
is not. Very often the very thing which is responsible for the fallacy is that which makes the
argument appealing to us. That is why we are so often deceived by them. Fallacies, in other
words, although unsound are psychologically persuasive. And this is so not only because they
evoke such attitudes as pity, fear, reverence, disapproval, and enthusiasm (which tends to blind
us to the purely logical merits of the case being argued), but also because they are often
extremely subtle and complex.

Aristotle divided these fallacies into two groups: those that have their source in language (in
dictione) and those whose source lies outside language (extra dictionem). However, many writers
depart from Aristotle's twofold classification but still regard these fallacies as arising from an
aspect of the language and proposed a threefold division under three headings: Ambiguity,
Presumption, and Relevance.

Logic is the study of argument, but before giving our consent on an argument we should always
make sure we are clear about the following three things:

1. Is what the argument assert clear?

1
2. Are the facts in the argument correctly represented?
3. Is the reasoning in the argument valid?

The three traditional categories are tied to these three aspects of argument.
The first set deals with those fallacies in which the error is due to the confusing nature of the
language in which the argument is expressed (fallacies of Ambiguity): it ideals with arguments
that fail to meet the challenge of the first question (Is the argument clear?).
The second deals with arguments that achieve their deception by misrepresenting the facts
disclosed in the argument (fallacies of Presumption): it deals with arguments that fail to meet the
challenge of the second question (Is what the argument asserts true?).
The third deals with arguments that confuse by stirring up powerful feelings (fallacies of
Relevance): it deals with arguments that fail to meet the challenge of the third question (Is the
argument valid?).

Fallacies are divided into three groups: Fallacies of Ambiguity, Fallacies of Presumption, and
Fallacies of Relevance.

Fallacies of Ambiguity:

Fallacies of Ambiguity are linguistic fallacies, in that they stem from the use of language and
have more than one meaning. We saw that the best way to unravel such fallacies is to clarify the
language in question. The six fallacies of Ambiguity are Amphiboly, Accent, Hypostatization,
Equivocation, Composition, and Division.

1. Amphiboly

Ambiguity in sentence structure [ambiguity from uncertainty of the grammatical construction

rather than of the meaning of the words] The title of the record "Best of the Beatles" misled
many to buy it thinking they were getting a record featuring the "best songs of the Beatles"
when in fact they had purchased a record featuring Mr. Peter Best, who had been "a member
of the Beatles" early in his career.

2. Accent

Accent is simply ambiguity of stress or tone. It is attached to those fallacies or deceptions that
arise from ambiguity or confusion as to emphasis. The fallacy can take three forms: (1) It can
result from confusion concerning the tone of voice a certain statement was meant to be spoken in.
(2) It can result from confusion concerning where the stress was meant to be placed in a remark.
(3) And it can arise when a passage is torn out of context and thus given an emphasis it was not
meant to have.

1 .Examples of the fallacy in the first form: "You never looked better" (Meaning what? That you
always looked that way – namely, bad; or that you were never more beautiful). "I can't praise this
book too highly" (impossible to praise it at all or enough).

2
2. Examples on stress: "We should never speak ill of our friends" if we stress friends then is it ok
to speak ill of our enemies? If we stress speak then is it all right to think ill of them? Or "men
were created equal, if we stress men what about women? If we stress were created then we might
suggest that although that is the way it started out, they are no longer so.

3. Out of context: (a sadder example) a schoolteacher might tell her civic class that "Communism
is the best type of government if you care nothing for your liberty or your material welfare," only
to discover that Jonny had quoted her at home as saying that "Communism is the best type of
government."

Accent is obviously more a reader's than a writer's fallacy. In the absence of the writer, some
doubt is always possible.

3. Hypostatization

It is to treat abstract terms or concepts as if they were real beings or things having an existence all
their own (you remove away the human agency).

A good and revealing example of the dangers involved in this use of language is the following:
"Nature produces all improvements in a race by eliminating the unfit and preventing them from
polluting the fit." By hypostatizing (assuming the reality of) the concept "Nature" its author is led
to speak of it as if it were capable of recognizing what is an "improvement" and what is not, of
distinguishing what is "fit" from what is "unfit" – he is led to look on nature, that is, as if it were
some humanlike agency, capable of intention and design. To be led to say this sort of thing about
nature, and to believe it, is only a short step from embracing a whole world view regarding man,
politics, and ethics, a world view for which, in this case, we have paid dearly in the very recent
past. (Such an abstraction was personified in the argument claiming that because nature improves
a race by eliminating the unfit, it is right for one group of people to eliminate another group).
Whenever such terms (such as nature, the state, love, etc.) appear suspicious try to trace them back
to their referents. For example in "the state can do no wrong" replace it with "people in the
government can do no wrong."

