Fallacies: Why and Where?

• In Logic, errors or mistakes in reasoning are called fallacies.

The term came from the Latin word faller which means
‘deception’ or ‘false’. Hence, fallacies are false reasoning.
One important note to think about is that if a reasoning or
argument committed a fallacy, it does not necessarily mean
that its conclusion is already false. The fallacies are
committed in the reasoning process itself. It usually follows
that if the reasoning is false, then the conclusion is also false.
However, that is not always the case.
•Take this argument as an example:
Everything natural is good for the body.
Vegetable are natural.
Therefore, vegetables are good for the
body.
• In this example, the structure and form of the argument is
correct. However, in terms of content, it may be fallacious.
The first line, “Everything natural is good for the body.”, is
false because if something is natural, it does not necessarily
mean that it is already good for the body. Hemlock is a plant,
which means it is natural. However, it is actually poison. So,
this argument already committed a fallacy on its first line.
Even so, it is still possible for the conclusion (Therefore,
vegetables are good for the body.) to be correct.
• There are hundreds, maybe even thousands
of fallacies out there. But, the generally-
accepted ones are classified into three:
Irrelevance, Presumption, and Ambiguity.
• The first classification, the Fallacies of Irrelevance are
committed when the conclusion does not have a
connection or a ‘relevance’ to the premises of the
argument. The claims of the conclusion are not
appropriately supported by the premises. Examples of
these fallacies are Argumentum ad Hominem,
Argumentum ad Baculum, Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, Argumentum ad Misericordiam, and Tu
Quoque Fallacy.
• The second classification, the Fallacies of Presumption are committed
when our arguments make a jump to a certain conclusion even
without a strong evidence. As we know, the human mind has its
limitations. We do not possess knowledge about the things that had
happened before we were born, and we have no idea what will
happen in the future. We, sometimes, make presumptions in order to
organize the affairs in our lives, but there is a tendency for us to
overdo it. We commit the Fallacies of Presumption when we speak
with certainty, even if we have no proof of it. Fallacies that fall under
this classification are Fallacy of Composition/Division, Fallacy of
Complex Question, Slippery Slope Fallacy, False Cause Fallacy.
• The last classification, the Fallacies of Ambiguity are fallacies that we
commit due to our limitations in language. The 20th philosopher Ludwig
Wittgenstein knew this limitations in language, and thought in his
concept of Logical Atomism that it is the task of philosophy to rectify the
mistakes we commit due to the limitations of our language. The Fallacies
of Ambiguity, hence, can also be called as Fallacies of Language. The way
we convey our ideas into language could, sometimes, result in ambiguous
and vague statements that are open to interpretation, and so we could
proceed to a misunderstanding with the person we are communicating
with. Fallacies that fall under this classification are Fallacies of
Equivocation, Fallacies of Amphiboly, Fallacies of Accent. Check Your
Understanding.
Fallacies: The Examples
Argumentum ad Hominem is a Latin phrase that translates to “an
argument to the man” or “an attack to 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. Here is an example:
Person A: Logic is an extremely important and useful subject.
Person B: You believe that because 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.
Argumentum ad Baculum translates to “an appeal to the stick”. The
stick is used as an 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. Here is an
example:
Richard: Anna, you have to tell the board that my proposal is the best
one. 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.
• Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or “an appeal to
ignorance” is a fallacy being used to argue the non-
existence of something due to a lack of knowledge.
Here is an example: Richard: I did not see Anna’s e-mail
in my inbox. Therefore, she did not send it. 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.
• Argumentum ad Misericordiam 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. Here is an 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 has been a living nightmare.
Tu Quoque Fallacy or “an appeal to hypocrisy” is a fallacy we commit
by justifying our wrong actions because somebody has done it as well.
Here is an 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 hypocrisy
that he cannot give him a lecture to do the right action.
• Let us proceed to examples of Fallacies of Presumption:
Fallacies of Composition/Division, Fallacy of Complex Question,
Slippery Slope Fallacy, False Cause Fallacy.
• Fallacies of Composition/Division is about the relation
between parts and whole. Fallacy of Composition happens
when we mistakenly assume that what is true for the parts
must also be true for the whole. For Fallacy of Division, it is the
other way around – we mistakenly assume that what is true for
the whole must also be true for the parts. Here is an example: