Logical Fallacies
I. Fallacies of Irrelevance:
These are fallacies which are primarily diversionary. By introducing an irrelevant claim or concept, it detracts from the main issue at hand.
Attacking a Straw Man:
The straw man fallacy is one of the most frequently used fallacies in the political sphere. It consists of re-defining a person’s position in a manner to either exaggerate or weaken his or her position, making it easier to refute. This is often accomplished in one or the other of two ways. The first is to alter the original premises, making them broader or narrower than their initial intent. By the use of “Oh, what you are really saying is that…” the opponent re-shapes the premises of the argument in a form more to their benefit. The other version is when the opponent subtly replaces all the actual premises with an expression like, “The real reason you say that is…” Often times this alternative of re-defining a premise is performed in such an extreme manner that no one can agree with it, especially when the alternative is presented as the rule, rather than the exception.
Substituting an original premise with a modified version, defined by the opponent, is a version of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy distorts the original premises just enough to make it weak. For example, one might say, “This car has had to have a lot of expensive repairs lately. I think it’s time to buy a newer car.” A straw man fallacy may be something like, “Oh, you think we need to buy a fancy new car like Dan did with his Mercedes.” In this instance, the original premise is weakened by the hyperbolic re-phrasing implying the purchase of a very expensive car, which may have not at all been intended.
Red Herring:
A Red Herring fallacy is one in which someone introduces an extraneous claim which does not contribute, but rather diverts, the discussion into another area of consideration. The claim may in fact be true, but it does nothing to confirm or refute the initial topic of discussion. Instead, it changes the conclusion, and thereby changes the conversation into a different one altogether.
Television news interviews are typical examples of this technique. If a direct question is asked, “Do you support this infrastructure bill before Congress?” The respondent, hesitant to commit either way, will often divert the question by introducing a peripheral (though sometimes true) comment, such as, “Well, the last time we faced a bill it was more bipartisan than this bill because…” Now, one is no longer discussing the topic of supporting the actual bill, but that of partisanship.
The straw man fallacy changes the original premises; while the red herring fallacy changes the conclusion.
Ad Hominem (Latin: “to the man”):
An Ad Hominem fallacy is when an opponent attacks the character or intentions of a person rather than the argument. An argument’s soundness should succeed or fail on its own merits, not the character of the individual. Ad Hominem fallacies may occur as: 1) You’re a terrible person version; 2) Guilt by association version: “she is a friend of …”; “he is a member of …;” or 3) Questioning the intentions or motives of the speaker version: “He may say that, but I believe he really believes…”
Politics is rampant with the ad hominem fallacy. Labeling or branding one as bigot, misogynist, homophobe, radical conservative, or flaming liberal are all meant to undermine the credibility of that person’s positions or efforts. This fallacy is often associated with that of “repetition” as a means of persistently branding a person or defacing their character without any verification of their claims.
Tu Quoque: (Latin: “me too”):
The fallacy of “tu quoque” is dismissing another person’s position on the basis that he or she is inconsistent in performing that same action. A father instructing his son not to smoke cigarettes because it is bad for his health is rebutted by his son with, “Don’t tell me not to smoke cigarettes; you do it.” The son’s response still is not relevant. Smoking cigarettes, regardless of whether his father does or not, is still bad for his health; and as such should not be deflected.
II. Fallacies of Faulty Authority:
Appeal to Authority:
A fallacy of appeal to authority can be expressed in several ways: 1) By assigning authority to persons who have no special knowledge or expertise in the area being discussed. (e.g., Hollywood celebrities or professional athletes advertising products of which they have little knowledge); 2) By overawing a person by referencing a famous person’s use of the product or their views (e.g., Ice Cube supports Tom Luck for President, shouldn’t you?); 3) By appealing to a single selected authority among many other respected authorities (who may have alternative viewpoints) about a controversial issue. Who is to say the single selected authority is the correct one?
