Fallacies
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or “wrong moves”, in the construction of an argument, which may appear stronger than it really is if the fallacy is not spotted. The term was in the Western intellectual tradition introduced in the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.
Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception. Others are committed unintentionally because of human limitations such as carelessness, cognitive or social biases, or plain ignorance. This includes ignorance of the right reasoning standard, but also ignorance of relevant properties of the context. For instance, the soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.
Fallacies can be broadly categorized into formal and informal fallacies.
- A formal fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. These are errors in the logical structure of an argument. An example is the masked-man fallacy, which incorrectly applies Leibniz’s Law.
- An informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form. Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious. These are errors in the content of an argument. They are more diverse and can involve things like irrelevant appeals, faulty generalizations, or misinterpretations of cause and effect.
What Are Fallacies About?
- Errors in Logic: Fallacies are fundamentally about flawed reasoning. They can occur in the structure of an argument (formal fallacies) or in the content of an argument (informal fallacies).
- Not about Truth or Falsity: A fallacy doesn’t mean a statement is false, but rather that the way it’s used in an argument is flawed. For example, a false dilemma fallacy presents only two options when more exist, but either of those options might be true.
- Persuasive but Invalid: Fallacies are often used to make arguments appear more convincing than they actually are. This can be intentional, as in propaganda, or unintentional, as in everyday conversation.
Examples
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack or refute.
- Slippery Slope: Asserting that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events, resulting in a significant and usually negative outcome.
- Hasty Generalization: Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence or a small sample size.
- Post Hoc (False Cause): Assuming that because one event happened before another, the first event caused the second event.
- Appeal to Authority: Using the opinion or position of an authority figure as evidence for an argument, even if the authority figure is not an expert on the subject.
- False Dichotomy(False Dilemma): Presenting only two options as if they are the only possible choices, when in reality, there may be other alternatives.
- Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the subject being discussed.
- Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): Assuming the conclusion of an argument within the premises, resulting in a circular argument with no real support.
I. Formal Fallacies
II. Propositional Fallacies
III. Quantification Fallacies
IV. Syllogistic Fallacies
V. Modal Fallacies
VI. Informal Fallacies
(Grouped further)
A. Relevance Fallacies
-
Appeal to Disgust(Wisdom of repugnance, Argumentum ad fastidium)
B. Attribution/Definition Fallacies
C. Causation Fallacies
D. Faulty Generalization
E. Statistical Fallacies
F. Other Specific Fallacies
Speculative Hypothesis Fallacy
The Speculative Hypothesis Fallacy, also known as the Hypothesis Contrary to Fact or Counterfactual Fallacy, involves using speculation, poorly supported claims, or what-if scenarios as if they were factual, often in the context of the past or future. It essentially treats hypothetical situations as established truths, leading to faulty reasoning and arguments.
This fallacy arises when a claim about what might have happened under different circumstances is presented as a factual account of what actually happened or what will happen.
Logical Form:
The basic structure is: “If X had happened, then Y would have happened” (based solely on speculation).
Example:
“If you had taken that course on CD player repair, you would be doing well now.” This statement is a speculative claim without evidence to support the outcome.
Why it’s a fallacy: Speculative claims are often unfalsifiable, meaning they cannot be proven true or false with evidence. They lack the grounding in reality necessary for valid arguments.
Related Fallacies: This fallacy can be related to appeal to ignorance (assuming a proposition is false because it hasn’t been proven true) and ad hoc reasoning (creating ad hoc explanations to defend a hypothesis).