Logical Fallacies: Types of Fallacies
Fallacies are deceptive inferences that aim to reach misleading conclusions by making logical errors in arguments. In the age of communication, we are confronted with countless pieces of information and arguments every day, but do all arguments rest on solid foundations? Amid truths woven with the fine lines of logic, there are logical traps that elude our attention and mislead us. This is precisely where “fallacies” come into play. Fallacies, as the most insidious enemies of logic, cloud our discussions and thoughts.
So, how do we protect ourselves from these logical errors? Let's explore these traps together and discover ways to think more healthily and logically.
First, we need to address the concept of “error” as a notion of logic.
Error as a Concept of Logic
The concept of “error” has attracted the interest of logicians since ancient times. Logic is a science that provides the rules for managing and controlling thought correctly. However, sometimes knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, errors can be made, that is, logical rules can be violated.
As a subject of logic, “error” is a form of inference that appears valid but is actually invalid. While the error of a judgment can be detected through experiment or observation, the detection of an error in an inference can only be within the framework of the science of logic.
Aristotle, who first systematically addressed the subject, mentioned two types of errors: errors related to language (in dictone), i.e., errors stemming from ambiguity in language, and errors outside of language (extra dictionem), i.e., errors arising from the proof itself. The problem of “error” can be examined under two headings: I) Formal (or Logical) Error and II) Informal Error.
What is Formal Error?
Briefly touching upon formal error, it is an error directly related to the process of reasoning or proof, and the resulting error in this phase is called formal error. Such an error arises from not adhering to logical rules. For example, after saying “Some physicists are not philosophers,” inferring “therefore some philosophers are not physicists” is possible. Although such an inference does not contradict daily reality in terms of the information it provides, it is logically incorrect. Formal error, in short, arises from not following logical rules for various reasons.
Meanwhile, attention should be paid to the relationship between “knowing logical rules” and “being able to apply logical rules.” Because the person using language is at least under the influence of feelings, desires, expectations, and various other influences. These various influences can lead to “error.” Such errors are considered within the group that does not have formal characteristics.
What is a Fallacy?
A fallacy, or informal error, is a faulty inference often encountered in reasoning processes that does not adhere to certain logical rules. These errors can arise from the ambiguity of statements, multiple meanings, or lack of logical relationships. To better understand informal errors, it is important to examine their various types and examples.
Ambiguity and Vagueness: Ambiguity occurs when a statement can have multiple meanings, leading to incorrect inferences. For example, deriving “life is pepper” from the statements “life is bitter” and “pepper is bitter” is incorrect. Here, the word “bitter” has different meanings, and this semantic confusion leads to erroneous conclusions.
Accent: Accent is a type of error that occurs due to the incorrect pronunciation or emphasis of a word or sentence. The phrases “I read books in the evening” and “I read books every evening” can have different meanings due to the emphasis. Such misunderstandings are more common in languages without accent marks.
Composition and Division: Composition is the error of attributing the characteristics of parts to the whole. For example, “the fact that one poem of a poet is good does not mean that all of their poems are good.” Division is the error of attributing the characteristics of the whole to its parts. “The research conducted by this group of ten people is correct. I am a member of that group. Therefore, my research is also correct” is an example of this type of error.
Here are the most common logical errors or fallacies you should be aware of:
We discussed errors caused by various types of ambiguity above. Another informal error occurs when a logical connection is established between premises and the conclusion due to various factors, despite the absence of a logical relationship between them.
Let’s examine below what these factors are, that is, for what reasons logical connections that are not logically valid are established between premises and the conclusion.
Ad Hominem (Argumentum Ad Hominem): This is an argument based on attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For example, Nobel Physics Prize winner Philip Lenard dismissing Einstein's theories of relativity due to his Jewish background is an ad hominem argument.
Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum): This type of argument attempts to establish the validity of a claim through force. Galileo’s acceptance under pressure that the Earth does not move is an example. Economic, social, political, and religious pressures can be used to gain acceptance of certain views.
Appeal to Pity (Argumentum Ad Misericordiam): This type of argument tries to persuade by appealing to pity. For instance, a student asking for a grade by making their teacher feel sorry for them after failing an exam is an example of this fallacy.
Appeal to the People (Argumentum Ad Populum): This argument bases its validity on the prejudices, passions, or preferences of a group of people. For example, viewing a sports match from the perspective of the team one supports is an example of this fallacy.
Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam): This argument claims that something is true because it has not been proven false. For example, “no one has proven that the soul does not exist, therefore the soul exists” is an appeal to ignorance.
Appeal to Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundiam): This fallacy involves appealing to authority outside the authority’s field of expertise. For instance, accepting a scientist’s political views as correct simply because they are a scientist is an example of this fallacy.
Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principii): Also known as circular argument, this fallacy occurs when the conclusion is repeated in the premises. For example, “Intellectuals smoke pipes. How do I know? An intellectual told me. How do I know he’s an intellectual? He said he likes smoking pipes.”
Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi): This fallacy occurs when the conclusion reached is not logically connected to the premises. For example, “every person has the right to walk freely on the street. A killer is a person. Therefore, a killer has the right to walk freely on the street” is an example of this fallacy.
Non Sequitur: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, even if the premises are true. For example, claiming that social problems are caused by scientists uncovering the secrets of nature is a non sequitur.
False Cause (Non Causa Pro Causa): This fallacy involves attributing the cause of an event to another unrelated event. For example, believing that the full moon makes people irritable is an example of this fallacy.
领英推荐
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: This fallacy involves assuming that because one event followed another, it was caused by the first event. For example, attributing an accident to the passage of a cat earlier is an example of this fallacy.
Hasty Generalization (Secundum Quid): This fallacy involves making a generalization based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence. For example, claiming that everyone gets sick from taking a cold shower because one person did is an example of this fallacy.
Complex Question (Fallacia Plurium Interrogationum): Also known as a loaded question, this fallacy involves asking a question that contains hidden assumptions. For example, “When did you stop smoking?” assumes the person used to smoke.
Appeal to Consequences: This fallacy involves accepting an argument not because it is supported by evidence, but to avoid undesirable consequences. For example, "We must find the defendant guilty of murdering his wife; otherwise, other men might be encouraged to kill their wives."
Special Pleading: This fallacy involves defending an argument by making excuses for a lack of supporting evidence rather than providing supporting data. For example, "I have telepathic powers, but I can't prove it because there's a TV in the room."
Begging the Question: This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting it. For example, "We need to bring back the death penalty to reduce crime rates" assumes without evidence that the death penalty reduces crime rates.
Cherry Picking: This fallacy involves considering only the examples that support an argument while ignoring those that contradict it. For example, "Our city has produced many important statesmen" ignores the fact that the city has also produced criminals.
Small Sample Fallacy: This fallacy involves ignoring the small and limited number of examples supporting an argument. For example, "I won four times at roulette tonight, so I must be lucky" ignores the small sample size.
Misunderstanding Statistics: This fallacy involves not understanding the meaning of statistical data. For example, "According to our survey, 65% of drivers are above-average drivers" is a misunderstanding of statistics.
Inconsistency: This fallacy involves an argument whose logic is inconsistent with the same person's other beliefs. For example, "I don't trust modern medicine, so I prefer homeopathy because doctors work for money" ignores the fact that homeopaths also charge money.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy assumes that a small event will inevitably lead to a significant and important event in the distant future. For example, "If you let your daughter go to the movies with her friends, she'll end up on a bad path."
Confusion of Cause and Effect: This fallacy involves assuming that events or statistics observed together are automatically in a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, "As the number of movies starring Nicholas Cage increases, the number of people drowning in swimming pools also increases. Therefore, Nicholas Cage movies cause drowning."
Straw Man: This fallacy involves misrepresenting an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. For example, responding to the argument "We should invest more in education" with "You want to cut our military budget and leave us defenseless; you have no love for our country."
Suppressed Evidence / Selective Evidence: This fallacy involves ignoring the data and evidence presented by the opponent. For example, "Last month's average temperatures were below normal, so there's no global warming" ignores the long-term trend of rising temperatures.
Sneaky Argument: This fallacy involves hiding known information that would weaken an argument. For example, "Our new sofa series starts at $150" ignores the fact that only one low-quality model is $150 while the rest are much more expensive.
CONCLUSION
Beyond the titles mentioned here, there are many other fallacies.
Fallacies are encountered in many areas of daily life. They are often used in political debates, advertising campaigns, social media posts, and even one-on-one discussions. These logical errors can be made consciously or unconsciously to mislead, deceive, or persuade people.
Recognizing and avoiding these errors allows us to think more healthily and logically. When evaluating any argument, it is important to rely on solid evidence and question its adherence to logical rules. In this way, we can reach correct conclusions without falling into the trap of fallacies.
Author: Hakan Z.
References:
?stanbul üniversitesi Sosyoloji B?lümü Klasik Mant?k?
Corporate Communications Manager & Responsible Editor-in-Chief
3 个月Thank you for sharing my article Neuroscience ??