Time: Thu Jul 24 08:41:48 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA21111 for [address in tool bar]; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:40:51 -0700 (MST) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA16301; Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:36:07 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 08:35:35 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Logical Fallacies (fwd) Fallacy: "The IRS is in the U.S. Department of the Treasury." /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com <snip> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Logical Fallacies > A fallacy is a misleading or false argument or belief. What follows is a >list of the most common informal and formal logical fallacies. Learn these >and be able to spot logical fallacies in your (and others') reasoning. > >ACCENTUS > >One of the Fallacies of Ambiguity, which arises from the emphasis (the >accent) placed on a word or phrase. > >AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT > >An argument based on a hypothetical statement, and the truth of the >consequent to the truth of the antecedent. In the SYLLOGISM below, A is the >antecedent and C is the consequent: > >A implies C >C is true <-- Affirming the consequent >______________ >Therefore: A is true > > >AMBIGUITY > > An argument in the course of which at least one term (such as "rights") is >used in different senses. Also known as equivocation. There are several >types of "fallacies of ambiguity," including REIFICATION, EQUIVOCATION, >AMPHIBOLY, COMPOSITION, DIVISION, and ACCENTUS. > >AMPHIBOLY > >A type of Fallacy of Ambiguity where the ambiguity involved is of an >"amphibolous" (equivocal, uncertain) nature. Amphiboly is a syntactic error. >The fallacy is caused by faulty sentence structure, and can result in a >meaning not intended by the author. "The department store now has pants for >men with 32 waists." (How many waists do you have?) > >ARGUMENTUM AD ANTIQUITAM > > A fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is >old; that is, because "that's the way it's always been." > >ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUM > > An argument that resorts to the threat of force to cause the acceptance of >the conclusion. Ad baculum arguments also include threats of fear to cause >acceptance (e.g., "Do this or you'll go to Hell when you die!" or "I made him >an offer he couldn't refuse."). > >ARGUMENTUM AD CRUMENAM > >Fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those >with more money are more likely to be right. "If he's so stupid why is he >so rich?" The reverse of a. ad crumenam is a. ad lazarum. > >ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM > > An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by >attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of >putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing >with issues. The two basic types of ad hominem arguments: are 1) abusive, >and 2) circumstantial. This is the most common form of Logical Fallacy. > >ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM > > An argument that a proposition is true because it has not been shown to be >false, or vice versa. Ad ignorantium arguments are also known as "appeals to >ignorance." This fallacy has two forms: > >1. The statement is true, because it has not been proven false. >2. The statement is false, because it has not been proven true. > >ARGUMENTUM AD LAZARUM > > A fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or >more virtuous than one who is wealthier. -- "responsible breeders don't make >money." This fallacy is the opposite of the informal fallacy a. ad crumenam. > >ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAM > >An argument that appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion >accepted (or for fundraising). > >ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM > >The incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more >often it is heard. An a. ad nauseum is one that employs constant repitition >in asserting a a statement is the truth. Dr. Goebbel's Big Lie Theory. > >ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM > > A fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is >new or newer than something else. Or that something is better because it is >newer. -- "we've tried the other way for a while and it's failed, let's try >something (anything) ." This type of fallacy is the opposite of a. ad >antiquitam. > >ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERAM > >A fallacy that asserts that the more people who support or believe a >proposition then the more likely that that proposition is correct; it equates >mass support with correctness. > >ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM > >An argument that appeals to the beliefs of the multitude. Another way of >putting it: Speaker deals with passions of audience rather than with salient >issues. This fallacy is also known as "Appeal to Tradition" Ad populum >arguments often occur in 1) propaganda, 2) demagogy, and 3) advertising. > >ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM > > An argument in which an authority is appealed to on matters outside his/her >field of authority. (like veterinarians dispensing medical advice). a.ad >verecundiam also refers to a fallacy of simply resorting to appeals to >authority (like "Doctor" Tom Regan) > >BEGGING THE QUESTION (CIRCULAR REASONING) > >An argument that assumes as part of its premises that the conclusion is true. >Another way of saying this is: Fallacy of assuming at the onset of an >argument the very point you are trying to prove. This Fallacy is also known >by the Latin "PETITIO PRINCIPII"or "CIRCULUS IN PROBANDO." > >BIFURCATION > >Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the >presentation of a situation or condition with ONLY TWO alternatives, whereas >in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. > >COMPOSITION > >An argument which assumes that a whole has a specific property solely because >itsvarious parts have that property. -- "Because ALF is a terrorist >organization (and ALF is part of PETA) > all PETA members condone terrorism." >Composition is a type of Fallacy of Ambiguity. > >CONVERTING A CONDITIONAL > >Description: If A then B, therefore, if B then A. <<<NOT!!! > >CUM HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC > > A fallacy of correlation that links events because they occur >simultaneously; one asserts that because two events occur together they are >causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the >cause(s) of the events. This fallacy is similar to the "post hoc" fallacy. > >DENIAL OF THE ANTECEDENT > >An argument in