5.5 Informal Fallacies
3 min read•june 24, 2024
Informal fallacies are sneaky errors in reasoning that can trip us up. They come in different flavors like relevance, presumption, and ambiguity. Knowing how to spot these tricks helps us think more clearly and avoid being fooled.
Logical reasoning is about drawing solid conclusions from evidence. But fallacies can mess that up, leading to bad decisions or manipulated opinions. By learning to identify these pitfalls, we can have better debates and solve problems more effectively.
Types and Examples of Informal Fallacies
Types of informal fallacies
Top images from around the web for Types of informal fallacies
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
.svg.png&w=640&q=75)
Informal logic - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community 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?
Informal logic - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Types of informal fallacies
3.5 Everything’s Persuasion – Why Write? A Guide for Students in Canada View original
Is this image relevant?
Informal logic - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
Logical Fallacies - Sensemaking Resources, Education, and Community 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?
Informal logic - Wikipedia View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
-
- attacks the character or circumstances of the person making the argument instead of addressing the substance of the argument itself (politician vs. scientist in climate change debate)
- manipulates feelings and emotions to persuade the audience without relying on logical reasoning or evidence (claiming you don't care about children in poverty if you oppose a policy)
- distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant or tangential topic (company deflecting questions about environmental record by discussing job creation)
-
- or assumes the truth of the in the premise without providing independent evidence (using the Bible to prove God's existence)
- or presents a limited set of two options as if they were the only possibilities when other alternatives exist ("with us or against us" rhetoric)
- draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient evidence or an unrepresentative sample (assuming all plumbers are unreliable after one bad experience)
-
- uses a word with multiple meanings in different ways within the same argument (play on words with "light" meaning not heavy and not dark)
- exploits grammatical ambiguity to mislead or confuse (unclear who was drinking in the phrase "police were told to stop drinking")
Logical Reasoning and Fallacies
- involves drawing a specific conclusion from general
- involves drawing a general conclusion from specific observations
- A is a form of deductive reasoning with two premises and a conclusion
- refers to the logical structure of an argument, where if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true
- requires both a valid argument structure and true premises
- are errors in reasoning that can occur in both deductive and inductive arguments
Spotting fallacies in arguments
- Identify the main conclusion and premises of the argument
- Examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion
- Assess relevance of premises to the conclusion
- Evaluate sufficiency of evidence provided by premises
- Look for hidden assumptions or leaps in logic
- Look for patterns or structures that resemble known informal fallacies
- Check if the argument is attacking the person instead of the idea (ad hominem)
- See if emotions are being used to manipulate rather than logical reasoning (appeal to emotion)
- Determine if the argument is distracting from the main issue with irrelevant points (red herring)
- Consider alternative explanations or counterarguments
- Explore other possible conclusions supported by the premises
- Identify weaknesses or exceptions to the argument that are being overlooked
Impact of fallacies on reasoning
- Flawed decision-making can result from informal fallacies (investing based on emotional appeal rather than logical risk assessment)
- Manipulation of public opinion often employs informal fallacies (politicians using ad hominem attacks to discredit opponents without addressing substance)
- Biases and stereotypes can be perpetuated through informal fallacies (hasty generalizations leading to discriminatory attitudes about groups)
- Productive discourse and problem-solving are hindered by informal fallacies (false dilemmas polarizing debates and preventing nuanced solutions)
Key Terms to Review (21)
Ad Hominem: Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attacks the character or personal traits of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance or merits of the argument itself. It is a type of informal fallacy that is commonly encountered in philosophical discussions and debates.
Amphiboly: Amphiboly is a type of linguistic ambiguity that arises when a grammatical construction can be interpreted in more than one way, leading to multiple possible meanings. It occurs when the structure of a sentence or phrase is unclear, allowing for different interpretations.
Appeal to Emotion: An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attempts to persuade the audience by evoking strong feelings rather than presenting sound reasoning or evidence. This fallacy aims to manipulate emotions rather than address the actual merits of the argument.
Begging the Question: Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is a circular argument where the conclusion is either directly stated or implied in the premises, making the reasoning invalid or uninformative.
Circular Reasoning: Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is used as a premise to support the original claim. It is a form of logical circularity where the reasoning goes in a loop, failing to provide independent justification for the initial premise.
Conclusion: A conclusion is the final part of an argument or piece of writing that summarizes the key points and draws a final judgment or decision based on the evidence presented. It serves to solidify the main ideas and leave a lasting impression on the reader or audience.
Deductive Reasoning: Deductive reasoning is a logical process that starts with general premises or principles and then draws specific conclusions that necessarily follow from them. It is a top-down approach to problem-solving and decision-making, where the conclusion is derived from the given information.
Either/Or Fallacy: The either/or fallacy, also known as the false dilemma, is a logical fallacy that presents only two options or conclusions when in reality there are more possibilities. It creates a situation where a person is forced to choose between two extremes, without acknowledging the existence of intermediate or alternative options.
Equivocation: Equivocation is a logical fallacy that occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in multiple senses, leading to an invalid conclusion. It involves the ambiguous use of language to mislead or deceive the audience.
Fallacies of Ambiguity: Fallacies of ambiguity are logical fallacies that arise from the use of vague, unclear, or equivocal language. These fallacies occur when a term or phrase is used in an ambiguous way, leading to invalid or unsound reasoning. They are particularly relevant in the context of informal fallacies, as they can undermine the logical validity of arguments.
Fallacies of Presumption: Fallacies of presumption are a category of informal logical fallacies that occur when an argument makes an unjustified assumption or presupposition as the basis for its conclusion. These fallacies arise from flaws in the reasoning process rather than the factual accuracy of the premises.
Fallacies of Relevance: Fallacies of relevance are a type of informal logical fallacy where the premises of an argument are not directly related to the conclusion. These fallacies occur when the reasons provided do not actually support the claim being made, even though they may appear to be relevant at first glance.
False Dilemma: A false dilemma is a logical fallacy that presents only two possible options or solutions when in reality there are more. It creates a sense of urgency and pressure to choose between the two presented options, even though other alternatives may exist.
Hasty Generalization: A hasty generalization is an informal fallacy that occurs when a conclusion is drawn based on an insufficient or unrepresentative sample. It involves making broad generalizations from limited information, often without considering the full context or range of available evidence.
Inductive Reasoning: Inductive reasoning is a type of logical inference that moves from specific observations or premises to a general conclusion. It involves making educated guesses or drawing probable conclusions based on available evidence, rather than deducing a result from established premises.
Logical Fallacies: Logical fallacies are flaws or errors in reasoning that can lead to invalid or unsound conclusions. They are common pitfalls that philosophers and critical thinkers must be aware of and avoid when arriving at the truth, overcoming cognitive biases, developing good habits of mind, gathering and evaluating information, reading philosophy, and writing philosophy papers.
Premises: Premises are the starting points or assumptions from which an argument or line of reasoning is built. They serve as the foundation upon which a conclusion is reached. Premises are crucial in both the context of reading philosophy and identifying informal fallacies.
Red Herring: A red herring is a logical fallacy that diverts attention away from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant or unrelated topic. It is used to mislead or distract the audience from the original argument or question at hand.
Soundness: Soundness is a key concept in the evaluation of arguments, referring to the logical validity and truth of the premises and conclusions. It is a crucial consideration in the context of arguments, types of inferences, and informal fallacies.
Syllogism: A syllogism is a type of logical argument that consists of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. It is a deductive form of reasoning where the conclusion necessarily follows from the two given premises.
Validity: Validity refers to the logical soundness and strength of an argument or inference. It is a measure of how well the conclusion follows from the premises or assumptions in a given logical statement or argument.