Showing posts with label logical fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logical fallacies. Show all posts
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Recursiveness
Today I noticed a straw man argument which claimed that a valid point was a straw man. I'm not sure if that makes it a recursive fallacy, a rhetorical dodge, or a new species of straw man.
Monday, April 27, 2015
Appeal to Consequences
This one is more or less two fallacies in one, because it is used both in the positive and negative.
Appeal to Consequences
Other name(s): Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Argumentum ad Consequentiam (argument to the consequences), Argumentum ab Inconvenienti (argument from inconvenience)
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that belief in a proposition leads to good consequences, and therefore the proposition is true, or that disbelief in a proposition leads to bad consequences, and therefore the proposition is false.
Usual Form
Because belief in A leads to desirable outcome B, A is true; because disbelief in A leads to undesirable outcome C, A is true.
Explanation
Appeal to consequences often receives the amendment "of a belief" to its title because it is most often used on an otherwise unproven belief. The idea is to prove that the premise is either either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. It is a fairly transparent appeal to emotion as logic, and adds subjectivity to what should be an objective appeal.
As stated on fallacyfiles.org, "one can tell that the fallacy is being committed because the supposed consequences do not follow from the proposition itself, but only from belief in it."
Now, appeals to consequence have certain valid (non-fallacious) use when they refer only to the truth or falsity of an argument's logical consequences. Because understanding the difference between logical consequences and causal consequences is, to be honest, less common than I would prefer, one is often switched for the other. A second situation which can be confused for an appeal to consequence is consideration of the results of a plan or policy. Looking ahead to the outcome or repercussions of one's actions is not only logical, but foolish not to do. Likewise, "argumentum ab inconvenienti" is a valid appeal to consequences found in law, in which an otherwise reasonable law or action is shown to have unreasonably inconvenient consequences. People who warn about the "law of unintended consequences" regarding political doings are invoking this concept.
It is interesting how often this argument is used in historical dramas to demonstrate the primitive thinking of law in earlier times.
Examples
"I know that Santa Claus exists because just knowing he was coming each year made me behave better every fall and winter."
"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further." Lord Denning in his judgment on the Birmingham Six.
"There is no God, because no righteous creator could allow evil to exist."
"It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night."
Appeal to Consequences
Other name(s): Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Argumentum ad Consequentiam (argument to the consequences), Argumentum ab Inconvenienti (argument from inconvenience)
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that belief in a proposition leads to good consequences, and therefore the proposition is true, or that disbelief in a proposition leads to bad consequences, and therefore the proposition is false.
Usual Form
Because belief in A leads to desirable outcome B, A is true; because disbelief in A leads to undesirable outcome C, A is true.
Explanation
Appeal to consequences often receives the amendment "of a belief" to its title because it is most often used on an otherwise unproven belief. The idea is to prove that the premise is either either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. It is a fairly transparent appeal to emotion as logic, and adds subjectivity to what should be an objective appeal.
As stated on fallacyfiles.org, "one can tell that the fallacy is being committed because the supposed consequences do not follow from the proposition itself, but only from belief in it."
Now, appeals to consequence have certain valid (non-fallacious) use when they refer only to the truth or falsity of an argument's logical consequences. Because understanding the difference between logical consequences and causal consequences is, to be honest, less common than I would prefer, one is often switched for the other. A second situation which can be confused for an appeal to consequence is consideration of the results of a plan or policy. Looking ahead to the outcome or repercussions of one's actions is not only logical, but foolish not to do. Likewise, "argumentum ab inconvenienti" is a valid appeal to consequences found in law, in which an otherwise reasonable law or action is shown to have unreasonably inconvenient consequences. People who warn about the "law of unintended consequences" regarding political doings are invoking this concept.
It is interesting how often this argument is used in historical dramas to demonstrate the primitive thinking of law in earlier times.
Examples
"I know that Santa Claus exists because just knowing he was coming each year made me behave better every fall and winter."
