The knowledge on the different kinds of fallacies is essential for students of argumentation and debate. According to Francisco Africa, in his book on The Art of Argumentation and Debate, “A knowledge of the means of avoiding mistakes in inference will guide them in arriving at valid conclusions and in detecting the weakness of arguments of their opponents.”
Fallacies are generally classified into (1) rhetorical fallacies and (2) logical fallacies. If it involves errors of understanding or of interpretation, it refers to rhetorical fallacies. On the other hand, if it merely involves errors in reasoning, it refers to logical fallacies.
For further presentation, an outline is presented on the general classification and sub-classifications of these fallacies with their definitions and examples.
I. Rhetorical fallacies – These are also called hermeneutic fallacies.
1. Incorrect obversion – this arises when, in changing the original proposition from affirmative to negative or from negative to affirmative, the meaning of the original proposition is changed.
Example: a. All members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.
b. No members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.
Note: In order to avoid this fallacy, the change should be effected in the predicate.
Example: a. All members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.
b. No members of the Philippine Senate are Filipino citizens.
Note: In order to avoid this fallacy, the change should be effected in the predicate.
Correct: b. No members of the Philippine Senate are aliens.
2. Incorrect conversion – This arises when in the transposition of the subject and the predicate the meaning of the original proposition is changed.
Example: a. All contracts give rise to obligations.
b. All obligations arise from contracts.
Note: If a term is not distributed in the original proposition but it is distributed in the second proposition, this fallacy arises.
Example: a. All contracts give rise to obligations.
b. All obligations arise from contracts.
Note: If a term is not distributed in the original proposition but it is distributed in the second proposition, this fallacy arises.
Correct: b. Some obligations arise from contracts.
3. The fallacy of accent – This is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.
3. The fallacy of accent – This is committed when the meaning of a proposition is misinterpreted on account of a misplaced accent or emphasis on a term.
Example: We should be merciful to our neighbors.
Note: An emphasis on the word neighbors may imply that we may not be merciful to those who are not our neighbors.
4. The fallacy of amphibology – This arises on account of a faulty grammatical construction of the sentence which gives rise to miscomprehension.
Example: Do not bring the newspapers to your room. It might disturb other residents.
Note: Was it the newspapers that might disturb other residents or you?
II. Logical fallacies - These are errors in inferring.
Example: Do not bring the newspapers to your room. It might disturb other residents.
Note: Was it the newspapers that might disturb other residents or you?
II. Logical fallacies - These are errors in inferring.
A. Formal fallacies – Those that rise from violations of the syllogism. This arises to a mistake of inference.
1. Formal fallacies in categorical syllogisms – These are committed when the rules of syllogism are violated.
a. The fallacy of four terms – This fallacy is committed when more than three terms are used in the syllogism.
Example: Filipinos are orientals;
French are Europeans;
.·. Filipinos are Europeans.
Example: Filipinos are orientals;
French are Europeans;
.·. Filipinos are Europeans.
b. The fallacy of undistributed middle – This fallacy is committed when the rule of the syllogism, which says that the middle term must be distributed at least once, is violated.
Example: Cat is a noun;
A cat eats mice;
.·. A noun eats mice.
A cat eats mice;
.·. A noun eats mice.
c. The fallacy of illicit major – This fallacy arises when the major term is distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the major premise.
Example: Men are human beings;
Women are not men;
.·. Women are not human beings.
Women are not men;
.·. Women are not human beings.
d. The fallacy of illicit minor – This fallacy is a violation of the rule that the minor term should not be distributed in the conclusion when it was not distributed in the minor premise.
Example: All cows are animals;
All cows eat grass;
.·. All animals eat grass.
All cows eat grass;
.·. All animals eat grass.
e. The fallacy of negative premises – When the premises are both negative, the fallacy of negative premises occurs.
Example: A star is not a planet.
A comet is not a planet.
(No conclusion.)
A comet is not a planet.
(No conclusion.)
f. The fallacy of particular premises – This fallacy is committed when the two premises of the syllogism are both particular.
Example: Some government officials are truthful to the public.
Some government officials are not transparent to the public.
(No conclusion.)
2. Formal fallacies in disjunctive syllogism – This arises from the use of the disjunctive syllogism.
Some government officials are not transparent to the public.
(No conclusion.)
2. Formal fallacies in disjunctive syllogism – This arises from the use of the disjunctive syllogism.
a. Alternatives not mutually exclusive – This arises when the use of one of the alternatives does not preclude the use of the other.
