21.2. Logical Fallacies

In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor/or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other. While trying to convince our opponent we often face with logical fallacies. In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.

1. Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions. The example:

Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.

Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime.

Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited; therefore firefighters are breaking the law.

Problem: The exception is also ignored.

2. Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule. The example:

Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak English.

Problem: Those one has met are a subset of the entire set. One cannot have met all people.

3. Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly. The example:

Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable.

Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority).

Special cases of irrelevant conclusion:

Purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem), popular sentiment appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty (argumentum ad populum), to arouse fear (argumentum ad baculum), conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam--appeal to authority), to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam), proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam, also called a "red herring")

4. Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q. The example:

Argument: If people have the flu, they cough. Billy is coughing. Therefore, Billy has the flu.

Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.

Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.

Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).

5. Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P implies Q. The example:

Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.

Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.

6. Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion (also called Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer). Begging the question does not preclude the possibility that the statement in question is correct, but is insufficient proof in and of itself. The example:

Argument: Billy always tells the truth, I know this because he told me so.

Problem: Billy may be lying.

7. Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." Example:

Argument: Taxes fund necessary services such as police, courts, and roads; this demonstrates the necessity of taxation.

Problem: The fact that taxes currently fund certain services does not prove that taxation is the only means, or the best means, of funding those services. Although, in all fairness, it is a deductive fallacy to claim that the logical possibility of something (funding public services without taxes) implies its practicality, probability or even existence.

Special cases of fallacy of false cause:

- post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation. Example:

Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism.

Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations.

- cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation. Example:

Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows.

Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream.

8. Fallacy of many questions or loaded question: groups more than one question in the form of a single question. Example:

Argument: Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?

Problem: A yes or no answer will still be an admission of guilt to beating your wife at some point.

9. Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Example:

Person A claims: Sunny days are good.

Argument of Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.

Problem: B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

10. Fallacy of Composition "From Each to All", arguing from some property of constituent parts, to the conclusion that the composite item has that property. Example Argument: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled.

Problem: The band members may be skilled musicians but lack the ability to function properly as a group.

Example Argument: "The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".

Problem: Each and every person currently on staff is younger than 700 years. The university continues to exist even when, one by one, each and every person on the original staff leaves and is replaced by a younger person.

11. Fallacy of Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms:

1.Nothing is better than eternal happiness.

2.Eating a hamburger is better than nothing.

3.Therefore, eating a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.

This argument has the appearance of an inference that applies transitivity of the two-placed relation is better than, which in this critique we grant is a valid property. The argument is an example of syntactic ambiguity.

The logical argument (proof)

A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language) each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference. The last sentence in the sequence is a theorem of a formal system. A transformation rule or rule of inference is a syntactic rule or function which takes premises and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one of the form "If p then q" and another of the form p and returns the conclusion q. The rule is sound with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion.

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises, and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

The controversy and its types

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."

Perennial areas of controversy include history, religion, philosophy and politics. Other minor areas of controversy may include economics, science, finances, and race.

A polemic is a variety of argument or controversy made against one opinion, doctrine, or person. Other variations of argument are debate and discussion. The word is derived from the Greek polemikos (πολεμικός), meaning "warlike, hostile". A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue. Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy. However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view.

Polemic usually addresses serious matters of religious, philosophical, political, or scientific importance, and is often written to dispute or refute a widely accepted position. Polemic is often used in theology as the branch of theological argument devoted to the history or conduct of controversy on religious matters. As such, it is distinguished from apologetics, the intellectual defense of faith. For example, Martin Luther's "The Bondage of the Will" is an example of polemic theology. Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examines consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion; in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic.

In a formal debating contest, there are rules for people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Informal debate is a common occurrence, the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. The outcome of a debate may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. Although this implies that facts are based on consensus, which is not factual. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are common in democracies.

The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop one's ability to play from either position with equal ease. To inexperienced debaters, some propositions appear easier to defend or to attack; to experienced debaters, any proposition can be defended or attacked after the same amount of preparation time, usually quite short. Lawyers argue forcefully on behalf of their client, even if the facts appear against them.

The controversy can contain the elements of:

- heuristic or heuristics (from the Greek "find", "discover") as experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery. Heuristic methods are used to come to an optimal solution as rapidly as possible. Part of this method is using a "rule of thumb", an educated guess, an intuitive judgment, or common sense. A heuristic is a general way of solving a problem;

- demagogy (from the Greek dēmos "people" and agein "to lead") as a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public—typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes;

- sophistic methods or sophisms. A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic; e.g., raising doubts towards the one asserting, rather than his assertion. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is; e.g., accusing another of sophistry for using persuasion techniques;

- propaganda that often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.

Now let us concentrate on common logical mistakes and methods of the proof in propaganda:

Ad hominem. A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one's opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.

Ad nauseam. This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited or controlled by the propagator.

Appeal to authority. Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.

Appeal to fear. Appeals to fear and seeks to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example.

Appeal to prejudice. Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition. Used in biased or misleading ways.

Join the crowd. This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

Beautiful people. The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful.

Big Lie. The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events.

Black-and-white fallacy. Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. For example: "You're either with us, or against us...."

Classical conditioning. All vertebrates, including humans, respond to classical conditioning. That is, if object A is always present when object B is present and object B causes a negative physical reaction (e.g., disgust, pleasure) then we will when presented with object A when object B is not present, we will experience the same feelings.

Cognitive dissonance. People desire to be consistent. Suppose a pollster finds that a certain group of people hates his candidate for senator but love actor A. They use actor A's endorsement of their candidate to change people's minds because people cannot tolerate inconsistency. They are forced to either to dislike the actor or like the candidate.

Common man. The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. For example, a propaganda leaflet may make an argument on a macroeconomic issue, such as unemployment insurance benefits, using everyday terms: "Given that the country has little money during this recession, we should stop paying unemployment benefits to those who do not work, because that is like maxing out all your credit cards during a tight period, when you should be tightening your belt."

Cult of personality. A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. The hero personality then advocates the positions that the propagandist desires to promote. For example, modern propagandists hire popular personalities to promote their ideas and/or products.

Demonizing the enemy. Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman, worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations. Dehumanizing is also a termed used synonymously with demonizing, the latter usually serves as an aspect of the former.

Basic concepts and categories:

Argumentation is the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion that studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real world settings.

Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.

Debates are a kind of controversy that emerges during discussions at conferences, meetings and summits.

Discussion is public controversy aimed at defining and comparing different viewpoints and finding out a correct solution of the problem.

Dialogue is a form of intellectual communication where different opinions cross in order to achieve the common point of view and to distinguish the contradiction with the aim to reveal the truth.

Disproof is a kind of argumentation aimed at proving the false thesis.

Eristic is the art of polemics and debating that uses all means to win the opponent

Logical fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.

Proof is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It seems to be logical while actually being wrong, appealing to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic.

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.