Fallacies Review

Hasty Generalization example:

Even though it's only the first day, I can tell this is going to be a boring course. In this example the author is basing their evaluation of the entire course on only one class, and on the first day which is notoriously boring and full of housekeeping tasks for most courses. To make a fair and reasonable evaluation the author must attend several classes, and possibly even examine the textbook, talk to the professor, or talk to others who have previously finished the course in order to have sufficient evidence to base a conclusion on.

tautology: (Begging the question/Circular Argument)

needless repetition of an idea by using different but equivalent words; a redundancy

Appeal to Popularity/Bandwagon example:

(1) Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being. Therefore: (2) Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being. This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true.

Appeal to Authority is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area. 2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise. If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under. It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another 3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. 4. The person in question is not significantly biased. If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim. 5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable. What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. 6. The authority in question must be identified. A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is Also Known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

Genetic Fallacy definition:

A conclusion is based on an argument that the origins of a person, idea, institute, or theory determine its character, nature, or worth

Appeal to Pity is also known as:

Ad Misericordiam

***Appeal to Authority (fallacious) definition:

An Appeal to Authority (fallacious) is a fallacy with the following form: 1) Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2) Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3) Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim. This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says..." , or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

Appeal to Pity definition:

An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument.The form of the "argument" is as follows: P is presented, with the intent to create pity. Therefore claim C is true.

***Ad Hominem definition:

An attack on the character of a person rather that her/his opinions or arguments

Appeal to Belief definition:

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern: 1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. 2) Therefore X is true.

Appeal to Tradition definition:

Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done."This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: X is old or traditional Therefore X is correct or better.

Straw Man examples:

Example #1: Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000." Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?" Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it." Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead." Prof. Brown:" I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones." Example #2: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

Ad Hominem example:

Green Peace's strategies aren't effective because they are all dirty, lazy hippies. In this example the author doesn't even name particular strategies Green Peace has suggested, much less evaluate those strategies on their merits. Instead, the author attacks the characters of the individuals in the group. An ad hominem argument does not have to be abusive; it merely substitutes irrelevant characteristics about a person making an argument for a rebuttal of the argument that the person has made.

Guilt by Association definition:

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim.This sort of "reasoning" has the following form: 1. It is pointed out that person A accepts claim P. 2. Therefore P is false It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it." The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief.In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc example:

I drank bottled water and now I am sick, so the water must have made me sick. In this example the author assumes that if one event chronologically follows another the first event must have caused the second. But the illness could have been caused by the burrito the night before, a flu bug that had been working on the body for days, or a chemical spill across campus. There is no reason, without more evidence, to assume the water caused the person to be sick.

Slippery slope example:

If we ban Hummers because they are bad for the environment eventually the government will ban all cars, so we should not ban Hummers.

Begging the question/Circular Argument Example:

President Barack Obama is a good communicator because he speaks effectively. In this example the conclusion that President Obama is a "good communicator" and the evidence used to prove it "he speaks effectively" are basically the same idea. Specific evidence such as using everyday language, breaking down complex problems, or illustrating his points with humorous stories would be needed to prove either half of the sentence.

Moral Equivalence examples:

That parking attendant who gave me a ticket is as bad as Hitler. In this example the author is comparing the relatively harmless actions of a person doing their job with the horrific actions of Hitler. This comparison is unfair and inaccurate. EXAMPLE 2 A wily politician argues: "Yes, I used illegal money to fund my campaign ... but so did my opponent!" This type of moral equivalence fallacy is called the "tu quo" argument ("But you're one too!"). Similar to the bandwagon fallacy, this type of reasoning assumes that a candidate should be allowed to break the law because others have set a different moral standard. This would retain the clean candidate's campaign a better competitive advantage since his opponent was breaking the law all along. This example is akin to changing the rules in the middle of a game. NOTE: a tu quodiffers from the bandwagon appeal here because the politician changed his moral standard (deciding to use illegal funds after all) as a response to his opponent's illegal operation. We jump on a bandwagon because it feels good, but people fall into moral equivalence when they shift their moral attitudes for selfish reasons. It is also a form of distortion, and we see it often from our children and politicians. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Straw Man definition:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Genetic Fallacy example:

The Volkswagen Beetle is an evil car because it was originally designed by Hitler's army. In this example the author is equating the character of a car with the character of the people who built the car. However, the two are not inherently related

Appeal to Popularity/Bandwagon definition:

The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves.

logic definition:

The principles that guide the reasoning within a given field or situation; the study of the principles of reasoning

Moral Equivalence definition:

This fallacy compares minor misdeeds with major atrocities.

Hasty Generalization definition:

This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.

Slippery slope definition:

This is a conclusion based on the premise that if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z will happen, too, basically equating A and Z. So, if we don't want Z to occur, A must not be allowed to occur either.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc definition:

This is a conclusion that assumes that if 'A' occurred after 'B' then 'B' must have caused 'A.'

False Dilemma/Either/or definition:

This is a conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices

why is Appeal to Popularity/Bandwagon fallacious?

This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth. The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not.

why is Appeal to Pity fallacious?

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim.

why is Appeal to Belief fallacious?

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Begging the question/Circular Argument definition:

This restates the argument rather than actually proving it. Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true

why is straw man fallacious?

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

why is Appeal to Tradition fallacious?

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because the age of something does not automatically make it correct or better than something newer. This is made quite obvious by the following example: The theory that witches and demons cause disease is far older than the theory that microorganism cause diseases. Therefore, the theory about witches and demons must be true.

False Dilemma/Either/or example:

We can either stop using cars or destroy the earth. In this example where two choices are presented as the only options, yet the author ignores a range of choices in between such as developing cleaner technology, car sharing systems for necessities and emergencies, or better community planning to discourage daily driving.

***syllogism definition:

a deductive scheme of a formal argument making up a major and minor premise and a conclusion drawn logically from the relationship between those statements. (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

*** write out: fallacy definition:

are errors or flaws in reasoning