Example: He is either a non-believer or an atheist;
He is not an atheist;
.·. He is a non-believer.
b. Possibilities not exhaustive – When the possibilities used in the predicate of the disjunctive major premise are not exhaustive, this fallacy arises.
He is not an atheist;
.·. He is a non-believer.
b. Possibilities not exhaustive – When the possibilities used in the predicate of the disjunctive major premise are not exhaustive, this fallacy arises.
Example: Senator A is either a Nacionalista or a Liberal;
Senator A is not a Nacionalista;
.·.Senator A is Liberal.
Senator A is not a Nacionalista;
.·.Senator A is Liberal.
3. Formal fallacies in hypothetical syllogism – This arises from the use of hypothetical syllogism.
a. The fallacy of denying the antecedent – This fallacy is committed when the minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise.
Example: If Mr. X will pass the bar, he will be happy;
Mr. X did not pass the bar;
.·.Mr. X will not be happy.
Mr. X did not pass the bar;
.·.Mr. X will not be happy.
b. The fallacy of affirming the consequent – This fallacy arises when the minor premise affirms the consequent.
Example: If Ms. Y graduated with honors, she will be admitted in this university;
Ms. Y was admitted in this university;
.·. She graduated with honors.
B. Material fallacies – These arise, not from the violations of the rules of the syllogism, but from the confusion in the connotation or denotation of the terms used or from a faulty assumption of facts.
1. The fallacies of equivocation – This arises from the assumption that what is true of a term used in one sense is also of the same term used in other sense.
a. Fallacies of quantity – These fallacies arises when we assert that what is true of a whole taken collectively is true of a part taken individually or that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.
1.) The fallacy of composition – This is sometimes called as false synthesis. This a fallacy in which we assert that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.
1.) The fallacy of composition – This is sometimes called as false synthesis. This a fallacy in which we assert that what is true of a part taken singly is true of the whole taken collectively.
Example: This is an excellent class;
A, B, C and D are members of this class;
.·.A, B, C and D are excellent.
2.) The fallacy of division – This is a fallacy of quantity which arises when we assert that what is true of the whole taken collectively is true of a part taken singly.
A, B, C and D are members of this class;
.·.A, B, C and D are excellent.
2.) The fallacy of division – This is a fallacy of quantity which arises when we assert that what is true of the whole taken collectively is true of a part taken singly.
Example: Makati is a prosperous city;
Mr. X lives in Makati;
.·.Mr. X is prosperous.
Mr. X lives in Makati;
.·.Mr. X is prosperous.
b. Fallacy of quality – This arises from the confusion in the attributes connoted by terms used in the proposition.
1.) The fallacy of simple accident – This fallacy is committed when we argue from genus to species, from essence to accident, from abstract to concrete, from conferentia to differentia.
1.) The fallacy of simple accident – This fallacy is committed when we argue from genus to species, from essence to accident, from abstract to concrete, from conferentia to differentia.
Example: Paper is good for binding books;
My notebook is made of paper;
.·.My notebook is good for binding books.
My notebook is made of paper;
.·.My notebook is good for binding books.
2.) The fallacy of converse accident – This fallacy arises when in the major premise we use a term in its specific term, that is, in its narrower connotation, and in the minor premise we use the same term in its generic sense; that is, in its broader meaning.
Example: Opium acts as a poison in the human body;
Dr. X prescribes opium for his patients;
.·.Dr. X poisons his patients.
Dr. X prescribes opium for his patients;
.·.Dr. X poisons his patients.
3.) The fallacy of specific accident – This is often called the fallacy of ambiguous middle.
Example: All criminals must be sent to prison;
Attorney Z is a criminal lawyer;
.·.Attorney Z must be sent to prison.
Attorney Z is a criminal lawyer;
.·.Attorney Z must be sent to prison.
2. The fallacies of presumption – These arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove.
a. Begging the question – This is often called petition principii.
1.) Assumptio non-probata – This means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. This arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as the means of proving it.
1.) Assumptio non-probata – This means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. This arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as the means of proving it.
Example: All rapists should be sentenced with death penalty;
Mr. A is a rapist.
.·.Mr. A should be sentenced with death penalty.
Mr. A is a rapist.
.·.Mr. A should be sentenced with death penalty.
2.) Circulus in probando – This is often called arguing in a circle. This arises when the arguer uses to unproved propositions, each to establish the validity of the order.
