Fallacies of Relevance

Informal Fallacies are typical errors or mistakes that arise commonly in ordinary discourse. They use persuasive arguments and so, although invalid, may appeal or come across as correct. They are then to be treated with caution in order to avoid the traps they set. We may technically define a fallacy as a type of an argument that may seem to be correct but proves, on examination, not to be so.

Fallacies of Relevance

When an argument relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion and therefore cannot be establish its truth. The connection between the premises and the conclusion is often emotional. In a good argument, it must be noted; the premises must provide genuine evidence for the conclusion.

Argumentum ad baculum – appeal to force – the use of threat in a form calculated to win the assent of another person or cause him to accept a conclusion. It is the discourse of power. The threat may either be physical or psychological so it is an argument based upon a threat. Arguers using this type of appeal try to persuade you by pointing out their powers over you or by warning you of the bad consequences of refusing to accept their argument.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you do not bring in a verdict of guilty, you may be this killer’s next victim!

We cannot have this statement on expenditures coming to the attention of the president. You have been the accountant here for nearly twenty years. It would be a shame to ruin all that now. I think it would be wise of you to take another look at the books.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to force, look for the presence of a threat that is either explicit or subtly disguised.

Argumentum ad misericordiam – appeal to pity – when careful reasoning is replaced by devices contrived to cause sympathy or to evoke pity from another to get the other accept the conclusion. The basic structure of the argument is this: you should accept my conclusion out of pity. The arguer urges you to believe something by arousing your sympathy for him or his cause.

There is no question that what this young man did is intolerable and repugnant. He admits it himself. But you are not here to evaluate this man’s conduct morally; you are here to try him and determine his guilt or innocence. And as you think this over, I want you to think hard about this young man, his home life and his future, which you now hold in your hands. Think about his broken home, never knowing his father, being left by his mother. Think about the poverty he has known, the foster homes, the birthdays going unnoticed, and the Christmas he has never had. And think hard about what life in prison will do to him. Think about these things, and I know you will acquit him of this crime.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to pity, look for premises that appeal to your sympathy.

Argumentum ad populum – appeal to the people or appeal to the emotion – careful reasoning is placed with devices aimed at creating enthusiasm and emotional support.

The basis structure of the argument is this: some statement S is true because most people believe S. It is, in effect, an appeal to commonly or traditionally held beliefs. The main error of this argument lies in the act that the popular acceptance of a policy does not show it to be wise. The fact that a great many people hold it to be true does not prove an opinion to be true.

To legalize jueteng or any other form of gambling because many people are engaging in it anyway.

To say that the constitution is defective because many people want it to be amended.

Direct: to excite the emotion and enthusiasm of the crowd. To arouse a kind of mob mentality. Not limited to verbal argumentation but also employs emotional charged phraseology.

political campaigns. slogans and labels.

Indirect: the appeal is addressed to one or more individuals separately. There is the bandwagon; the vanity – associating a product with a certain celebrity who is admired and pursued, the idea being that you, too, will be admired and pursued if you use it; and the snobbery type.

BANDWAGON:

90% are using Zest. You will be left behind or left out of the group if you do not use the product.

VANITY:

Only the ultimate in fashion could compliment the face of Cindy Crawford. Spectrum sunglasses – for the beautiful people in the jet set.S

SNOBBERY:

A Jaguar is not for everyone. If you think you belong to the select few, this distinguished classic may be seen and test driven at Ortigas Motor Cars. By appointment only, please!

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to the people, look for an argument in which the conclusion is based on assertions about commonly or traditionally held beliefs. The observation of Bertrand Russel is worth noting: In view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

Argumentum ad hominem – attack against the person – when an attack is leveled not at the claim or conclusion of an opponent but at the person of the opponent. It is an attack upon the person rather than the persons’ ideas, on the opponent’s character implying that what he says should not be believed because of his character flaw. There are three common types of ad hominem arguments:

Abusive: when the attack is directly against a person seeking to defame or discredit him. It involves two claims: first, that the opponent possess a ceratin undesirable or negative characteristic and secondly, that the opponents’ words or abilities are not to be trusted because of that characteristic. The structure of this fallacy is: whatever anyone with undesirable characteristic X says is probably not true. Person A has undesirable characteristic X. Therefore, whatever A says is probably not true.

Well now, you have all heard Professor Clark tell us about the theory of evolution. But I am not surprised that he neglected to tell you that he is a godless atheist! How can this man speak the truth, I ask you?

To identify the ad hominem abusive fallacy, look for an attack on the person’s character rather than a person’s statements.

Circumstantial – when the attack is indirectly against persons suggesting that they adopt their view chiefly because of their special circumstances or interests. It implies that the opponent has special, usually self-interested, reasons for his or her claims. The argument attempts to refute the person’s statements not by offering reasons against it but by suggesting that the person himself does not have good reasons or honest motives for the position. The structure of this fallacy may be presented as follows: Person A has self-interested reasons for asserting S. Therefore, S is probably not true.

The auto industry lobbyists have been arguing that tax reform is unnecessary. But just remember this: it is the auto industry that stands to benefit the most if there is no change in the current tax laws.

To identify the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, look for an argument that claims that the opponent advances his or her argument not because it is true but because the opponent has some other, usually ulterior, motive for wanting his or her argument accepted.

Tu quoque – Shifting the burden of guilt. It is an argument in which one defends oneself by accusing one’s attacker, usually of a similar wrongdoing. “Two wrongs do not make a right” so that even if the arguer is right in attacking his accuser, he has not defended himself against the charge.

Yes, I admit, I did lie to you about last night. But you have lied to me also before.

To identify the tu quoque fallacy, look for an argument that attempts to offer a defense by accusing the accuser of a similar wrongdoing.

The character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person says. Abusive premises may persuade by the psychological process of transference. The field of emotional disapproval, when it is evoked, may be extended so as to include disagreement with the assertion the person makes. The same is to be said about assigning guilt by association. The circumstances of one who makes or rejects some claim have no bearing on the truth of that claim.

Argumentum ad verecundiam – appeal to authority – when the premises of an argument appeal to some party having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand. This means, in other words, that the fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when the authority cited is not qualified in the relevant matters or, less typically, is not free from adverse influences. The argument in this case relies upon the assertions of someone who is not truly in a position to know.

According to my physics professor, Emily Dickinson’s poetry is for the birds.

That is good enough for me.

Marvis Frazier is America’s greatest boxer. I have that on the authority of Marvis’ father, Joe Frazier.

The underlying idea of such arguments is that some statement S is true because some authority A has said it is true. The argument’s basis structure is thus – authority A asserts that S. Therefore, S. Immediately this argument can be seen to be neither valid nor strong, since the mere fact that someone asserts S neither makes it so nor makes it probable. Typically, however, the arguer believes more than the mere fact that A asserts S. The arguer very likely is assuming such things as that A is someone who knows what he is talking about regarding S, or that A is speaking without basis , or that A is telling the truth. If those similar assumptions are well founded, the appeal to authority A may constitute good reasoning. Not all appeals to authority are fallacious. After all, we should accept the testimony of qualified and unbiased experts for we cannot be experts in every field ourselves.

To recognize the appeal to authority, look for an argument based primarily on the premise that some person or some publication reports that S is true. The fallacy occurs when the person or publication is not relevantly qualified or is not speaking without bias; in other words, whenever the truth of some proposition is assented on the basis of the authority of one who has no special competence in that sphere, the appeal to misplaced authority is committed.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam - appeal to ignorance – when it is argued that a position is true on the ground that it has not been proved false or vice-versa. The premises tell us that nothing can be known with certainty one way or the other about a certain subject while the conclusion states something definite. The two structures of the appeal to ignorance are: We do not know that S is false. Therefore, S is true or We do not know that S is true. Therefore S is false.

Well, I have examined all the arguments for the existence of God, and I have seen that none of them proves that God exists. That is reason enough for me: there is no God!

The lack of evidence that S is true (or not true) should not, in most cases, be taken as proof that S is not true (or true). However, there are at least two kinds of cases that resemble the appeal to ignorance in which a lack of evidence may justify the conclusion that S is true (or not true). In a court of law the failure to establish that a person has committed a crime is considered sufficient to allow us to conclude that the person is guilty. Thus, lawyers may argue that their clients are innocent because there is no evidence of their guilt. Notice, however, that finding a person innocent or guilty in a court of law is not a determination that the person did not commit the crime; it is a determination that the evidence does not justify a judgment of guilt. But if we conclude that a defendant did not commit the crime because he was found not guilty, we would be committing the fallacy of appeal to ignorance. Similarly, in scientific reasoning a failure to disconfirm or disprove a hypothesis lends support to the hypothesis, although it does not usually justify concluding that the hypothesis is true. Rather, each failure to disconfirm the hypothesis indicates that it is more probable.

Our ignorance to prove either the truth or falsity of a conclusion primarily signifies our inability and not the truth or falsity of the very conclusion. The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when the lack of evidence or proof is not relevant to the conclusion but the arguer believes that it is.

To recognize the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, look for a conclusion based upon are absence of proof or evidence.

Accident – committed when a general rule is applied wrongly to a specific case. The general rule is cited in the premises and then wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion. Because of the accidental features of the specific case, the general rule does not fit.

Freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right,. Therefore, that radical communist should not be arrested for his speech that incited that riot last week.

Property should be returned to its rightful owner. That drunken marine soldier who is having a fight lent you his gun and he wants it back now. Therefore, you should return it to him now.

Converse Accident – hasty generalization – committed when a conclusion is drawn about all the members of a group from evidence that pertains to selected sample. The fallacy occurs when there is likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too small or not randomly selected.

I have spoken to the members of the campus Siglakas club, and they prefer to use the activity fund for a film series on birds. So probably a majority of the two thousand students would prefer a film series on birds.

To identify the fallacy of hasty generalization, look for a conclusion that generalizes over a group. Notice whether the basis for the generalization is both representative of the group and sufficiently large to justify the generalization.

False Cause – committed whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that does not in fact exist. Any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of a thing what is not really its cause is a fallacy – non causa pro causa. The most common variety of false cause is the error of concluding that an event is cause by another simply because it follows the other – post hoc ergo propter hoc.

A black cat crossed my path and later I tripped and sprained my ankle. It must be that black cats are really bad luck

During the past two months, every time that the cheerleaders wore blue ribbons in their hair, the basketball team was defeated. Therefore, to prevent defeats in the future, the cheerleaders should get rid of those blue ribbons.

There are more laws in the books today than ever before, and more crimes are being committed than ever before. Therefore, to reduce crime we must eliminate the law.

Another type of fallacy of false cause is called oversimplification. This occurs when an arguer explains the occurrence of some event or phenomenon in terms of one or more of its least important causes.

I blame the television media for the epidemic of hijackings, kidnappings, and other acts of terrorism. If we would stop televising terrorist acts, they would stop.

To identify the fallacy of false cause, look for the claim that one thing or event is cause by or explained as the result of some other thing or event A. Then consider whether there is any good evidence that A causes B. The variation called oversimplification can usually be spotted when an arguer proposes a solution to a problem while at the same time overlooking other causal factors.

Petitio principii – begging the question – assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. Phrasing the argument so that the premise and conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different ways. Another name for this is circular argument. The argument begs the question at issue because it asks that the statement to be proved be granted beforehand. It assumes as true the very point in question.

Philosophers are highly intelligent individuals because if they were not highly intelligent they would not be philosophers.

The Bible asserts that God exists. The Bible is the divine word of God. Therefore, God exists.

It is plain to see that suicide is morally wrong because, as any thinking person will admit, no one is ever justified in taking his or her own life.

To recognize the fallacy of begging the question, look for an argument that assumes already the very issue under debate. Be aware that a question-begging argument may appear to offer legitimate, independent support, but on closer examination a premise in fact either itself rests upon the conclusion or restates the conclusion in different words.

Complex question – when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked and the single answer is then applied to both questions.

Have you stopped cheating on your girlfriend?

If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex question when one is put to them, they may answer quite innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported by no evidence at all.

False analogy – a fallacy committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the conclusion that is drawn. It draws a conclusion about something on the basis of an analogy with or resemblance to some other thing. The assumption is that if two or more things are alike in some respects, they are alike in some other respect. The structure of the argument is as follows: A and B are both f, g, and H. A is also j. Therefore, probably B is j.

Harper’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets an excellent mileage. Crowley’s new car is also bright blue and has leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent mileage too.

To recognize the fallacy of the false analogy, look for an argument that draws a conclusion about one thing, event, or practice on the basis of its analogy or resemblance to other. The fallacy occurs when the analogy or resemblance is not sufficient to warrant the conclusion, as when, for example, the resemblance is not relevant to the possession of the inferred feature or there are relevant dissimilarities.

Slippery slope – this a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the conclusion of an argument rests upon the claim that a certain event will set off a chain reaction, leading in the end to some undesirable consequence, yet there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain reaction will actually take place.

Attempts to outlaw pornography threaten basic civil rights and should be summarily abandoned. If pornography is outlawed, censorship of news papers and news magazines is only a short step away. After that there will be censorship of textbooks, political speeches, and the content of lectures delivered by university professors. Complete mind control by the central government will be the inevitable result.

You have all heard of grade inflation. Well, I want to speak to you about grade depression: the serious harm we do to students by grading them too hard rather than too easily. What does it do to students to measure them by too strict a standard? It frustrates them. It conditions them to expect failure. They recoil from responsibility, always taking the easy route rather than learning to challenge and hence improve themselves. They develop habits of dependency, and many develop the symptoms of neurosis and other psychological disorders. Can we afford a generation of weak, dependent people unsuited for the demands of contemporary society?

To recognize the slippery slope fallacy, look for an argument claiming that a certain practice or event will initiate a series of events ultimately leading to some undesirable consequences.

Red herring – a fallacy that is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by addressing a number of extraneous issues and ends by presuming that some conclusion has been established. The fallacy got its name from the practice of using a herring, a particularly smelly fish when cooked, to divert hunting dogs from the scent of a fox. To commit the fallacy of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other, seemingly related issue. In so doing, the arguer attempts to sidetrack the opponent’s argument.

Friends and neighbors I urge you to defeat the proposal to make jail sentences mandatory for drunk drivers. My opponent claims that it will reduce the number of accidents caused by drunk drivers. But if we really want to reduce traffic accidents, then we should stand behind those men and women whose chief responsibility is our safety. I am referring of course, to our valiant police officers, what we need to is increase their salaries, beef up the police force, and, most importantly, stop butting into their business with troublesome people.

I agree with my opponent that pornography is a national problem, and I am almost persuaded by his argument that women are being degraded and victimized by pornography. I say, almost persuaded… until I remember the facts that my opponent obviously overlooks: namely, that the people of South Africa are not merely degraded and victimized, they are deprived of every right due a human being. And what I do not understand is how we convince ourselves that our so called national problem takes precedence over genuine oppression and suffering.

To recognize the fallacy of red herring, look for an argument in which the speaker responds by directing attention away from the issue to other, seemingly related issues.

Suppressed evidence – a fallacy committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, its occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of the premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were the whole truth, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. It is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.

The second amendment to the constitution states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law controlling handguns would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling hand guns would be unconstitutional.