5.4 Informal Fallacies and Critical Thinking
3 min read•august 7, 2024
Informal fallacies are sneaky tricks that can fool us in arguments. They're like hidden traps in everyday thinking, making bad reasoning seem good. Spotting these fallacies helps us think more clearly and avoid being misled.
This part of the chapter breaks down different types of fallacies. We'll learn about relevance issues, faulty assumptions, and problems with evidence. Understanding these helps us become better critical thinkers and spot weak arguments.
Fallacies of Relevance
Personal Attacks and Distractions
Top images from around the web for Personal Attacks and Distractions
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: The loud world of ad hominem attacks View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: The loud world of ad hominem attacks View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for Personal Attacks and Distractions
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: The loud world of ad hominem attacks View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY: The loud world of ad hominem attacks View original
Is this image relevant?
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
- attacks the character or circumstances of an individual rather than addressing the substance of their argument
- misrepresents an opponent's position, often by oversimplifying or exaggerating it, to make it easier to attack
- manipulates feelings (fear, pity, guilt) to win an argument without addressing the merits of the case
- introduces an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the main issue under discussion
- ("you too") points out hypocrisy in the opponent without directly refuting their argument (two wrongs don't make a right)
Faulty Appeals to the Crowd
- assumes something must be true or right because it is popular (appeal to popularity)
- Appeals to the masses to "jump on the bandwagon" rather than evaluating an argument based on its own merits
- Implies that an idea must be valid simply because it has gained widespread acceptance
- Overlooks the possibility that the majority opinion could still be mistaken or based on faulty reasoning
- Encourages conformity and discourages critical thinking (if everyone else believes it, it must be true)
Fallacies of Presumption
Unjustified Assumptions
- presents a situation as an "either-or" choice between two alternatives when other options may exist (false dilemma)
- argues that one event will inevitably lead to a chain of increasingly worse consequences without justification
- begins with what it is trying to prove by restating the within the ()
- asserts that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
Faulty Premises and Definitions
- Begging the question assumes the truth of the very point raised in a question (complex question fallacy)
- Asks a question that has a presumption built into it so that it can't be answered without appearing guilty (have you stopped cheating on your taxes?)
- Relies on a premise that has not been proven or accepted by those involved in the discussion
- Disguises a preconceived notion or assumption as an indisputable fact that must be accepted to answer the question
- Unfairly shifts the burden of proof and limits the respondent's options to address the actual issue under consideration
Fallacies of Defective Induction
Hasty Conclusions from Limited Evidence
- draws a broad conclusion from a small sample size or limited set of examples (jumping to conclusions)
- Makes a sweeping claim about a group based on insufficient or unrepresentative evidence that does not justify the conclusion
- Ignores the diversity within a population and the potential for exceptions or individual differences
- Relies on anecdotal evidence or personal experience rather than methodical research and statistical analysis
- Rushes to an unjustified judgment before all the relevant facts have been gathered and considered (you can't judge a book by its cover)
Flawed Appeals to Experts and Causes
- cites an expert or authority figure to support a claim, even though they may lack relevant expertise or be biased
- Assumes that a person must be correct simply because of their position or status rather than evaluating their actual arguments
- Overlooks the possibility that experts can be wrong, have conflicts of interest, or disagree with each other in their field
- ("after this, therefore because of this") assumes that because one event followed another, the first must have caused the second
- Confuses correlation with causation and does not consider other factors that may have been the actual cause
- Ignores the possibility of mere coincidence or the influence of a third variable on both observed events (superstitions about bad luck)
Key Terms to Review (24)
Ad hominem: Ad hominem refers to a type of argumentative fallacy where an attack is directed at the person making an argument rather than addressing the argument itself. This tactic shifts focus away from the actual issue at hand and undermines the credibility of the opponent instead of engaging with their reasoning. It's crucial to understand how this fallacy fits into discussions about the validity and soundness of arguments, critical thinking, and practical applications of logical analysis.
Ambiguity: Ambiguity refers to the quality of being open to multiple interpretations or meanings, which can lead to confusion and misunderstandings. In communication, ambiguous statements can result from vague language or unclear phrasing, making it difficult for listeners or readers to grasp the intended message. This concept is particularly important when translating natural language into symbolic logic, as precision is essential to avoid misinterpretation.
Appeal to authority: An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because an authority or expert supports it, without providing further evidence or reasoning. This fallacy highlights the reliance on perceived credibility rather than evaluating the argument's merit, leading to potential errors in reasoning and critical thinking.
Appeal to emotion: An appeal to emotion is a rhetorical strategy that attempts to persuade an audience by eliciting strong emotional responses rather than relying on logical reasoning. This technique often aims to sway opinions or provoke feelings such as fear, pity, or anger to influence decision-making. While emotional appeals can be powerful, they may also distract from the actual argument or evidence, leading to potentially flawed conclusions.
Argument analysis: Argument analysis is the systematic examination of the structure, components, and validity of an argument. It involves breaking down an argument into its premises and conclusion to evaluate whether the reasoning is sound and if the argument is free from fallacies. This process is essential for distinguishing between valid and invalid reasoning in both formal settings, like propositional logic, and informal contexts where critical thinking is applied.
Argument from Ignorance: An argument from ignorance asserts that a claim is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. This type of reasoning often relies on a lack of evidence rather than presenting actual proof, which makes it a flawed way to support a conclusion. Understanding this fallacy is important in evaluating arguments critically, as it highlights the necessity for evidence in supporting claims rather than relying on the absence of disproof.
