Longview Community College, Lee's Summit, MissouriCritical Thinking
Across the
Curriculum Project

[Home Icon][What's New Icon][Table Of Contents Icon][Feedback Icon][Glossary Icon]Who's Who icon

Informal Fallacies

Contributed by Michael Connelly, Longview Philosophy Department

A Fallacy is a kind of argument which tends to persuade us, even though it is a bad argument, either because of the form, or because of the falsity of one of the premises.

Point of Clarification- when we talk of committing a fallacy, it is usually the person offering the flawed argument who is at fault, as well as the person who accepts the argument as being well reasoned! It the case where the person offering the argument is doing so to prevent harm, and realizes that the argument is fallacious, then they are only committing a fallacy if they believe what they have argued is reasonable.

Some fallacies will depend on sleight of hand (deception), while others rely on emotional appeals.

Table of Contents:

Fallacies of Distraction: Fallacies involving Counterfeit:
False Dilemma Affirming the Consequent
Slippery Slope Denying the Antecedent
Straw Man Equivocation
Begging the Question
Fallacies which use Motive in place of Support: 
Appeal to Pity Appeal to Authority
Appeals to Tradition  Prejudicial Language
Appeal to Force Appeal to Mass Opinion 
Fallacies which employ both: (Double Trouble)
Ad Hominem - Abusive Ad Hominem - Ridicule
Ad Hominem - Circumstantial Tu Quoque - Two wrongs

Fallacies of Deception

The first category of fallacy is those which use deception or sleight-of-hand. These are arguments which probably intend to deceive by tricking us into believing something as true. These sorts of fallacies fall into two sub-categories, Distraction and Counterfeit.

Distraction:

In this group of fallacies, the problem lies in the fact that the structure or wording of the argument distracts us from being aware of some important and relevant facts which may make the argument less plausible.
False Dilemma-
In this fallacy, the distraction from the truth lies in the wording of the argument. The argument is worded so that we are only given two alternative actions, one of which is usually so outrageous as to be unacceptable. The other action or option of belief is usually the one being argued for. This argument is deceptive because if carefully constructed, it has a valid form- (Disjunctive Syllogism), but it ignores the possibility that there may be more than two alternative actions. For example: The reason this argument is valid, yet not sound is that there are some other options which can be used to prevent national bankruptcy.

Other examples:

Some examples are more subtle- while it is true that some education is better than none, the education we get needn't cost as much as it does at Harvard- or it needn't be as formal as an Ivy League Education.

Some examples are even a bit brutal. Here is a political ad aired by the Lyndon Johnson campaign in 1964 which limits us to two choices - to love each other or die. (This is a Quicktime movie, so you will need a viewer for Windows).

A recent ad by Lamar Alexander run during the primaries is a novel version of the False Dilemma - he only gives us four choices, (Himself, Dole, Forbes and Buchanan) only one of which is portrayed as a good choice.

Slippery Slope-
This type of fallacy centers around the claim that if we justify an action (X), then this will also justify some other actions, and these will not be desirable. The idea here is that the reasoning which justifies one action will also justify other actions, ones which will be detrimental or undesirable. example: You will also find the Slippery slope used to justify positions on both sides of the abortion issue (which may itself be a false dilemma), on our continued support of Israel ("you are either with us or against us"), and in the debate over raising postal rates or cutting the defense budget.(Reagan used this one for Eight Years!) The best way to counter this fallacy is to point out that there is a logical point at which a "line" can be drawn which will prevent the "slide" down the slope.

Straw Man:
This fallacy is deceptive because the person attacking another argument in order to strengthen his own attacks a weaker version of the opposition's argument. In this sense it involves picking the weakest or most emotionally negative form of an opponents argument or position and attacking it. The name "straw man" comes from the fact that it is easier to knock down a man made of straw than it is to knock down a real man. (most will fight back). Politicians will try to use this fallacy all of the time, mainly because the voters (us) hardly ever know enough about a given position to be aware of an unfair characterization.

(This fallacy goes hand in hand with the Principle of Charitable Interpretation- if we are trying to find out the truth, then we want to consider the strongest possible opposition to our position, not the weakest.)

Aso: one common technique- and one which is always suspect, is to interpret the opposition's position so that a parallel between them and the Nazis can be drawn. i.e.- arguments against Euthanasia.

Sleight of Hand- Counterfeit

Affirming the Consequent-
We have already seen this form when dealing with formal fallacies, but it is included in the informal fallacies because it is so often used to persuade. In this fallacy, the conclusion does not follow from the premises because it is possible for the premises to be true, but the conclusion false. Example:

(1) If I'm in Lenexa, then I'm in Kansas

(2) I'm in Kansas

(*) I'm in Lenexa

In considering this fallacy as it might appear in the `wild', the fallacious nature may not be so obvious:

This argument is fallacious, even though all of the premises might be true, since it is possible that the market dropped for reasons other than the budget crisis.

Denying the Antecedent:
In much the same way, this fallacy will also be sometimes harder to spot in the wild- example: Both this fallacy and the previous one are often persuasive because we tend to assume that if the statement (if A then B) is the case, then the statement (if B then A) is also the case. i.e.- where there is smoke then there is fire, and where there is fire then there is smoke. In short, since these look somewhat like valid argument forms, we tend to mistake them for such.
Equivocation or Ambiguity-
Part of our interpretation of longer arguments included the step of defining all unknown or questionable terms in an argument. This skill is helpful in finding out if the fallacy of Equivocation has been committed. In this fallacy, the meaning of a crucial term is changed in the course of the argument. In the case of Ambiguity, the term in question has only been used once, but can be interpreted in many different ways, only one of which will support the argument.

Examples:

(Roche is referring to political repression, and Freud to psychological repression)
Begging the Question- or circularity-
In this fallacy, the argument may well be sound, but the mistake it makes is that the argument merely assumes what it is trying to prove. One tip off is that the truth of one or more of the premises depends on the truth of the conclusion. Another form of Begging the Question involves just restating the conclusion in one of the premises, albeit in different language or words.

Some arguments are fallacious because they intend to persuade of us something, but the reason given is circular (i.e.- begging the question):

or- (in order to take this as evidence for the existence of God, you already have to believe in God. So the argument really doesn't prove anything, it just repeats one of the premises as the conclusion. The problem is that the premise needs independent support, which is hard to find in this case.

The Use of Emotion in an Argument:

Motive in Place of Support

Legitimate uses- Using or considering the emotions of persons in an argument will be permitted if they are used to determine the consequences of an action- i.e.- how bad they might be. When injury or death are the possible consequences of an action, then the attendant emotional consequences must be considered. For example: when figuring in the possible emotional or psychological harm to others in exercising your autonomy (by lying to someone who trusts you). In cases like these the emotional responses of others will be an important consideration in determining how badly others will be effected by an action. We must be careful, however, that the emotional factors are not given an inordinate amount of importance due to their (sometimes) graphic nature.

Illegitimate uses of emotions: In general, the use of emotion in an argument will be wrong if the emotional appeal is used in place of reasons. Remember, as Philosophers we are interested in discovering the most reasonable position to hold- not the most popular. Usually, an appeal to emotion will take the place of reason in persuading us to believe something. This tactic is effective because it tends to persuade without convincing. In the authors words- they tend to give motive in place of support. An appeal or consideration of the emotional aspects of a question may be appropriate for deciding action- but will never be appropriate for deciding belief.

Types of Fallacies:

Appeal to force-
Here, the reason to believe or follow the recommendations of the arguer is to avoid harm or to gain some reward. It replaces REASON with FEAR or DESIRE. examples:
Appeal to Pity-
Here, the reason to believe is to avoid harming others, or conversely to cause them pleasure- at their request. In this form of the fallacy, REASON is replaced with PITY.

Examples:

Prejudicial use of language-
In this fallacy, the words chosen for an argument are chosen for their emotive meaning rather than their cognitive meaning. Every word has a cognitive meaning, which is usually used to inform, or state a fact, to refer to a property or a state of affairs. But some words also have emotive meanings- in that when they are used certain images or ideas are brought before the mind which may effect our ability to reason in a given situation. The touchy part of all of this is that some words may have a positive emotive content for some persons, and have a negative content for others. The uses of prejudicial language will often be subtle- and therefore hard to discover. In general, the use of a word or language will be prejudicial when: the language provides a motive for belief without providing support for that belief.

The second form of the use of Prejudicial language is Doublespeak- using emotionally neutral terms to describe emotionally charged issues or events- in effect to hide the truth of what is actually occurring, or at least make it seem more acceptable. The government is good at this, with the professionals at it working for the Defense Department (or any government agency) Examples-

`Revenue Enhancement' = taxes

`protective reaction strike' or `air support' = bombing

`pre-dawn tactical insertion' = early morning invasion

`incontinent ordinance' = Off-target bombs

`friendly fire' = Shelling friendly village or troops mistakenly

`Human Remains Pouches' = Body Bags (flexible coffins)

Strategic Withdrawal' = retreat

`selective ordinance' or `selected chemical insertion' = napalm

`Involuntary conversion'(of an aircraft) = plane crash (Eastern Airlines)

`public safety unit' = in Uganda, a murder squad

Questions for Thought:

In using or accepting these fallacies, there are some questions involved (as with all fallacies)-

(1) should we use them to prevent harm, even when we don't believe them? i.e.- if a person threatens us, should we go ahead and act as if we believe even though we do not accept what they say as the truth (or reasonable)?

(2) should we believe that we have reasoned correctly when we assert them? i.e.- if we make an emotional appeal to attain some positive result, should we think that we have made progress towards the truth (or that we have given a good argument?)

Appeal to Authority:
This fallacy banks on the psychological trait that humans have which tend to make them agree with those persons they like, and to disagree with those they do not like, in spite of the argument being presented. This fallacy not only provides motive (liking the person) in place of support, but it also distracts us from the truth (a more appropriate Authority).

The appeal to an authority figure will be legitimate when the area of expertise is relevant to the position being argued for, but will constitute a fallacy when they are not. In short, an appeal to a legitimate authority is OK, but an appeal to an illegitimate authority will not be.

So, quoting the ideas of Henry Kissinger on our involvement in Central America will be OK, but quoting the ideas of Bruce Springsteen will not be. In some rare cases, a person will be known initially (or primarily) for one activity, but will educate themselves on another area. In these cases an actress or actor may be known for their movie roles, but will also be able to be considered `authorities' on another topic as well. In these cases, however, mention or reference to their celebrity status is irrelevant.

The authority appealed to can be

In the case of (a), we want to know if the person really is an authority in an area relevant to the claim being made. In the case of (b), we want to know if there is some other (better) reason why something is the case, rather than the fact that it has always worked in the past. In the case of (d) the claim in question must be true (or false) on more reasonable grounds than the fact that everyone thinks it is true.

Examples:

Fallacies which employ both Deception and Emotion:

Attacking the person (Ad Hominem)-
This fallacy feeds off of the same psychological emotions that the appeal to authority does, but in this case the argument consists of an attack on the person instead of the ideas or position they are defending. Unlike a Straw Man, this does not even bother to attack a weak form of the opposition argument. Such an attack will be relevant only if the attack establishes (a) a lack of reasonableness or judgement of the opponent- in which case we may want to take a closer look at the position they are defending. This fallacy often works because we tend to see an argument as a contest to be won instead of a search for truth. If one side can align itself with the majority and characterize the opposition as a common enemy, then they will have gained some psychological support. This may be desirable as persons, but as philosophers it will not get us closer to the truth.

This fallacy can take one of three forms-

1. Abusive- name calling: in this form the person attacks the character of the person - Jesse Helms calling Mapelthorpe a `jerk".

2. Circumstantial- guilt by association: this one surfaces in political circles often- usually the opposition argument is characterized as `liberal' or `socialistic', etc.

3. Two wrongs make a right- or Tu Quoque (you too): in this instance the charge of wrongdoing is answered by a rationalization that the opposition should not cast a stone if they have sinned. While this may work for Religion, it does not work as an answer. Indeed, sometimes it is those who have made the mistake already who can best see when someone else is about to make it. What is truly in question is whether or not the second evil is needed to counteract the first, i.e. if the first justifies the second. (like in killing for self defense- the evil of killing the attacker is justified, since it is done to protect a greater evil- our own death)

Examples:
Here is a Quicktime movie which demonstrates the use of the "ridicule" form of the Abusive Ad Hominem. This comes to us from the campaign of Hubert Humphrey.

[Home Icon][What's New Icon][Table Of Contents Icon][Feedback Icon][Glossary Icon]Who's Who icon


Copyright © 1996
Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum Project
Longview Community College , Lee's Summit, Missouri - U.S.A.
One of the Metropolitan Community Colleges
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

Permission to reproduce these resource pages is granted for
non-profit educational use provided the above information
is retained on all copies.

Inquiries to: michael.connelly@mcckc.edu
Last modified: 03/02/04