Appeal to Popular Opinion (Bandwagon fallacy):
When we claim that our position is the proper one because many other people agree with it, we are committing the appeal to the people or appeal to popular opinion fallacy. Similar to justifying a position by means of an appeal to authority, appeal to popular opinion places authority in the hands of a large group. Though the general population certainly can have a group consensus or opinion about a specific issue, that is not to say that it is necessarily correct by virtue of it being popular. Popular opinion can be easily manipulated by various means into viewpoints far removed from the actual facts required for correct decision-making. (e.g., “groupthink”)
Appeal to Tradition: and Fallacy of Novelty:
The fallacies of an appeal to tradition and that of novelty are like two opposite sides of a coin. While the fallacy of tradition places the correctness of a position within the comfort and security of past events and practices, an appeal to novelty takes the position that what is new and different is most reliable and fitting.
Fallacy of Faulty Analogy:
The fallacy of faulty analogy takes a bit more thought. Analogy is the process of comparison. But to have a valid analogy, one must compare similar items or concepts. Analogies involve comparisons between any two things based upon a common characteristic. They are often expressed in sentence form as: “a is to b as c is to d; or in the standard form: a : b :: c : d. Though this is the standard form, any number of comparisons can be expressed: For instance: Columbus : Ohio :: Raleigh : North Carolina :: Austin : Texas. Here there is a strong relationship – capital city : state. But some analogies are not so strong. Weak analogies have a similar element, but much less specific element between the items compared; whereas a strong analogy has a closer association between the two items compared.
Example:
Tom: “Hey, I just bought a new Ford, blue with leather seats and lots of chrome. Boy, is it fast!
Mark: “I just bought a new VW, blue with leather seats and lots of chrome, too. I bet it must be fast, too!
The weak analogy above implies that because Mark’s car is also blue with leather seats and chrome, irrespective of the make or style of car, that is must also be fast. In this case, when it comes to comparing speed, the similarities are minor.
A strong analogy might contain the information that both cars are sedans with 6-cylinder 300 HP engines. Because Tom’s car is fast, and Mark’s car has a similar engine, it would be a strong analogy to assume that Mark’s car would be fast as well. The similarities related to speed are major. Therefore, in a strong analogy, the issue of comparison (speed) and the similarities (style of car and engine size) are major, and the differences are minor.
A weak analogy is one in which the similarities of the issue of comparison (speed) are minor and the differences (style of car and engine size) are major. The fallacy in weak analogies is when the claim is made that some two items of comparison with only minor similarities are the same in major characteristics as well.
Generalization: The difference between analogy and generalization is that while analogy compares two items regarding a common element, generalization takes one element and extrapolates it into a wider conclusion. It is to take an individual sample case, and claim that all other items in that category are the same. For example: If one blue Ford is fast, then all blue Fords will be fast.
III. Fallacies of Cause and Effect:
As the old dictum goes, correlation does not imply causation. Just because two events are frequently seen together does not mean that one necessarily causes the other.
The Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy (Latin: “after this, therefore because of this”):
This fallacy follows the form: If event A precedes a subsequent event B, the A must have caused B. Sometimes this can be true; but it is not necessarily so. Another way of thinking about this fallacy is if A, C, and D all occurred before B; then to definitely say that B was directly caused by A can be fallacious. B could have been cause by C, D or any combination of A, C, or D. When something unexpected occurs, it is natural to look at preceding factors that may have caused the resultant event. If one recognizes a new or unique previous factor, the inclination is to believe that it alone was the cause of B, though it may be completely unrelated in causing B.
Neglect of a Common Cause:
Correlation does not necessarily mean causation. By taking correlation to imply causation, we commit the fallacy called neglect of a common cause. This can occur when two events or items are frequently in close association. Just because whenever we see A, we also see B does not mean that A causes B or that B causes A; there might be a third thing, C, that causes both A and B.
Causal Oversimplification:
This is a fallacy often occurring in the discussion of complex social or moral issues. In most cases, causality is shaped by a whole multitude of interwoven factors. Causal oversimplification overlooks this complexity and posits causality within only one element of this interconnected whole.
Confusion of a “Necessary” with a “Sufficient” Condition:
A necessary condition is one which must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is one, or a set of conditions, which will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not cause the event. If there is no A, there can be no possibility of B. But A alone does not comprise B.
Example: One cannot bake a cake without some kind of flour. Therefore, flour is a necessary condition (A) for a cake (B) to be made. However, flour alone (A) does not comprise the whole of the cake (B).
The Slippery Slope fallacy:
There is no doubt that there are causal chains in which an event A causes B, and then B causes C, which in turn causes D. Even though this cause and effect do exist, this fallacy occurs where one asserts the existence of such a chain without giving full causal argument for each step in the chain. The question is whether there is good reason to believe that each step is solely the result of the preceding one. If not, the charge of a “slippery slope” has to be held in question.
IV. Other Common Informal Fallacies:
Circular Argument:
The fallacy of a circular argument occurs when the conclusion is identical to the premise. There is no independent support for the conclusion other than the initially offered position. Often this will consist of different forms of expression, but the content of the phrase remains the same.
Example: “Clear cutting housing sites is just plain bad. Just look, no trees!”
Begging the Question:
Begging the question involves implying the answer, or another truth claim within a question. This is a favorite of biased news reporters by asking questions that are not really questions or by framing questions unfairly.
Example: Reporter to President: “What good will a wall along the border do for all those poor suffering immigrants when everyone sees families being separated without any legal representation, health care, or subsistence pay because of your uncaring and harsh policies?”
Either/Or, Excluded Middle fallacy:
This fallacy occurs when two contrasting options are considered without any consideration of any other available positions.
Example: “You’re either for me, or against me.” Or “You’re either for gun control or one of those radical NRA people.”
Distinction without a Difference:
This fallacy involves drawing a distinction between two concepts that are the same.
Example: “I didn’t steal it; I just didn’t ask before I took it.”
Moral Equivalency:
When contrasting two issues of unequal moral content in the same manner, one is using the fallacy of moral equivalency.
Example: Equating all acts of war with terrorism; or equating the care of humans with the care of animals.
Proof By Lack of Evidence:
The proof by lack of evidence occurs when one claims that something must be true due to any lack of evidence otherwise.
Example: “There must be sharks in this lake, because I don’t see any signs that there aren’t.”
Appeal to Emotion:
Using emotional responses to justify an offer or position is performing an appeal to emotion. Appealing to pity, fear, or urgency are all ways that advertising entices individuals to purchase or act in certain ways. Although some appeals may be genuine, many are offering in an effort to manipulate a person’s beliefs or actions; and as such are forms of malicious propaganda.
Example: “Now is the time to buy silver and gold. If the stock market crashes and all your investments vanish, you’ll want to protect your family by having some precious metals as solid value. There has never been a better time to buy than right now.”
Faulty Assumptions:
We’ve all done this…having been asked to read a description of an accident or crime, then answer questions about the “facts” we recall. Later, what we regarded as “facts” of the incident were only our assumptions of the characters’ roles and motivations…their actions and purposes. It is a way in which one “short-hands” the events of each day, that is to make certain assumptions. But faulty assumptions can also lead to faulty perception and understanding.
Transfer:
The fallacy of transfer occurs when one transfers their own feelings, good or bad, about one issue to another unrelated issue. This is often accomplished by means of association. Advertising for an exercise machine may show a slim attractive lady riding on an exercise bike in a beautiful home to popular music. On the contrary, a political ad against an opponent may be presented in black and white, with sharp angles and discordant background music.
Non Sequitur (Latin: “it does not follow”):
The term non sequitur is a general one that is used frequently to convey the situation when a conclusion is not adequately supported by its premises, or contains a gap in reasoning. It is often used in various fallacies to describe conclusions drawn by others without consistent valid reasoning from the original propositions. (Post hoc, slippery slope, assumptions, generalization, etc.)