"If the six men win, it will mean that the police are guilty of perjury, that they are guilty of violence and threats, that the confessions were invented and improperly admitted in evidence and the convictions were erroneous... This is such an appalling vista that every sensible person in the land would say that it cannot be right that these actions should go any further." Lord Denning in his judgment on the Birmingham Six.
"There is no God, because no righteous creator could allow evil to exist."
"It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night."
Friday, February 13, 2015
Appeal to Celebrity
I'm not sure if I'd call this a subspecies of Appeal to Authority or a near-twin fallacy, but I'd definitely call it common as dirt.
Appeal to Celebrity
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Subcategory: Genetic (Irrelevant History)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that if a well-known person affirms a proposition, the proposition is therefore true. Social status is used to falsely establish perceived reliability.
Usual Form
Statement is made that because celebrity A endorses B, B is necessarily true or of quality.
Explanation
The use of well-known and popular people as "proof" of something's value, whether brand, proposition, or person, is often thought of as a modern phenomenon, but is in fact ancient. Celebrity endorsements of politicians dates to ancient Rome at least; ideas and philosophers have been supported by recommendation by popular figures as recorded by Plato; and the idea of leading socialites creating fads from their own whims has been joked about since the invention of satire.
Brands have even invented reliable-looking characters for their products, drawing on stereotype and accepted mores to urge consumers to trust them. Whether this is an appeal to celebrity or authority I'm uncertain. I may need to break it out into its own fallacy eventually.
The problem with appealing to celebrity recommendation is that they may not have any expertise in the area under consideration. Most famously (and hilariously), a commercial in the 80s for Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup had Chris Robinson, who played a doctor on the General Hospital soap opera, begin with his declaration, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." There are many examples of this odd, openly-false appeal to authority listed on tvtropes.org. It's become a cultural running gag.
For the most part, though, celebrity endorsements carry their influence by simple weight of whatever made them a celebrity in the first place. Sure, a basketball star is a natural choice for promoting athletic shoes because he has extensive experience with them; but Michael Jordan has endorsed not only Nike but also Rayovac batteries, Hanes underwear, and Ball Park Franks. There is precious little to explain why an actor's political views should be taken as guidance, or what coffee a baseball player prefers should make any difference to the sports fans. The song Space Oddity pokes at this when Ground Control tells the astronaut that "the papers want to know whose shirts you wear."
The fact is, there is an assumption that popularity is built on something real and valuable. It's more or less part of the social fact of humanity, and a way to shorten the path to assurance that a belief about something can be relied upon. The assumption runs so deeply that it is not only unquestioned but unnoticed a lot of the time. As a result, it can be manipulated as a conscious or unconscious strategy by everyone from major marketers to high school cliques.
Then there's the problem that a celebrity being paid to voice an opinion calls into question the veracity of their claim. Honestly, in what other area is openly paid opinion considered valid?
Examples
"Oprah says we shouldn't eat after 6pm. It's not healthy."
Oprah is not a dietician. Moreover, she has changed her views on such things wildly over the course of her career, based on changing which dietician she is following at the moment.
George Clooney endorses a coffee machine, a whiskey, and more. Would I like to be like George? Heck yeah!
Will drinking Nespresso make me more like George? Not a whit. Given his personal opinion rather than paid endorsement, however, I'd say that a man with approximately unlimited options would choose the best item that fits his tastes.
Appeal to Celebrity
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Subcategory: Genetic (Irrelevant History)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that if a well-known person affirms a proposition, the proposition is therefore true. Social status is used to falsely establish perceived reliability.
Usual Form
Statement is made that because celebrity A endorses B, B is necessarily true or of quality.
Explanation
The use of well-known and popular people as "proof" of something's value, whether brand, proposition, or person, is often thought of as a modern phenomenon, but is in fact ancient. Celebrity endorsements of politicians dates to ancient Rome at least; ideas and philosophers have been supported by recommendation by popular figures as recorded by Plato; and the idea of leading socialites creating fads from their own whims has been joked about since the invention of satire.
Brands have even invented reliable-looking characters for their products, drawing on stereotype and accepted mores to urge consumers to trust them. Whether this is an appeal to celebrity or authority I'm uncertain. I may need to break it out into its own fallacy eventually.
The problem with appealing to celebrity recommendation is that they may not have any expertise in the area under consideration. Most famously (and hilariously), a commercial in the 80s for Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup had Chris Robinson, who played a doctor on the General Hospital soap opera, begin with his declaration, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." There are many examples of this odd, openly-false appeal to authority listed on tvtropes.org. It's become a cultural running gag.
For the most part, though, celebrity endorsements carry their influence by simple weight of whatever made them a celebrity in the first place. Sure, a basketball star is a natural choice for promoting athletic shoes because he has extensive experience with them; but Michael Jordan has endorsed not only Nike but also Rayovac batteries, Hanes underwear, and Ball Park Franks. There is precious little to explain why an actor's political views should be taken as guidance, or what coffee a baseball player prefers should make any difference to the sports fans. The song Space Oddity pokes at this when Ground Control tells the astronaut that "the papers want to know whose shirts you wear."
The fact is, there is an assumption that popularity is built on something real and valuable. It's more or less part of the social fact of humanity, and a way to shorten the path to assurance that a belief about something can be relied upon. The assumption runs so deeply that it is not only unquestioned but unnoticed a lot of the time. As a result, it can be manipulated as a conscious or unconscious strategy by everyone from major marketers to high school cliques.
Then there's the problem that a celebrity being paid to voice an opinion calls into question the veracity of their claim. Honestly, in what other area is openly paid opinion considered valid?
Examples
"Oprah says we shouldn't eat after 6pm. It's not healthy."
Oprah is not a dietician. Moreover, she has changed her views on such things wildly over the course of her career, based on changing which dietician she is following at the moment.
George Clooney endorses a coffee machine, a whiskey, and more. Would I like to be like George? Heck yeah!
Will drinking Nespresso make me more like George? Not a whit. Given his personal opinion rather than paid endorsement, however, I'd say that a man with approximately unlimited options would choose the best item that fits his tastes.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Appeal to Authority
I hadn't planned to jump into irrelevant appeals just yet, but it comes up so frequently I can't resist.
Appeal to Authority
Other name(s): Argument From Authority, Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ipse Dixit ("He, himself, said it"), Argumentum ad Verecundiam ("argument to respect")
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Subcategory: Genetic (Irrelevant History)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that a person considered an authority affirms a proposition, and therefore the proposition is true. Authority is used to falsely establish the final word.
Usual Form
Statement is made that because authority A states proposition P, P is necessarily true.
Explanation
Obviously, not all appeal to authority is fallacious. That is why we have authorities and experts to begin with: no one can know everything. But since even the top authority on a subject can affirm an untrue proposition, knowingly or unknowingly, appeals to authority are all deductively (formally) fallacious. That is, they lack airtight logic simply by their form.
However, Appeal to Authority is listed among informal (inductive) fallacies because it has to do with the content of the argument. Not all appeals to authority are examples of logical fallacy. It applies when a referenced authority is either not an authority in the relevant area, not an authority at all, or has untrustworthy positions due to bias. A position well apart from those of other similar authorities can also invoke this fallacy, since it is possible to find some "expert" somewhere who will agree with anything. This also applies when an expert view is either unnecessary or impossible.
Dr. Gary Curtis, whose excellent (if often challenging) site on logical fallacies is among those I'm using to assemble knowledge on the subject, has a good analysis on this subject, which he sums up in a checklist to see if authority is to be relied upon:
Examples
"It's in print, so it must be true!"
My brother actually heard this from one of his Jr. High School teachers.
"The Pope says that priests can turn bread and wine into Jesus’ actual body and blood. He says it's a physical change which happens to it, and I believe him."
The Pope may believe what he says, and odds are the Pope is not a liar, but His Holiness is not an authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed. An authority would be someone who has objectively observed whether the change took place.
Many, many examples of this can be found all over social media sites, with, for example, pseudo-scientists being quoted to support all manner of nonsense.
Appeal to Authority
Other name(s): Argument From Authority, Appeal to Inappropriate Authority, Ipse Dixit ("He, himself, said it"), Argumentum ad Verecundiam ("argument to respect")
Type: Informal
Category: Red Herring (Irrelevance)
Subcategory: Genetic (Irrelevant History)
Definition
Arguing from the idea that a person considered an authority affirms a proposition, and therefore the proposition is true. Authority is used to falsely establish the final word.
Usual Form
Statement is made that because authority A states proposition P, P is necessarily true.
Explanation
Obviously, not all appeal to authority is fallacious. That is why we have authorities and experts to begin with: no one can know everything. But since even the top authority on a subject can affirm an untrue proposition, knowingly or unknowingly, appeals to authority are all deductively (formally) fallacious. That is, they lack airtight logic simply by their form.
However, Appeal to Authority is listed among informal (inductive) fallacies because it has to do with the content of the argument. Not all appeals to authority are examples of logical fallacy. It applies when a referenced authority is either not an authority in the relevant area, not an authority at all, or has untrustworthy positions due to bias. A position well apart from those of other similar authorities can also invoke this fallacy, since it is possible to find some "expert" somewhere who will agree with anything. This also applies when an expert view is either unnecessary or impossible.
Dr. Gary Curtis, whose excellent (if often challenging) site on logical fallacies is among those I'm using to assemble knowledge on the subject, has a good analysis on this subject, which he sums up in a checklist to see if authority is to be relied upon:
- Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
- Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
- Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
- Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
- Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion. If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.
Examples
"It's in print, so it must be true!"
My brother actually heard this from one of his Jr. High School teachers.
"The Pope says that priests can turn bread and wine into Jesus’ actual body and blood. He says it's a physical change which happens to it, and I believe him."
The Pope may believe what he says, and odds are the Pope is not a liar, but His Holiness is not an authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed. An authority would be someone who has objectively observed whether the change took place.
Many, many examples of this can be found all over social media sites, with, for example, pseudo-scientists being quoted to support all manner of nonsense.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Equivocation Fallacy
It is easy to assume this one is invoked because someone knows their argument doesn't hold up otherwise, but I suspect that it is usually made through honestly muddled thinking combined with a mistaken notion of cleverness.
Equivocation Fallacy
Other name(s): Doublespeak
Type: Informal
Category: Ambiguity
Definition
Using more than one meaning of a key word or phrase in an argument with an implication that they are the same.
Often takes the form of a syllogism.
It can be tricky to notice that a change has taken place, especially if one has become used to confusing the two meanings. Bringing up the fact that there are two meanings involved will generally invoke cognitive dissonance and all the reactions one expects from exposing such things to light.
"To expose the fallacy of equivocation you give accurate and specific definitions of terms, and show carefully that in one place the definition of the terms was different from the definition in another."
(Robert Huber and Alfred Snider, Influencing Through Argument. IDEA, 2005)
Examples
"(1) Jesus is the Word of God.
(2) The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore:
(3) Jesus is the Bible."
The phrase “Word of God” means very different things in the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation, in the form of a bad syllogism.
"The sign said 'fine for parking here,' and since it was fine, I parked there."
When the two meanings are widely understood as quite different, equivocation can be a source of humor.
"You should not use the term 'illegal alien' because they're people, and people cannot be illegal."
"You are not fat. You have fat. You have fingernails but you are not fingernails."
This fallacy is very, very popular for political and feelgood propaganda.
Equivocation Fallacy
Other name(s): Doublespeak
Type: Informal
Category: Ambiguity
Definition
Using more than one meaning of a key word or phrase in an argument with an implication that they are the same.
Usual Form
Statement is made using one meaning or sense of a concept, implying (or sometimes stating) a different meaning in its conclusion.Often takes the form of a syllogism.
Explanation
For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they
appear in its premises or conclusion. Equivocation occurs when arguments switch between
different meanings of words. A change in meaning introduces a change in subject, and invalidates the argument because the premise(s) and conclusion now refer to different things.It can be tricky to notice that a change has taken place, especially if one has become used to confusing the two meanings. Bringing up the fact that there are two meanings involved will generally invoke cognitive dissonance and all the reactions one expects from exposing such things to light.
"To expose the fallacy of equivocation you give accurate and specific definitions of terms, and show carefully that in one place the definition of the terms was different from the definition in another."
(Robert Huber and Alfred Snider, Influencing Through Argument. IDEA, 2005)
Examples
(2) The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore:
(3) Jesus is the Bible."
The phrase “Word of God” means very different things in the two premises, so this argument rests on an equivocation, in the form of a bad syllogism.
"The sign said 'fine for parking here,' and since it was fine, I parked there."
When the two meanings are widely understood as quite different, equivocation can be a source of humor.
"You should not use the term 'illegal alien' because they're people, and people cannot be illegal."
"You are not fat. You have fat. You have fingernails but you are not fingernails."
This fallacy is very, very popular for political and feelgood propaganda.
Friday, January 16, 2015
Subjectivist Fallacy
Let's start with one of my favorites, the Subjectivist Fallacy. Trouble with it is, it's not a normal fallacy at all because its problem is arguably one of philosophy instead of logic. However, I maintain that a philosophy that openly, intentionally ignores essential rules of logic (not to mention language) is in fact using a logical fallacy. Or it's a dimwitted rhetorical trick. But for now, I'll put it here.
Subjectivist Fallacy
Other name(s): Relativist Fallacy
Type: Informal
Category: Presumption
Definition
Claiming something is subjective (true for someone, but not for someone else) when empirical evidence demonstrates that it is objective (true for everyone).
Examples
Subjectivist Fallacy
Other name(s): Relativist Fallacy
Type: Informal
Category: Presumption
Definition
Claiming something is subjective (true for someone, but not for someone else) when empirical evidence demonstrates that it is objective (true for everyone).
Usual Form
Person 1 states objective fact X (supportable by empirical evidence).
Person 2 claims that X is true for some people, but not for everyone.
Explanation
Objective claims are either true or false for everyone: Earth is either flat or it is spherical, but whichever is true is true
for everyone; it is not flat for some and round for others.
Subjective claims may be true or not true depending on the situation or observer: "Pizza is delicious" may be widely accepted as true, but may not necessarily hold true for every person, or for every pizza.
Lack of possession of final proof does not change an objective claim to a subjective one: One may not know how many were injured in a particular train crash, but
however many there were will not change from one person to the next,
either by faulty observation or fervent wishing.
Most of the time, I encounter this fallacy when obvious truths are dismissed as "just your opinion," or, when the relativist wishes to appear more high-minded, as a matter of "perspective." No, a thing is a thing from any angle you choose to view it.
Examples
Bill: Your argument is full of contradictions.
Ted: Contradictions only apply to the carnal mind, not the spiritual one.
Ted has abandoned logic and reason in order to support his position, which may mean that other fallacies are along for the ride, a not uncommon situation. (From an example found at logicallyfallacious.com)
A version of that which I have, astoundingly, actually seen and more than once, runs something like this:
Aaron: "Your position results in a contradiction, so it does not work."
Erin: "Logic and reason are oppressive, Eurocentric, and patriarchal, but I am above all that. Therefore my position is just fine."
Erin: "Logic and reason are oppressive, Eurocentric, and patriarchal, but I am above all that. Therefore my position is just fine."
"I believe that 2+2 sometimes does equal 5. It depends on how you feel about addition."
Note
Though I have never found any discussion of an Objectivist Fallacy, it would make sense that such an inverse would exist. In fact, it's not too uncommon in actual conversation. Such a fallacy would have as its definition a claim that something is objective truth when it is in fact subjectively true.
Examples:
"Shark Boy and Lava Girl is the greatest movie ever!"
"Driving on freeways is very dangerous."
"Tofu should be an important part of your diet."
Note
Though I have never found any discussion of an Objectivist Fallacy, it would make sense that such an inverse would exist. In fact, it's not too uncommon in actual conversation. Such a fallacy would have as its definition a claim that something is objective truth when it is in fact subjectively true.
Examples:
"Shark Boy and Lava Girl is the greatest movie ever!"
"Driving on freeways is very dangerous."
"Tofu should be an important part of your diet."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)