According to philosophers a fallacy is a statement or argument that presents a logical problem. It is a statement or argument that does not hold up under philosophical scrutiny. A fallacy is most easy defined as any error in reasoning. It’s a logical mistake in which the conclusion is erroneously thought to be proven by the premises. Fallacies are used everyday. Politicians use them, parents use them, just about anyone in a position of authority uses them. Here are some of the most common fallacies. The next time someone uses one, you can inform them that their argument is unsound.
The Fallacy of Inconsistency
The basis of this fallacy is that someone makes an argument wherein there are two or more principles or statements that conflict with each and thus render any conclusion unsound and invalid. An example would be to say that a certain football player is an awful football player and then to later claim that the same football player is an excellent football player and then come to the conclusion that said football player should be the next quarterback of your favorite team. Having earlier asserted that the football player is awful and then said that he is wonderful, you have created a fallacy. They cannot both be true at the same time.
The Fallacy of Circularity
This fallacy is also known as “begging the question” all though it does not mean quite what we mean when we use it in common parlance. This is an argument that fails to prove anything that because it somehow takes for granted what it is supposed to prove. In simpler terms it restates a premise as a conclusion. An example would be if somewhere were to make the statement, “Public nudity is immoral because it’s just plain wrong.” A circular argument is useless as a means of proving its conclusion.
The Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
This fallacy involves assuming that the provided explanation is the only explanation that is possible when in reality there are a myriad of reasons to explain something. This fallacy comes up a lot on CSI shows. An example would be if someone where to state, “A car will not run without gas” and then “My car will not run” and come to the conclusion “My car is out of gas.” There are several reasons why a car might not be running other than being out of gas.
The Fallacy of Division
This fallacy is assuming that what is true of the group is also true of all the individuals in that group. In other words, invalidly inferring that a things parts must have a property since the whole object does. This generally comes about by reputation. For example, if one has the impression that landlords as a group are stingy and uncaring to others difficulties one might assume that all landlord’s are this way when some might actually be very kind people. This generalization of all is what results in a fallacy.
The Fallacy of Composition
This fallacy of composition is the reverse of the fallacy of division. This fallacy is assuming that what is true of the individual is also true of the group. This is the kind of fallacy that leads to racism and many other “isms”. For example, a person might know an African-American that steals and is lazy and thereby assume that all African-Americans steal, are lazy, and are general good-for-nothings. However, this assumption would be fallacious, because it cannot possibly be proven truthful.
The Fallacy of Attacking the Person
This fallacy is generally the most insulting and infuriating. This fallacy is a person attack. This argument attacks the person rather than addressing the issue at hand. For example: “Rick advocates brushing your teeth for dental health.” “Rick is a convicted crook.” — “ERGO: You should not brush your teeth for dental health.” The fact that Rick might have a record has nothing to do with the wisdom or foolishness of brushing your teeth.
The Fallacy of Appealing to Authority Parents use this one all the time, as do politicians. Parents say “Because I say so” and politicians point to studies and their ultimate wisdom. An appeal to authority isn’t limited to just people either. One can appeal to tradition, popularity, personal stature, or popular culture. Perhaps the best example of appeal to authority are celebrity endorsements of products.
The Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance
This fallacy is the opposite of the appeal to authority. An appeal to authority assumes that the “authority” has some specific and accurate knowledge regaring what they are speaking of. An appeal to ignorance is drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. A couple good examples include “Nobody has proven that God exists. ERGO: God does not exist” and “Nobody has proven that God does not exist.” — ERGO: God does exist. Trying to prove something is true by making the point that there is no evidence, is faulty reasoning indeed.
The Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy
This fallacy is an argument that supposes that a causal relationship is in place merely from the temporal proximity of two or more events. For example: “Ice cream consumption increases drastically during the summer.” “More people drown during the summer.” — ERGO: Eating ice cream will lead to swimming related deaths. While this is a rather absurd conclusion, it demonstrates the faulty logic.
The Slippery Slope Fallacy
In this fallacy, in order to show that proposition A is unacceptable a sequence of increasingly unacceptable events is shown to follow from A. This fallacy is used a lot by politicians, mostly to condemn specific legislation. It’s also used by parents who wish to restrict their children in various ways. It’s a favorite of conservative Christians. For example: “Spaghetti straps leads to body exposure. Body exposure leads to more body exposure. Body exposure is a sign of promiscuity. Promiscuity leads to sex.” ERGO: Allowing young girls to wear spaghetti strap shirts will lead to sex. As bizarre as this sounds, I have actually seen this very logic employed.
So the next time you’re in a heated debate, you’ll be able to poke various effective holes in your opponents argument. Just be careful not to make the same mistakes.
