Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0, has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C. Labossiere, with distribution restrictions — please see our copyright notice. If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them both to the Nizkor webmasters ([email protected]) and to Dr. Labossiere ([email protected]).
Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Description of Fallacies
To understand what Exactly a fallacy is, one must and Should understand what an argument is. Very briefly, In an argument there are premises and conclusion. A premise is nothing but a statement which may be true or false and it is made to support the claim , and conclusion final statement or verdict it may be true or false.
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS :
DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT : A deductive argument is an argument which gives complete
support for the conclusion
2) INDUCTIVE ARGUMENT : An inductive argument is an argument which gives only upto
a certain level of support but less than complete support) for
the conclusion
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
Examples of Fallacies
Inductive Argument
Premise 1: Most Australian Dogs are domestic house Dogs Premise 2: Scooby is an Australian Dog
Conclusion: Scooby id domestic house Dog.
Factual Error
Sydney is the capital of the Australia.
Deductive Fallacy
Premise 1: If Sydney is the capital of Australia, then it is in Australia. Premise 2: Sydney is in Australia.
Conclusion: Sydney is the capital of Australia.
Sydney is in Australia, but Canberra the capital. Sydney is metro city in Australia, though.)
Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Burma, I saw a white Elephant Conclusion: All Burma Elephants are white.
(While there are many, many elephants in Burma, the white ones are very rare).
Fallacy: Against The Man (attack on Man or character)
Description of “To The MAN”
Actual Term Used is , “Against The Man ” means “against the man” or “against the person.”
Amongst Many Fallacies one of a common f fallacy is ” An Against The Man ” in which an argument
Or Claim is rejected depending upon non relative fact about the person who presents the claim
The rejection process have 2 steps . Firstly, attacking against person’s Character or individuality making the arguement, his situations Secondly, attacking on the Proof (evidence) of the claim or the Argument Presenter.
If a Person “Z” is making a arguemt or claim “X”
Than Person “Y” attacks on “Z”.
Therefore “Z”‘s Argument is false.
The reason behind why an” Against The Man” is a fallacy is that the character, Individuality situations, are not having the reliability on the truth or a false argument is being presented
.
Example of Against The Man
Andrew: “I trust that Child Marriages are morally wrong.”
David: “yes you could say that, you’re a active social worker.”
Andrew: “What wrong in my arguments which i gave to strengthen my claim?”
David: “Those are count less. As I said, you’ are just a social workert, so you will say that Child Marriages are wrong. Further, you are just a just a social worker but not a Pope, so I can’t trust what ever you argue .”
Fallacy: You Too Fallacy
Description of You Too Fallacy
When a person’s Claim is come to an end as false claim or argument because of incompatibility
With a person has claimed or the incompatibility of the argument with the actions of the person
The form of this fallacy is as follows
1. Person Z makes claim X.
2. Person Y defends that Z’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.
The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true – but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.
Examples of You Too Fallacy ::
1. Peter : “Consumption of Alcohol is dangerous to health and leads to many dangerous health issues. So i advice you to never start drinking.”
Alex: “yeah, I don’t want to put my Liver in danger and suffer with cancer.”
Peter: “I’m going to get a Beer. Want to join me Dave?”
Alex: ” Well, I think Drinking Beer wont be that dangerous. After all, peter Drinks.”
2. Vinny: “Based on my research I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to smoke in public places
Pavan: “But now you are standing in a bus stop with cigarette in a hand
How can you say that smoking in public places is wrong!”
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Also Known as: Deceptive Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Unrelated Authority, and Uncertain
Authority, Incorrect Authority, Ad Verecundiam
Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is obliged when the person in question is not a legal authority on the subject. More officially, person A cannot make claims unless and until he is capable to make consistent claims in subject S, then the argument will be misleading Fallacy.
This sort of thinking is fallacious when the person in query is not an skilled one. In such cases the thinking is faulty because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any explanation for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unskilled person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person becomes victim to this fallacy, they are tolerant a claim as true without there being sufficient evidence to do so. precisely, the person is accepting the declaration because they mistakenly believe that the person making the claim is a genuine expert and hence that the claim is sensible to accept. Meanwhile people have a propensity to consider specialists this fallacy is a honestly usual one.
Subsequently this sort of thinking is misleading only when the person is not a authentic authority in a specific context, it is compulsory to provide some satisfactory criteria of evaluation. The following criteria is extensively accepted
The person has adequate capability in the subject matter in question.
