FALLACIES

FALLACIES (TYPES AND EXAMPLES)
Sources: www.kspope.com; www.fallacyfiles.org; www.wikipedia.com; www.carm.org; www.austhirk.org
History
Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book On Sophistical Refutations.
However, Aristotle's teacher, Plato, deserves credit for being the first philosopher to collect examples of bad reasoning, which is an important preliminary piece of field work before naming and cataloging. Plato's "Euthydemus" preserves a collection of fallacious arguments in dialogue form, putting the perhaps exaggerated examples into the mouths of two sophists. For this reason, fallacious arguments are sometimes called "sophisms" and bad reasoning "sophistry". Aristotle refers to a few of these examples as instances of his named fallacies.
In the centuries since Plato and Aristotle, many great philosophers and logicians have contributed to fallacy studies, among them John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Arthur Schopenhauer.
What is a fallacy?
Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making mistakes that are of a factual nature. In some discussion, a fallacy is taken to be an undesirable kind of argument or inference.
There are different kinds of logical fallacies that people make in presenting their positions. Below is a list of some of the major fallacies.
Ad hominim - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example:
Your statement is pointless, you couldn’t possibly get things right.
Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example:
1. You just have to agree if you don’t want to get hurt.
Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example:
1. I am sorry I wasn’t able to make it. There’s some emergency that I have to attend to.
Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example:
1. Everyone loves to eat French fries. You surely love it too.
Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example:
1. I always do things this way and it always succeed. Thus, I am doing the right way.
Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Examples:
1. My mother says I am beautiful. It must be true because mothers don’t lie. Come let’s ask your mother.
Cause and Effect - assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example:
1. When I use the Hot Oil Treatment my friend gave me, my hair gets so shiny. Therefore, the Hot Oil Treatment causes my hair to shine.
Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example:
1. Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.
False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Examples:
1. Do you still beat your wife?
Genetic Fallacy - The attempt to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim
Example:
1. Gina got promoted in the office and since she said “Twilight” is a nice movie, I will watch it.
Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another.
Example:
1. I hate your friend because she says she doesn’t like me. Therefore, I do not like you because you are friends.
Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example:
1. It rained because I am wearing this shoes again.
Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example:
1. He is so bitter about his past relationship. Let’s hear what he can say about his former girlfriend getting involved with his best friend.
Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself.
Example:
1. You can't possibly understand why women is so dramatic and sentimental because you’re not a woman.
Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property.
Example:
1. Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.
Affirming the Consequent- This fallacy takes the form of:If x, then y.y.therefore: x.
Example:
1. People who are psychotic act in a bizarre manner. This person acts in a bizarre manner. Therefore: This person is psychotic."
Appeal To Ignorance (Ad Ignorantium) - The appeal to ignorance fallacy takes the form of:There is no (or insufficient) evidence establishing that x is false.Therefore: x is true.
Example:
1. In the 6 years that I have been practicing my new and improved brand of cognitive-humanistic-dynamic-behavioral-deconstructive-metaregressive-deontological psychotherapy (now with biofeedback!), which I developed, there has not been one published study showing that it fails to work or that it has ever harmed a patient. It is clearly one of the safest and most effective interventions ever devised.
Argument to Logic (Argumentum ad Logicam)- The argument to logic fallacy takes the form of assuming that a proposition must be false because an argument offered in support of that proposition was fallacious.
Example:
1. This new test seemed so promising, but the 3 studies that supported its validity turned out to have critical methodological flaws, so the test is probably not valid."
Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)- This fallacy, one of the fallacies of circularity, takes the form of arguments or other statements that simply assume or re-state their own truth rather than providing relevant evidence and logical arguments. Sometimes this fallacy literally takes the form of a question
Example:
1. Has your psychology department stopped teaching that ineffective approach to therapy yet? (The question assumes--and a "yes" or "no" response to the question affirms--that the approach is ineffective.)
Composition Fallacy- This fallacy takes the form of assuming that a group possesses the characteristics of its individual members.
Example:
1. Several years ago, a group of 10 psychologists started a psychology training program. Each of those psychologists is efficient, effective, and highly-regarded. Their training program must be efficient, effective, and highly-regarded.
Denying the Antecedent -This fallacy takes the form of:If x, then y.Not x.therefore: not y.
Example:
1. If this test were based on fraudulent norms, then it would be invalid. But the norms are not fraudulent. Therefore, this test is valid.
Disjunctive Fallacy- This fallacy takes the form of:Either x or y.x.Therefore: not y.
Example:
1. These test results are clearly wrong, and it must be either because the client was malingering or because I bungled the test administration. Taking another look at the test manual, I see now that I bungled the test administration. Therefore the client was not malingering.
Division Fallacy- The division fallacy or decomposition fallacy takes the form of assuming that the members of a group posses the characteristics of the group.
Example:
1. This clinic sure makes a lot of money. Each of the psychologists who work there must earn a large income.
False Analogy- The false or faulty analogy fallacy takes the form of argument by analogy in which the comparison is misleading in at least one important aspect.
Example:
1. There were wonderful psychologists who passed away several decades ago. If they could be effective in what they did without reading any of the studies or other articles that have been published in the last several decades, there's no need for me to read any of those works in order to be effective.
False Dilemma- Also known as the "either/or" fallacy or the fallacy of false choices, this fallacy takes the form of only acknowledging 2 (one of which is usually extreme) options from a continuum or other array of possibilities.
Example:
1. Either we accept the findings of this study demonstrating that this new intervention is the best to be used for this disorder, or we must no longer call ourselves scientists, psychologists, or reasonable people.
Golden Mean Fallacy - The fallacy of the Golden Mean (or fallacy of compromise, or fallacy of moderation) takes the form of assuming that the most valid conclusion is that which accepts the best compromise between two competing positions.
Example:
1. In our psychology department, half of the faculty believe that a behavioral approach is the only valid approach; the other half believe that the only valid approach is psychodynamic. Obviously the most valid approach must be one that incorporates both behavioral and psychodynamic elements.
Mistaking Deductive Validity for Truth - This fallacy takes the form of assuming that because an argument is a logical syllogism, therefore the conclusion must be true. It ignores the possibility that the premises of the argument may be false.
Example:
1. I just read a book that proves that that book's author can do much better than any psychological test at finding out if someone is malingering. The book's author reviews the literature showing that no psychological test is perfect at identifying malingering. All have at least some false positives and false negatives. But the author has a new method of identifying malingerers. All he does is listen to the sound of their voice as they say a sentence or two. And he included in the book a chart showing that by using this method he has never been wrong in hundreds of cases. That proves his method is better than using psychological tests.
Naturalistic Fallacy - The naturalistic fallacy takes the form of logically deducing values (e.g., what is good, best, right, ethical, or moral) based only on statements of fact.
Example:
1. There is no intervention for victims of domestic violence that has more empirical support from controlled studies than this one. It is clear that this is the right way to address this problem and we should all be providing this therapy whenever victims of domestic violence come to us for help.
Nominal Fallacy - The nominal fallacy is the mistake of assuming that because we have given a name to something, therefore we have explained it.
Example:
1. Therapist A: "I just don't care about my patient anymore. I don't pay attention to what they say. I show up late for sessions. I don't care if they show up. I ask them if they'd rather we just use the session playing a game of tennis or sharing a cup of coffee. I don't keep records."
Therapist B: "You have a classic case of burn-out!"
Therapist A: "But why am I doing all these things?"
Therapist B: "Because you're burned out."
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (After this, therefore on account of this)- The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy takes the form of confusing correlation with causation and concluding that because Y follows X, then Y must be a result of X.
Example:
1. My new sport psychology intervention works! I chose the player with the lowest batting average based on the last game from each of the teams in our amateur baseball league. Then I gave each of them my 5-minute intervention. And almost all of them improved their batting average in the next game! (Note: this example may also involve the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean.)
Red Herring - This fallacy takes the form of introducing or focusing on irrelevant information to distract from the valid evidence and reasoning. It takes its name from the strategy of dragging a herring or other fish across the path to distract hounds and other tracking dogs and to throw them off the scent of whatever they were searching for.
Example:
1. Some of you have objected to the new test batteries that were purchased for our program, alleging that they have no demonstrable validity, were not adequately normed for the kind of clients we see, and are unusable for clients who are physically disabled. What you have conveniently failed to mention, however, is that they cost less than a third of the price for the other tests we had been using, are much easier to learn, and can be administered and scored in less than half the time of the tests we used to use.
Slippery Slope (also known as "The Continuum Falacy," and "Camel's Nose Falacy"
The slippery slope fallacy is a form of the Non Causa Pro Causa (mistaking a non-cause as a cause) and the non sequitur (it does not follow), which claims (without proof) that A inevitably must cause B, and B can have no other outcome than C, and C is sufficient cause for D, and D must lead to E, and E must produce F, and so on, and because the last link in the supposedly causal chain is undesirable, therefore the first step is undesirable.
Examples:
1. If the government allows psychologists to prescribe medications there will be no basis to block them from obtaining competence and legal authority to conduct other traditionally medical procedures such as diagnosing minor skin irritations, treating a sprained ankle, setting a broken bone, and performing neurosurgery.
Straw Person-The straw person, or straw man, or straw woman fallacy takes the form mischaracterizing someone else's position in a way that makes it weaker, false, or ridiculous.
Example:
1. Those who believe in behavior modification obviously want to try to control everyone by subjecting them to rewards and punishments.
You Too! (tu quoque)- This fallacy takes the form of distracting attention from error or weakness by claiming that an opposing argument, person, or position has the same error or weakness.
Example:
1. I have been accused of using an ad hominem approach in trying to defend my research. But those who attack me and my research are also using ad hominem. And they started it!
Fallacy of Accident (also called destroying the exception or a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)--makes a generalization that disregards exceptions
Example:
1. Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals.
Converse Fallacy of Accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter)--argues from a special case to a general rule
Example:
1. Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.
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
Example:
1. If a person runs barefoot, then his feet hurt. Socrates' feet hurt. Therefore, Socrates ran barefoot.
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
Example: If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I do not have the flu. Therefore, I do not have a sore throat. Other illnesses may cause sore throat.
Begging the question (also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando--arguing in a circle, or assuming the answer)--demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion
Example:
1. Paul must be telling the truth, because I have heard him say the same thing many times before.
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
Example:
1. All heavy things have a great mass; this is heavy fog; therefore this fog has a great mass.
Amphibology is the result of ambiguity of grammatical structure
Example:
1. The man hit by the car who cross the street was severely injured.
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: All the band members (constituent parts) are highly skilled, therefore the band (composite item) is highly skilled.
Division, the converse of the preceding, arguing from a property of the whole, to each constituent part
Example:
1. The university (the whole) is 700 years old, therefore, all the staff (each part) are 700 years old".
Accent, which occurs only in speaking and consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence.
Example:
1. He is a fairly good pianist," according to the emphasis on the words, may imply praise of a beginner's progress, or an expert's deprecation of a popular hero, or it may imply that the person in question is a deplorable pianist.