Bandwagon fallacy: The bandwagon fallacy is a logical error that occurs when someone argues that a claim is true or good simply because it is popular or widely accepted. This fallacy exploits the human tendency to conform to the beliefs and actions of others, suggesting that the popularity of an idea is a reliable indicator of its validity. It can undermine critical thinking by discouraging independent analysis and encouraging individuals to follow the crowd rather than evaluating arguments on their own merit.
Begging the Question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy where an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, rather than providing evidence for it. This fallacy often leads to circular reasoning, where the argument goes in a loop without offering any real support or justification for the claims being made. Understanding this term is crucial for recognizing flaws in reasoning and improving critical thinking skills.
Circular reasoning: Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise within the same argument, essentially assuming what it is trying to prove. This type of reasoning lacks proper evidence, making it unconvincing, as it leads back to the initial claim without providing outside support. It’s important in critical thinking to recognize this fallacy as it undermines rational discourse and can mislead discussions.
Cognitive Bias: Cognitive bias refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, where individuals create their own 'subjective reality' from their perception of the input. This means that our beliefs, emotions, and experiences can influence our thinking, leading to errors in reasoning and decision-making. These biases can often contribute to informal fallacies and affect critical thinking, as they may distort our understanding and evaluation of arguments and evidence.
Conclusion: A conclusion is the statement or proposition that follows logically from the premises of an argument, serving as its endpoint and summarizing the reasoning provided. It plays a crucial role in determining the overall strength and effectiveness of arguments by showing what follows from the given premises.
Critical Questioning: Critical questioning is the process of analyzing, evaluating, and probing statements or arguments to assess their validity, reliability, and relevance. It involves the use of thoughtful inquiries to challenge assumptions, uncover biases, and clarify meanings, ultimately leading to a deeper understanding of the topic at hand. This approach is essential in identifying informal fallacies, promoting critical thinking skills, and fostering a more informed perspective.
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is a logical process where a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, leading to a certain outcome if the premises are true. This method emphasizes the relationship between premises and conclusion, establishing validity, soundness, and cogency in arguments.
Equivocation: Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when a word or phrase is used in two or more different senses within the same argument, leading to a misleading or ambiguous conclusion. This fallacy often arises in discussions and debates, where the same term may carry different meanings in different contexts, causing confusion and undermining clarity in reasoning.
False Dichotomy: A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy that presents two opposing options as the only possibilities, when in fact more alternatives exist. This fallacy often oversimplifies complex issues by forcing a choice between extremes, neglecting other potential options or nuances. It can mislead audiences in arguments or discussions by framing the debate in a way that limits critical thinking and consideration of all possibilities.
Hasty Generalization: A hasty generalization is a logical fallacy that occurs when a conclusion is drawn from an insufficient or unrepresentative sample of data. This type of reasoning often leads to stereotypes and inaccurate beliefs about a group based on a limited number of cases, making it important to recognize the difference between inductive reasoning, which can support generalizations when done correctly, and deductive reasoning, which relies on established premises.
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which a general conclusion is drawn from specific observations or instances. It often involves making predictions or generalizations based on trends or patterns observed in data, which means that while the conclusions can be probable, they are not guaranteed to be true.
Logical Consistency: Logical consistency refers to a state in which a set of statements or propositions do not contradict one another, allowing for the possibility of all of them being true simultaneously. In critical thinking, maintaining logical consistency is crucial for constructing valid arguments and avoiding informal fallacies, as contradictions undermine the reliability and persuasiveness of reasoning.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy that translates to 'after this, therefore because of this.' It occurs when it is assumed that just because one event follows another, the first event must be the cause of the second. This fallacy can lead to faulty reasoning and misinterpretation of cause and effect relationships, which is crucial for effective critical thinking and analysis.
Premise: A premise is a statement or proposition that provides the foundation for an argument, serving as the evidence or reason that supports the conclusion. Understanding premises is essential for analyzing the structure of arguments, distinguishing between valid and invalid forms, and assessing the overall soundness and cogency of reasoning.
Red Herring: A red herring is a logical fallacy that occurs when an irrelevant topic is introduced to divert attention from the original issue at hand. This tactic often misleads or distracts an audience, making it harder to focus on the main argument or problem being discussed. It is frequently used in debates and arguments, where the aim is to shift the conversation away from the key points.
Slippery Slope: A slippery slope is a logical fallacy that suggests that a relatively small first step or action will inevitably lead to a chain of related events culminating in significant and often negative consequences. This fallacy often fails to provide sufficient evidence that the subsequent steps will occur, misleadingly implying that one action will lead to another without justification.
Straw Man: A straw man is a common form of argument and is often considered a logical fallacy where one person misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the actual argument presented, the individual distorts it into a weaker version, creating a false scenario that can be easily countered. This tactic often leads to confusion and miscommunication, making it difficult to have productive discussions or debates.
Tu quoque: Tu quoque is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone dismisses another person's argument by claiming that they are hypocritical or inconsistent in their actions. This fallacy shifts the focus from the validity of the argument itself to the character or behavior of the person making it, rather than addressing the actual issue at hand. This tactic often leads to a breakdown in critical thinking as it distracts from logical reasoning and instead engages in personal attacks.