The claim made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an satisfactory point of agreement among the experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.
Examples of Appeal to Authority
1. Tom and Smith are arguing about the morality of wars and nuclear explosion
Tom: “I trust that nuclear war are morally acceptable. After all, every country should have a right to defend and protect there people”
Smith: “I disagree totally. Dr. Kofi Annan says that nuclear war are always morally wrong, irrespective of there Rights and circumstances and the final result is massive death rate He has to be true, after all, he is a valued knowledgeable person.”
Tom: “I’ve never heard of Kofi Annan. Who is he?”
Smith: “He is a Nobel prize winner “for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world.”
Toml: “I see. Does he have any knowledge in morality or ethics?”
Smith: “I don’t know. But he’s a world famous expert, so I believe him.”
2. Pavan and Vinny are having a conversation:
Pavan: “I Buyed a lottery today and I know I am going to win something.” Vinny: “What did you do, rig the outcome?”
Pavan: “No, My Friend. I called my Personal Astrologer. After consulting him he Predicted me .” Vinny : “And you believed him?”
Pavan: “Certainly, he is a certified Astrolger and got his Doctrate for his research in occult science. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my Future is?”
Fallacy: Appeal to Belief
Description of Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has the following common outline:
1. Maximum people trust that a claim, X, is right.
2. Hence X is right.
This sort of “reasoning” is misleading because the realities that many people believe a claim do not, , serve as evidence that the claim is true.
However, there are some incidents when the fact that several people admit a claim as true is an
symptom that it is true. For instance, while you are visiting a Tobacco shop in australia you are told by many people that they believe that people visiting tobacco shop shoud have a Age proof in order to shop. Excluding causes to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone need to have a age proof in order to shop tobacco
There are also situations in which what people trust really concludes the certainty of a claim. For instance, the fact of claims about behaviors and proper conduct might merely depend on what people believe to be good behaviors and proper conduct. Another example is the case of communal principles, which are regularly taken to be the standards that most people consent. In some situations, what breaches certain communal standards is taken to be offensive. In such cases, for the claim “x is explicit” to be true is for most people in that society to believe that x is indecent. In such incidents it is quiet judicious to question the reasoning of the individual beliefs.
Examples of Appeal to Belief
1. Prior to the year 2013 most of the people around the world believed that December 21,2012 is the day on which world ends. However, this belief turned out to be false.
2. Jesus christ must exist. On balance, a TV survey declared that 85% of all Americans believe in
christ
3. Obviously there is nothing wrong with smoking. Ask anyone, he’ll tell you that he thinks smoking is fine.
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Advantageous emotions are linked with X.
2. Hence, X is true.
This fallacy is obligated when somebody influences peoples’ feelings or emotions in order to make them admit a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they “feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of “reasoning” is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of “reasoning” is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask “what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act
on?” Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in
certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be “you should participate in these acts of violence.” In this case, the “evidence” would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in
the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be “you should buy this beer.” The “evidence” would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the
beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples’ emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!
Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
View our academic writing services
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples’ emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to “fire” them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.
As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about
rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person’s claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.
Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows
Appeal to Popularity
1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.
Appeal to Emotion
1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion
1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.
2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight.
Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the people who are currently in office. After hearing
the speech, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels.
Fallacy: Appeal to Common Practice
Description of Appeal to Common Practice
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following form
1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
The simple idea behind the fallacy is that the point that most people do X is used as “proof” to support the act or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable.
An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say “the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them.” This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:
1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.
This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and
B has blonde hair.
There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:
1. Most people do X.
2. Therefore X is morally correct.
would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that there are only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one’s view simply by eliminating those who disagree.
Examples of Appeal to Common Practice
1. Director Jones is in charge of running a state waste management program. When it is found that the program is rife with corruption, Jones says “This program has its problems, but nothing goes on in this program that doesn’t go on in all state programs.”
2. “Yeah, I know some people say that cheating on tests is wrong. But we all know that everyone does it, so it’s okay.”
3. “Sure, some people buy into that equality crap. However, we know that everyone pays women
less then men. It’s okay, too. Since everyone does it, it can’t really be wrong.”
4. “There is nothing wrong with requiring multicultural classes, even at the expense of core subjects. After all, all of the universities and colleges are pushing multiculturalism.”
Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Includes: Wishful Thinking
Description of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:
1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative
consequences.
