FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE Lecture Notes of Severo L.

Brillantes

1. Fallacies

Fallacies are deceptive arguments: either the premises appear to be true but are actually false or
the argument is invalid but appears to be valid. A person may himself be unaware that he is
advancing a fallacious argument. Such fallacy unintentionally committed is called a paralogism.
There are some however who advance fallacious arguments intentionally. Fallacies intentionally
committed are called sophisms, after the Sophists of Ancient Greece.

The Sophists were teachers of debate and argumentation, talents of great value in the democratic
government of Ancient Greece. Yet unlike philosophers, their aim is not truth but victory. Thus,
no matter how false and indefensible their position is in a controversy, they will still argue their
case. Evidently, their only recourse under said circumstances is to use fallacies or deceptiove
arguments.

2. Reason for studying fallacies.

As a doctor studies illness although his concern is health, so must we study incorrect reasoning
even if our concern is correct reasoning. For through this knowledge, we can better know how to
reason correctly. And by knowing incorrect reasoning we can better avoid it. Lastly, in debate,
our ability to name fallacies by name would surely be an advantage.

3. Some Fallacies of Relevance. For an argument to be valid, the premise(s) must prove the
conclusion. Some arguments, however, have premises that, prove something else other than the
conclusion to be proven. Hence, they are irrelevant or not related to their conclusion and thus fail
to prove it.

a. Argumentum ad Hominem

An argument directed against the person (his personality, race, sex, religion, etc..) rather than
what the person says, in order to show that what he says is false.

1) Example: How dare you criticize my policies! Have you ever tried being
an administrator?

2) Explanation: Attacking a person, i.e. his work does not prove that what he
said is false. To do so, one must directly show the falsity of his statements, by presenting
proofs or evidence.

b. Argumentum ad Populum

An argument that appeals to popular prejudices rather than to reason.

1) Example: There is nothing wrong with cheating. Almost every student

does it.

1
 2) Explanation: That many people accept something does not prove that what
they accept or reject is true. For the majority view is a defective criterion of truth.

c. Argumentum ad Misericordiam

An argument that appeals to pity rather than to reason.

1) Example: If I fail in this subject, then my parents will no longer allow me

to study. If you are a teacher with a heart, don’t you think you should pass me?

2) Explanation: That one is pitiable is irrelevant to the question whether one

deserves to pass or not. If fails therefore to prove its conclusion.

d. Argumentum ad Verecundiam
An argument that appeals to misplaced authority rather than to reason.

1) Example: That famous scientist has done so much study about man. How
can he then be wrong when he said that the belief in the souls and life after death is but a
remnant of our superstitious past?

2) Explanation: Though on the basis of the trustworthiness of a person, his

word may be accepted as valid evidence. This kind of evidence, however, is very weak,
for he may commit errors. Thus an evidence from authority is not necessarily true,
However, if God be authority, one who is all-knowing, His word are undeniably true. For
he cannot commit errors.

e. Argumentum ad baculum

An argument that appeals to force or threat of force to cause the acceptance of a conclusion.

f. Argumentum ad ignorantiam

An argument that concludes that a proposition is true simply because it has not been proved
false or that a proposition is false simply because it has not been proved true. Being accused of
graft and corruption, the government official issues the challenge that his adversary prove it. If
he cannot prove, then he will conclude that he did not steal from the government coffers.

g. Fallacy of Accident

An argument that applies a general rule to a particular case whose accidental circumstances
render the rule inapplicable. This argument is invalid because the general rule has exceptions and
the conclusion may be one of the exceptions.

An argument that affirms or denies of a thing (as something essential to it) what has been
affirmed or denied only of some accidental modification or condition of the thing or vice versa.

2
 1) Example: Exams only lead students to cheating. Therefore, there
should no longer be any exams at all.

2) Explanation: In this fallacy you confuse a qualified statement (has

exceptions) to be an absolute statement (has no exceptions). That there us cheating is
only accidental to exams. Exams do not necessarily lead to cheating. Yet here it is as if
exams essentially or necessarily lead to cheating.

h. Converse Accident (hasty generalization)

An argument which consists in generalizing or applying to all cases what is only true in some
cases or whose application is limited or restricted.

