Unit 3

The Value of Human Knowledge

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person

LEARNING TARGETS

At the end of this unit, the learners should be

able to do the following:

● Understand the difference between facts and opinions.

● Separate factual situations from nonfactual situations.
● Discover the significance of philosophizing in finding the truth.
● Determine the errors of reasoning in order to realize the truth.
VALUES AND ATTITUDES

In this unit, you should be able to do the following:

● Develop comfortability in being asked and asking questions.

● Accept being wrong.
● Develop openness to new perspectives and challenge their own beliefs
or assumptions.
● Infer from logical points of view.
● Imbibe the habit of providing evidence and criteria in analyzing
situations.
Lesson 5
Fallacies: The Examples

Unit 3| The Value of Human Knowledge

Introduction to the Philosophy of the Human Person
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Argumentum ad • is a Latin phrase that

hominem translates to “an argument to the
man” or “an attack to
Insert illustration here
the man”. In an argument, what we
should address is the
argument itself. Argumentum ad
Hominem consists of an
attack to the person who is speaking
the argument
rather than to the argument itself.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Example:
Argumentum ad Person A: Logic is an extremely
hominem
important and useful subject.
Person B: You believe that because
Insert illustration here
you're an idiot and you need logic.

Person B, instead of providing a

reason why he thinks Person A is
wrong, resorted to an attack to the
character of Person A through an
insult.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Argumentum ad
baculum
• translates to “an appeal to the
stick”. The stick is used as an
Insert illustration here
instrument to punish a child in
order to force him to behave in
ways his parents want him to.
Hence, this fallacy appeals to force
or authority – whether physical or
economical.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Argumentum ad
baculum Example:

Richard: Anna, you have to tell the

Insert illustration here
board that my proposal is the best
one. Or else, I will fire you.

Note here that Richard is forcing

Anna to do as he wishes and
threatens her as an appeal to
punishment.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Argumentum ad
ignorantiam

Insert illustration here

• or “an appeal to ignorance” is
a fallacy being used to argue
the non-existence of
something due to a lack of
knowledge.
Fallacies of Irrelevance
Example:
Richard: I did not see Anna’s e-
Argumentum ad
ignorantiam mail in my inbox. Therefore, she
did not send it.
Insert illustration here
In this example, Richard
equates his not seeing Anna’s
e-mail to a conclusion that she
did not send it. Although it is
possible that it went to a
different folder in his e-mail
and a number of other
possibilities.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

• is “an appeal to misery”. This

is usually in a form of verbal
and/or physical crying. It
appeals to one’s emotion so the
person will be convinced.

Argumentum ad misericordiam
Fallacies of Irrelevance

Example:
Person A: You can't have a
cigarette now. The hospital has a
rule against smoking when you’re
in an oxygen tent.

Person B: You've just got to let me

have one. You can't believe what
those doctors have done
to me. My life the last three days
Argumentum ad misericordiam has been a living nightmare.
Fallacies of Irrelevance

• or “an appeal to hypocrisy” is

a fallacy we commit by
justifying our wrong
actions because somebody has
done it as well.

Tu quoque fallacy
Fallacies of Irrelevance
Example:

Person A: You can’t cut classes

today, we have a big exam later.
Person B: Oh come on, you’ve no
right to lecture me, you have also
cut classes last week.

In this example, Person B seems to

be appealing to Person’s A
Tu quoque fallacy hypocrisy that he cannot give
him a lecture to do the right action.
Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of
Composition/Division is
Composition
about the relation between
parts and whole.
Insert illustration here

Fallacy of
Composition happens when
we mistakenly assume that
what is true for the parts
must also
be true for the whole.
Fallacies of Presumption

Composition
Fallacy of Composition:
Insert illustration here
The dog’s tail is brown,
his eyes are brown, his
ears are brown. So, the
dog is brown.
Fallacies of Presumption

Division

Fallacy of Division – we
mistakenly
assume that what is true
for the whole must also
be true for the parts.
Fallacies of Presumption

Division
Fallacy of Division:

The dog is white. So, his

tail is white, his eyes are
white, his paws are
white.
Fallacies of Presumption

Complex question

Fallacy of Complex Question

happens when we raise a major
questions that has implicit minor
questions. And when the major
question is answer, the implied
questions is also answered.
Fallacies of Presumption

Complex question

Example:

Person A: Richard, how many bottles of

rum did you finish last night?

Person A’s question assumes that

Richard drank last night, and that his
drink was rum.
Fallacies of Presumption

Slippery Slope Fallacy

consists of a sequence of
claims that will cause another
event which will cause another
event and so on. It is also
known as a “domino theory”.
Slippery slope
Fallacies of Presumption

Example:

If I had a flat tire, I won’t be able

to get to work, which would lead
for me to have a sanction,
which is bad in my records.
Hence, I won’t be able to get
promotion due to a flat tire.
Slippery slope
Fallacies of Presumption

False Cause Fallacy is committed

when two following events occur and
we jump to the conclusion that the first
event caused the second event
although no connection between
them can be found.

False cause
Fallacies of Presumption

Event 1: Richard enters Anna’s hospital

room to visit her.
Event 2: Anna gets a migraine.
Person A: You shouldn’t have visited her,
Richard, you’re the cause of her migraines.

Person A here committed False Cause

Fallacy because he does not have an
evidence of his claim that Richard, indeed,
caused Anna’s migraine.
False cause
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation
The Fallacy of Equivocation happens
when we use a single term with two or
Insert illustration here
more meanings (an equivocal term) in our
argument, and end up in a confusing
manner
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation
Example:
Insert illustration here
A ruler has 12 inches. G.M.A is a ruler.
Hence, G.M.A has 12 inches.

In this example, the term ruler connotes as

both a measuring instrument and a leader.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
The Fallacy of
Amphiboly happens
when our whole sentence,
instead of just a term, has
two or more meanings.
Example:
Amphiboly
The ancient Greek king
Croesus wanted to attack
Insert illustration here
the Persian empire. Before
he did, he sent for the
Oracle to get an advice. The
Oracle said, “If Croesus
goes to war, he will destroy
an empire.” With this
advice, Croesus went to war
and lost.
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Amphiboly
The Oracle’s statement committed the
Fallacy of Amphiboly because it was
open for at least two interpretations.
The first is that Croesus would win and
destroy the Persian empire, and
the second is that Croesus would lose
and destroy his own empire.
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Accent
The Fallacy of Accent is committed
when our statements differs on
meaning once we put
emphasis on certain words.
Fallacies of Ambiguity

Example:
Accent
I did not pass the exam last year.

If you put the accent or emphasis on the

word pass, this means he did something
else with the exam. If you put the accent or
emphasis on the word exam, this means
he may have passed a different exam. If
you put the accent or emphasis on the
phrase last year, this means he passed it
on a different time or year.
Glossary

1. Epistemology - the study of knowledge

2. fallacy - an error in reasoning
3. Judgment - the process of the mind that connects two ideas
4. Logic - the study of correct reasoning
5. logical atomism - a 20th century concept that brings language to its
atomistic state to be analyzed
6. Naturalistic fallacy - a fallacy committed when the atomistic terms
are attempted to be defined
7. Propositions - the verbal expression of a judgment
Glossary

8. Rational - a characteristic of a being that can think and reason out

9. Reasoning - the process of the mind that uses propositions to
create arguments
10.Sentient - a characteristic of a being that can sense
11.Simple Apprehension - the process of the mind in grasping a
concept / idea
12.Syllogisms - the verbal expression of reasoning
13.Terms - the verbal expression of an idea
14.Vegetative - a state of being that is limited to producing and
consuming
Stoplight

STOP CONTINUE START

PHOTO CREDITS

Slide 8: Wallpaper kartu domino.png, by Nara Cute is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Slide 8: Cat black.svg, by Surachit is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Slide 9: Confused man.jpg by Notas de prensa is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons.
REFERENCES
Hetherington, Stephen. “Gettier Problems.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed July 29, 2022.
https://iep.utm.edu/gettier/.

Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning, 2015.

Nilo Macayan, Jr. y Malana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, Manila (2015).