3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
6. I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say “If sixteen-headed purple unicorns don’t exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist” it would be clear that this would not be a
good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences
that stem from the belief. It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim.
The nature of the fallacy is especially clear in the case of Wishful thinking. Obviously, merely wishing that something is true does not make it true. This fallacy differs from the Appeal to Belief fallacy in that the Appeal to Belief involves taking a claim that most people believe that X is true to be evidence for X being true.
Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
1. “God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!”
2. “It can never happen to me. If I believed it could, I could never sleep soundly at night.”
3. “I don’t think that there will be a nuclear war. If I believed that, I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning. I mean, how depressing.”
4. “I acknowledge that I have no argument for the existence of God. However, I have a great
desire for God to exist and for there to be an afterlife. Therefore I accept that God exists.”
Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion
Description of Appeal to Emotion
An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various
means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they “feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.
This sort of “reasoning” is very common in politics and it serves as the basis for a large portion of modern advertising. Most political speeches are aimed at generating feelings in people so that these feelings will get them to vote or act a certain way. in the case of advertising, the commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy certain products. In most cases, such speeches and commercials are notoriously free of real evidence.
This sort of “reasoning” is quite evidently fallacious. It is fallacious because using various tactics to incite emotions in people does not serve as evidence for a claim. For example, if a person were able to inspire in a person an incredible hatred of the claim that 1+1 = 2 and then inspired the person to love the claim that 1+1 = 3, it would hardly follow that the claim that 1+1 = 3 would be adequately supported.
It should be noted that in many cases it is not particularly obvious that the person committing the fallacy is attempting to support a claim. In many cases, the user of the fallacy will appear to be attempting to move people to take an action, such as buying a product or fighting in a war. However, it is possible to determine what sort of claim the person is actually attempting to support. In such cases one needs to ask “what sort of claim is this person attempting to get people to accept and act
on?” Determining this claim (or claims) might take some work. However, in many cases it will be quite evident. For example, if a political leader is attempting to convince her followers to participate in
certain acts of violence by the use of a hate speech, then her claim would be “you should participate in these acts of violence.” In this case, the “evidence” would be the hatred evoked in the followers. This hatred would serve to make them favorable inclined towards the claim that they should engage in
the acts of violence. As another example, a beer commercial might show happy, scantily clad men and women prancing about a beach, guzzling beer. In this case the claim would be “you should buy this beer.” The “evidence” would be the excitement evoked by seeing the beautiful people guzzling the
beer.
This fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As many people have argued, peoples’ emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples’ emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with emotional terms and attempts to “fire” them up. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to fall prey to this fallacy.
As a final point, in many cases it will be difficult to distinguish an Appeal to Emotion from some other fallacies and in many cases multiple fallacies may be committed. For example, many Ad Hominems will be very similar to Appeals to Emotion and, in some cases, both fallacies will be committed. As an example, a leader might attempt to invoke hatred of a person to inspire his followers to accept that they should reject her claims. The same attack could function as an Appeal to Emotion and a Personal Attack. In the first case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers feel very favorable about
rejecting her claims. In the second case, the attack would be aimed at making the followers reject the person’s claims because of some perceived (or imagined) defect in her character.
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Despite the differences between these two fallacies, they are both united by the fact that they involve appeals to emotions. In both cases the fallacies aim at getting people to accept claims based on how they or others feel about the claims and not based on evidence for the claims.
Another way to look at these two fallacies is as follows
Appeal to Popularity
1. Most people approve of X.
2. So, I should approve of X, too.
3. Since I approve of X, X must be true.
Appeal to Emotion
1. I approve of X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
On this view, in an Appeal to Popularity the claim is accepted because most people approve of the claim. In the case of an Appeal to Emotion the claim is accepted because the individual approves of the claim because of the emotion of approval he feels in regards to the claim.
Examples of Appeal to Emotion
1. The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.
2. The new UltraSkinny diet will make you feel great. No longer be troubled by your weight.
Enjoy the admiring stares of the opposite sex. Revel in your new freedom from fat. You will know true happiness if you try our diet!
3. Bill goes to hear a politician speak. The politician tells the crowd about the evils of the government and the need to throw out the people who are currently in office. After hearing
the speech, Bill is full of hatred for the current politicians. Because of this, he feels good about getting rid of the old politicians and accepts that it is the right thing to do because of how he feels
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