4. Equivocation

The fallacy of Equivocation consists in using a word with two or more meanings during the course
of an argument, while conducting the argument as if the meaning of the word was being held
constant.

A rather obvious and absurd example of the term "man" used equivocally for the purposes of
constructing a seemingly sound argument would be the following: "Only man is rational; no
woman is a man; therefore no woman is rational." This argument would be valid if the term
"man" had the same meaning each time it occurred. However, for the first premise to be true,

3
"man" must mean "human being," whereas for the second premise to be true, "man" must mean
"male." Thus, if the premises are to have any plausibility, the term "man" must shift its meaning.

Equivocation was the name given to fallacies stemming from a shift in meaning of a key term
during an argument. When we argue that "only man is rational" and that, because women are not
men, it follows that "no woman is rational", we change the meaning of the word man during the
course of the argument.

5. Composition and Division

I can obviously break this stick here, and I can break the next one, and the one there. Does that
mean I can break the bundle of sticks as a whole? Probably not. What is true of the part is not
necessarily true of the whole. To think so is to commit the fallacy called composition. It is to try
to compose the whole out of its parts. The whole, as the old saying has it, is more than the sum of
its parts.

We can reverse the order of the argument and arrive at the fallacy of division. Thus, obviously I
cannot break this bundle of sticks, therefore I cannot break any one of them individually? Of
course I can. What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of its parts. To think so is to
commit the logical fallacy of Division. It is to try to divide what is true of the whole among its
parts.

The belief many foreigners have about America, that because America is a rich country, every
American must therefore be rich. It would be nice if it were so! To think it is is to commit the
fallacy of division – to apply to each part or member the quality or property of the whole.

Fallacies of Presumption:

Fallacies of Presumption get their power to deceive because they resemble, often very closely,
correct or valid argument forms.

I. Overlooking the facts

1. Sweeping and hasty generalization

Although Sweeping and Hasty generalization superficially resemble Division and Composition,
they should not be confused with them. Division and comparison are essentially whole-part and
group-member fallacies. They arise from our failure to realize that a whole is not merely the sum
of its parts (and similarly with groups and their members); on the contrary, being an organized
entity, a whole has properties it does not share with its parts. In them we are not dealing with the
physical relation between parts and wholes (or members and classes) but rather with the
application and misuse of rules and generalizations and with our tendency to engage in sweeping
generalizations and to come to snap decisions.

4
If I argue that “Since encyclopedias are heavy, the one about to be published by the Jones
Publishing Company will be heavy too,” it will be guilty of sweeping generalization. If I argue
that “Since encyclopedias are heavy, therefore, page 625 of volume 3 must be heavy too,” then
this is guilty of division. In the first case our error would be due to our failure to note that
perhaps the new encyclopedia will be an exception and not as heavy as the general run of
encyclopedias; in the second case it would be due to our failure to remember that parts cannot
possess all the properties the whole possess.

Sweeping generalization is when a generalization is applied to a special case that properly falls
outside of it, as when horseback riding is recommended for someone with a heart condition.

Hasty generalization is the opposite of sweeping generalization. Here, an isolated or exceptional

case is used erroneously to support a universal conclusion, as when a bad experience with a
former husband is used to prove that all men are no good. Therefore, in Sweeping Generalization
a rule or a generalization is misapplied, in Hasty Generalization a particular case is misused.

2. Bifurcation

It overlooks a range of possibilities that lie between two polar alternatives, as in the assertion that
something is either good or bad. The fallacy is sometimes referred to as the “Either/Or Fallacy”
or the “Black or White Fallacy.”

The tendency to bifurcate is all too common. We are thus prone to people the world with the rich
and the poor, the normal and the abnormal, the heroes and the villains, forgetting between these
extremes are to be found numerous gradations which lead from one to the other – any one of
which could be further alternatives to the either/or proposed.

II. Evading the facts

In this second category of the fallacies of Presumption, the error lies not in overlooking facts as
in the first category, but in seeming to deal with all the relevant facts without actually doing so.
Such arguments deceive by inviting us to assume that the facts are as they have been stated in the
argument when they are quite otherwise.

3. Begging the question (tries to settle a question by simply asserting it)

Instead of providing proof for our assertion, we simply repeat it. For example, "The belief in God
is universal, because everybody believes in God." You reaffirm the belief in God but don't
confirm or prove it. "When large number of people are out of work, unemployment results."
Here there is no argument at all.

4. Question-begging epithets (avoid a reasonable conclusion by prejudging the facts)

Words have both descriptive (factual) dimension and evaluative (judgmental) one. "This criminal
is charged with the most vicious crime known to man." If he is already called a criminal, why
5
bother to have a trial (affirm something not proven through slanted language (deceptive and
manipulative))

5. Complex question (evades the facts by arguing a question different from the one at issue)

Assume a certain answer to a prior question that was not asked. For example, "Have you stopped
beaten your wife?" Already incriminated.

"Why is it that girls are more interested in religion than boys?" Two dimensions: descriptive and
evaluative. They need to be separated. For example,

"Is Smith an unthinking conservative?" Yes, he is conservative, but not an unthinking one.

6. Special pleading (invites us to view the argument from a biased position)

To engage in Special Pleading is to apply a double standard for ourselves (because we are you
special) and another (a stricter and stiffer one) for everyone else. This fallacy evades the facts by
being prejudiced in favor of one's own side: call our troops devoted and enemy's fanatical. You
are being inconsistent and partial: "I am firm; you are stubborn; and he is pigheaded."

III. Distorting the facts

7. False analogy (certain cases are made to appear more similar than they really are)

It is to argue that because two things or situations are similar in certain respects, they must
therefore be similar in other respect. The misleading analogy of King James:

"If you cut the head of a body, the other organs cannot function, and the body dies. Similarly, if
you cut off the head of the State, the State may flop around awhile, but it is due to perish in time
or become easy prey to its neighbors."

While a body certainly cannot grow a new head, a State easily can by appointing another ruler.

8. False cause (makes it appear that two events are causally connected in a way they are not)

Mistakenly believing that because something occurred just prior to something else, it was
therefore its cause; sequence alone is no proof of consequence. For example, the fact that man
follows ape in the succession of primates, is no proof at all that he is descended from the ape. Or,
because the Roman Empire declined and fell after the appearance of Christianity is no proof it
was the cause of its fall.

9. Irrelevant Thesis (Befogging the issue, Diversion, Red Herring) (concentrating on an issue
that is irrelevant to the argument)

6
Throw those concerned off the right track and onto something not relevant to the issue at hand:
"Since hunting gives a lot of pleasure to people, it cannot be cruel to animals."

Fallacies of Relevance:

1. Argumentum ad Hominem

It is an attempt to divert attention from the question argued by focusing the argument on those
arguing it. It is attacking the people associated with the question rather than attacking the
question itself.

2. Argumentum ad populum

Literally, “an argument addressed to the people,” this fallacy is an attempt to sway public
opinion by appealing to people’s emotions and passions. Instead of arguing the point at issue, it
is an attempt to gain assent by arousing people’s prejudices. Its main tool is the use of violent
language. It is a very effective tool indeed. It is also called “mob appeal.”

Another meaning is a proposition is true because many people or most people believe it: "If
many believe so, it is so?" If you feel strongly about something is no proof that you are right.

3. Argumentum ad misericordiam

Appeal to pity, it is a special form of the Argumentum ad Populum. Like it, it is an attempt to
sway people by playing on their emotions. It differs from the Ad Populum only in that one
particular emotion is appealed to: pity or sympathy

4. Argumentum ad Verecundiam

“Misappeal to experts”: It arises whenever we try to justify a proposal by quoting some

“authority” in its support.

5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

It is an attempt to throw the burden of proof upon the other party. It is an attempt to use the
other party’s inability to disprove your proposition as proof of its correctness.

The absence of evidence against a claim cannot be counted as evidence of its truth. Just because
no one was able to prove that, for example, mental telepathy is not true doesn’t prove that it is
true.

6. Argumentum ad Baculum

“swinging the big stick” involves threats of force or violence to settle matters.

If you don't convict the murderer, one of you may be his next victim.