which one infers the falsity of the consequent from the truth >of a hypothetical proposition, and the falsity of its antecedent. > >A implies B >Not-A >____________ >Therefore: Not-B > >DIVISION > > An argument in which one assumes that various parts have a property solely >because the whole has that same property. Division is a type of Fallacy of >Ambiguity -- the inverse of COMPOSITION. > >EQUIVOCATION > >An argument in which an equivocal expression is used in one sense in one >premise and in a different sense in another premise, or in the conclusion. >Equivocal means 1) of uncertain significance; not determined, and 2) having >different meanings equally possible. Equivocation is a type of Fallacy of >Ambiguity. The opposite of equivocation is "UNOVOCATION," in which a word >always carries the same meaning through a given context. > >FALLACY OF INTERROGATION > >The question asked has a presuppostion which the answerer may wish to deny, >but which he/she would be accepting if he/she gave anything that would count >as an answer. Any answer to the question "Why does this event happen?" >presupposes that the event does indeed happen. > > >FALSE ANALOGY > > An analogy is a partial similarity between the like features of two things >or events on which a comparison can be made. A false analogy involves >comparing two things that are NOT similar. Note that the two things may be >similar in superficial ways, but not with respect to what is being argued. >** >IGNORATIO ELENCHI > >An argument that is supposed to prove one proposition but succeeds only in >proving a different one. IGNORATIO ELENCHI stands for "pure and simple >irrelevance." > >ILLICIT PROCESS > > A syllogistic argument in which a term is distributed in the conclusion, but >not in the premises. One of the rules for a valid categorical syllogism is >that if either term is distributed in the conclusion, then IT MUST BE >DISTRIBUTED IN THE PREMISES. There are two types of Illicit Process: Illicit >Process of the Major Term and Illicit Process of the Minor Term. > >PLURIUM INTERROGATIONUM - COMPLEX QUESTIONS > >A demand for a simple answer to a complex question. > >NON CAUSA PRO CAUSA > >An argument to reject a proposition because of the falsity of some other >proposition that SEEMS to be a consequence of the first, but really is not. > >NON-SEQUITUR - DOES NOT FOLLOW > > An argument in which the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the >premises. A conclusion drawn from premises that provide no logical >connection to it. > >PETITIO PRINCIPII > >The same as "Begging the Question" This argument assumes its conclusion is >true but DOES NOT SHOW it to be true. Petitio principii has two forms: > >1. P is true, because P is true. >2. P is true, because A is true. And A is true because B is true. > And B is true because P is true. > >POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC > >An argument from a premise of the form "A preceded B" to a conclusion of the >form "A caused B." Simply because one event precedes another event in time >does not mean that the first event is the cause of the second event. This >argument resembles a fallacy known as a HASTY GENERALIZATION. > >QUATERNIO TERMINORUM > >An argument of the syllogistic form in which there occur four or more terms. >In a standard categorical syllogism there are ONLY THREE TERMS: a subject, a >predicate, and a middle term. > >RED HERRING > >A fallacy when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being >discussed, such that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points >being made, and toward a different conclusion. It is not logically valid to >divert a chain of reasoning with extraneous points. > >REIFICATION > >To reify something is to convert an abstract concept into a concrete thing. >Reification is a Fallacy of Ambiguity. Reification is also sometimes known >as a fallacy of "HYPOSTATIZATION". > >SECUNDUM QUID (HASTY GENERALIZATION) > >An argument in which a proposition is used as a premise without attention >given to some obvious condition that would affect the proposition's >application. This fallacy is also known as the "HASTY GENERALIZATION." It is >a fallacy that takes evidence from several, possibly unrepresentative, cases >to a general rule; generalizing from few to many. NOTE THE RELATION TO >STATISTICS: Much of statistics concerns whether or not a sample is >representative of a larger population. The larger the sample size, the >better the representativeness. Note also that the opposite of a hasty >generalization is a sweeping generalization. > >SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF > > The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or >proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "ARGUMENTUM AD >IGNORANTIUM," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who >denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is >the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. > >SPECIAL PLEADING > > Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed >by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when >one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than >he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments. > >STRAW MAN > >It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of >more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, >and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a >fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made. > >SWEEPING GENERALIZATION > > Also known by the Latin term "DICTO SIMPLICITER", a Sweeping Generalization >occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the >features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A >sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization. > >TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT (TU QUOQUE) > >Two wrongs never add up to a right; you cannot right a wrong by applying yet >another wrong. Such a fallacy is a misplaced appeal to consistency. It is a >fallacy because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under >discussion. > >UNDISTRIBUTED MIDDLE > >A syllogistic argument in which the middle term of a categorical >syllogism is not distributed in AT LEAST ONE of the premises. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >"Thanks to Danny Clark for providing this list." >glen_quarnstrom@thebodhi.com >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Check out this cool site: http://www.print-mail.com/calendar.htm > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with >"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject) >Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com> > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail