Logical Fallacies

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies have existed since the dawn of time. As defined by Bassham et al a logical fallacy "is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning." With this definition one must keep in mind that the definition of an argument according to Bassham et al is "a claim put forward and defended by reasons." The ability to recognize logical fallacy will enable one to break down an argument. This ability is crucial to the critical thinking process.

Logical fallacies can be broken in to two categories; Fallacies of relevance and Fallacies of insufficient evidence. According to the philosophypages web site, Fallacies of relevance "clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions." Fallacies such as; Staw Man, Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum), Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) and Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) are Fallacies of relevance whereas Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) and Weak Analogy are Fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallaices of insufficient evidence are "fallacies in which the premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion." (philosophypages, 2001) Fallacies such as Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum), Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) and Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) were "identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed into common use." (philosophypages, 2001)

The straw man fallacy occurs when a person on one side of an issue distorts the position of an opponent on the other side of an issue so that the issue can be easily attacked. The Nizkor Project says that "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." The straw man fallacy is widely used in society and is also sometimes very difficult to notice when this fallacy is being used. In fact most of us use this type of fallacy in our daily lives. Take for example, this seemingly innocent discussion between Bill and Jill about cleaning out a closet as written on the Nizkor Project web page.

"Jill: We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.

Bill: Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?

Jill: I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Politicians are infamous for the use of the Straw Man fallacy as this fallacy diverts the attention of the audience from one topic to another at the blink of an eye. Here is another example from the Nizkor Project web page "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." It is important that one understands how to recognize when the Straw Man fallacy is being used against him or her. Understanding when the Straw Man fallacy is being used, will give the critical thinker will be ability to assess whether or not the argument is legitimate, allowing the critical thinker to make a more informed decision. If the Straw Man fallacy is not recognized the critical thinker may make a decision based on fallacious information.

'"The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority: Argument Ad Verecundiam. An argument commits the fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority (ad verecundiam) when the argument is based on an appeal to the opinion of someone who has no legitimate claim to authority to the topic being discussed. Clear examples of inappropriate appeal to authority appear in advertising "testimonials:" famous athletes endorsing products that have nothing to do with their area of competence." (campus.murraystate) Much like the Straw Man fallacy the Inappropriate Appeal to Authority is commonly used in advertising. Turn to any channel on the television and one can find a product being endorsed by a celebrity. It is implied that the celebrity is an expert. One must question if the celebrity is truly an expert on the product he or she is endorsing. Take for instance Michael Jordan trying to sell underwear, or Joe Namath advertising panty hose. Is either of these sports figures experts on the product? Does either of these sports figures wear the product they are endorsing? Most likely not, however; their status makes the product appealing to the audience thereby increasing sales.

Another classic example of the inappropriate appeal to authority is sited by Fallacyfiles.org.