1) Example: Opiates can help cure the suffering of the seriously ill; Therefore, it
must be made available to all. Alcohol brings harmful effects, therefore their
sale must be prohibited.

i. Fallacy of False Cause

An argument that considers something as the cause of another simply because it is associated
with it or precedes it. It is giving the wrong cause to an effect. It confuses a temporal or
accidental connection as a causal connection.

1) Example: Maria me an accident, because on the way to school she saw

black cat.

2) Explanation: To be the cause of something, that supposed effect must

necessarily proceed from it. The more act however, than something happens after another
proof that the antecedent happening is its cause.

However, than something happens after another is not proof that the antecedent happening is its
cause.

j. Fallacy of Begging the Question

An argument that assumes as a premise of his argument the very conclusion he intends to prove
(the premise and the conclusion mean the same thing).

1) Example: There is life after death because death is not the end but
only a door to another life. The human soul is immortal because it cannot die.

2) Explanation: The proof is the same conclusion stated in another way.

Thus, it does not really prove the conclusion but only repeats it. There is no new truth
involved in the conclusion. The premise is itself the conclusion that needs to be proven.

3
 The issue is whether the soul is immortal. By saying it cannot die does not really resolve
the issue, for that is exactly what we want to know: whether or not it cannot die.

*Arguing in circles: It consists in taking two propositions and using each to

prove the other.

**Example: Crispa is the best team in the PBA. Why? Because it won
most of its games. Why? Because it is the best team in the PBA.

k. Complex Question

One that consists in asking a complex question (actually made up of more than one question) and
demanding a simple “Yes” or “No” answer and thus tricking someone in making admissions he
did not intend to make.

1) Example: Did you again quarrel with your husband? Did your sales
increase as a result of misleading advertising.

2) Explanation: They are complex questions: 1) Do you have a husband? Did

You again quarrel with your husband? Do not give a simple “Yes” or “No” answer and
instead say, “I do not have a husband” By answering the implied prior question then the
second or explicit one simply dissolves as it does not make sense.

“My sales increased but I did not use misleading advertising.

l. Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion)

It consists in proving a conclusion other than that which should be proved. Thus, there is
ignorance of the refutation.

1) Example: He is not guilty. He is kind to the kids and played games with
them.

m. False Assumption

It consists in using a false principle or statement as a premise.

1) Example: Every man who kills another ought to die. This man should
die. No one has seen God; therefore, God does not exists.

2) Explanation: The premise being false, you fail to prove your conclusion.
You refute it by pointing out that the assumption is false.

n. Red herring fallacy

4
An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea
is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

1) Example: Senator Clark: "Why are you not willing to support the
antiabortion amendment? Don't you have any feelings at all for the unborn children
whose lives are being indiscriminately blotted out?"
Senator Rich: "I just don't understand why you people who get so worked up
about lives being blotted out by abortion don't have the same feelings about the thousands
of lives that are blotted out every year by the indiscriminate use of handguns. Is not the
issue of the sanctity of human life involved in both issues? Why have you not supported
us in our efforts at gun-control legislation?"

o. Strawman fallacy

A straw man fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents and distorts the opposition’s stance
and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making
which he is the very first place never held.

1) Example: A public health researcher says that they think that teenagers must be
taught about contraception methods so they can practice safe sex if and when they choose to
have intercourse. A newspaper prints, ‘This sex education researcher wants to give the kids a
license to have sex.’

You are against the death penalty? So you think the lives of murderers are more
important than the lives of innocent victims?

Exercises: Name the fallacy committed in the following arguments. Explain your answer.

1. He obviously lacks the qualification requisite for the position and is therefore clearly not
fit for the job.

2. His opinion is absolutely worthless; why, he didn’t even finish high school.

3. Miracles are impossible because they simply can’t happen.

4. “No sane person can reasonably object to euthanasia, for it is only an act of pity to put
incurable sufferers out of their misery by killing them painlessly.”

5. State-owned industries should be done away with; in featherbedding and absenteeism,

they lead all others.

6. White lies are all right because everybody tells them.

7. Lopez undertook the struggle single-handed against a powerful Brazil joined with
Argentina and Uruguay as allies.

5
 8. Is that the girl who claims she was raped? Just look at her photos in the papers. My God,
she appears almost nude.

9. When there was no longer decolgen, the seminary infirmarian gave M-M to the cold-
stricken seminarians. And many got well. Therefore M-M can cure colds.

10. Nora Aunor uses Lux, therefore, we should also use Lux.

11. Filipinos have great respect for their elders. Therefore, that news about a man who
neglected to death his parents can never be true.
12. The Pope has said that the planets and the sun revolve around the earth. Therefore,
Galileo was wrong in saying that it is the earth and other planets that revolve around the
sun.

13. Vote for me, for all freedom-loving people are doing so.

14. So many crimes have been committed because of money. Therefore money should be
prohibited.

Propaganda and Fallacies

Proganda in its negative sense as we understand it today refer to deceptive persuasive techniques.
How do they deceive? A common way of deception is by diverting our attention to something
else or evading the issue. In logic, they are called fallacies or deceptive arguments, more
particularly, sophism or deceptive argument intentionally committed.

There are many ways of diverting our attention or evading the issue in order to deceive us. One
is name-calling, which in logic corresponds to ad hominem arguments: arguments which
evade the issue by attacking the person, i.e calling him a terrorist, instead of what the person
said. For instance, when Marcos is called a plunderer or corrupt, his defender will say, but those
who oppose Marcos are also corrupt, instead of attacking the argument as to whether or not
Marcos is corrupt.

The bandwagon effect as well as glittering generalities correspond to what is logic is called ad
populum argument: an argument that evades the issues and appeals to popular prejudices

6
instead. One for instance would campaign for a candidate because he is against corruption which
is popular, without showing if he has a clear program of government against corruption. Our
commercials, which dwell on popular interests like a white skin or being tall use this kind of
propaganda.

Plain folks techniques corresponds to what in logic is called ad verecundiam argument: one
that evades the issue and appeals to misplaced authority instead. This is how movie stars win
elections or advertise products. A certain movie star for instance speaks of dental hygiene when
he or she has no competence on the matter, but which induce people to believe because of their
being good actors or actresses.

Propaganda may also be based on fear, which corresponds to what in logic is called ad baculum
argument: one that evades the issue and appeals to fear instead. Misuari may say for instance
that if you do not agree with my proposal, then I will start a war.

Common among all propaganda is the appeal to emotions. By appealing to our fear, respect for a
certain person, popular prejudices. They are deceptive, because they appeal only to emotions and
not to reason at all. Contrary to propaganda is rhetorics, which is the true art of persuasion.
According to Aristotle, it has three (3) elements: logos: appeal to reason; ethos: appeal to the
credibility of the person and pathos: appeal to emotions. This is propaganda taken positively: one
that does not only appeal to emotions alone but to reason as well. We have to appeal to emotions
to move people into action. But we have to appeal also to reason, to truly convince and not to
deceive. Finally, we must also look at who is speaking. Is he credible or has competence in the
field he is speaking on?

This is propaganda taken positively. That is why. Rizal and the other reformers during the
Spanish Regime were called propagandists. They spouse the welfare of the people by appealing
to the reason of the Spanish authorities. Propaganda or rhetorics however will only succeed if the
listener is open to reasonable arguments, which the Spanish rulers were not. Thus, reform failed
and gave way to the revolution or armed struggle of Bonifacio.

utterly unable to prove your bare allegation, your only recourse is to make a
cowardly retreat from the issue you have yourself raised. I ask again. Your
evidence that it is an Npa film and your evidence that it is presented by
pinklawans.

7
8
Should we be misantropes then? You conclude that we should not open the door on the basis of
your premise that people are by and large spectacularly awful. Does that not commit the fallacy
of converse accident (hasty generalization)?

HOW DOES ONE WIN ARGUMENTS? Someone pointed out that “straw-man attitudes do
not win arguments”, to which another responded saying “winning is a subjective belief…
certainly the strawman will systematically claim to be winning”.
My response: How do you win arguments? By being able to persuade others to agree to your
side of a dispute? If yes, then you can do so with the use of deceptive arguments which in logic
are called fallacies. The Sophists were teachers of debate and argumentation, talents of great
value in the democratic government of Ancient Greece. Yet unlike philosophers, their aim is not
truth but victory. Thus, no matter how false and indefensible their position is in a controversy,
they will still argue their case. Evidently, their only recourse under said circumstances is to use
fallacies or deceptive arguments.

9
But if you are a true philosopher by which I understand as someone whose aim is the truth, you
will seek to win arguments by advancing arguments which are sound: valid arguments with true
premises. The first is subjective but not so with the second as there are objective standards for
the validity of arguments and the truth of premises.

10