Example: Your answer is correct because it is my answer.
b. The fallacy of ignorantio elenchi – This is also called irrelevant conclusion. This is committed when the disputant brushes aside or ignores the real question at issue and attempts to prove something which has no bearing on the question under discussion.
1.) Argumentum ad hominem – This is committed when the debater befogs the issue, thus evading the arguments of his opponent, and instead directs his attack at the character, personality, or belief of his adversary.
Example: During the campaign for the presidency of the Philippines, where the candidates were Manuel Roxas and Sergio Osmeña, a group of electors discussed the merits of the two candidates. A hunchback was discussing the merits of Sergio Osmeña, while a tall man with with pock-marked face was extolling Manuel Roxas. The people assembled were applauding the hunchback. Exasperated, the tall man shouted at the top of his voice: “How can I expect straight arguments from a crooked body?”
1.) Argumentum ad hominem – This is committed when the debater befogs the issue, thus evading the arguments of his opponent, and instead directs his attack at the character, personality, or belief of his adversary.
Example: During the campaign for the presidency of the Philippines, where the candidates were Manuel Roxas and Sergio Osmeña, a group of electors discussed the merits of the two candidates. A hunchback was discussing the merits of Sergio Osmeña, while a tall man with with pock-marked face was extolling Manuel Roxas. The people assembled were applauding the hunchback. Exasperated, the tall man shouted at the top of his voice: “How can I expect straight arguments from a crooked body?”
2.) Argumentum ad populum – This is committed when the disputant evades the real question and appeals to the passions or prejudices of his hearers.
Example: On the question that Philippine retail trade should be nationalized, a speaker, ignoring the real question, inflamed his hearers by picturing the Chinese as a vicious, corrupt, bribe-giving, and communist-inclined race.
3.) Argumentum ad ignorantiam – This is committed when the debater ignores the question at issue, and asserts that a case that he has not yet established is good, because his opponent cannot disprove it.
Example: I maintain that this is a straight line, because no one among you can prove that it is crooked.
4.) Argumentum ad verecundiam – Literally, this fallacy means an argument to that which inspires reverence. This is committed when the debater contends that what he alleges is valid because it is supported by a person who commands respect and reverence.
Example: When a debater maintains that his stand on a proposition is valid because he used the view of a person recognized not as an authority but because his name commands the respect and reverence of his audience.
Example: When a debater maintains that his stand on a proposition is valid because he used the view of a person recognized not as an authority but because his name commands the respect and reverence of his audience.
5.) Argumentum ad judicium – This is committed when the debater ignores the real question and maintains that his contention is valid, because people in general believe it to be so.
Example: A certain University with seven thousand students used to advertise in this way: “Seven thousand students cannot be wrong.”
6.) Argumentum ad baculum – It is committed when a debater ignores the real question and appeals to force rather than reason.
Example: When a suitor fails to win the hand of a girl in courtship, he appeals to force by abducting her.
7.) Argumentum ex concession – This is an argument from a previous admission. This arises when the disputant ignores the real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously admitted it to be so.
c. The fallacy of complex question – This is sometimes called fallacious question. It arises when a debater asks a question that implies the truth of an assumption.
7.) Argumentum ex concession – This is an argument from a previous admission. This arises when the disputant ignores the real question and asserts that his contention is valid because his opponent has previously admitted it to be so.
c. The fallacy of complex question – This is sometimes called fallacious question. It arises when a debater asks a question that implies the truth of an assumption.
Example: A defendant in a civil action for alimony, while on the stand, was asked by the opposing counsel the following question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
d. The fallacy of non sequitur – Non sequitur is a Latin term which means it does not follow. In this fallacy, the debater draws a conclusion from a premise, without showing a valid connection between the assumed or known truth in the premise and the alleged truth in the conclusion.
1.) Simple sequitur – This arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect.
Example: Maria is the most beautiful girl in our university; therefore, she should be given a scholarship abroad.
2.) False cause – This fallacy arises when the debater assumes that since one occurrence precedes another in point of time, that event is the cause of the one that follows.
Example: After the United Nations was organized on October 24, 1945, the Communists became dominant in China; and Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. In Indo-China, the communist serpent began to raise its ugly head. In the Philippines, the Huks became more defiant of the duly constituted authorities. Therefore, the attempt of civilized man to establish permanent world peace has incited a great portion of mankind to plunge it into chaos.
Source: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment