Answer & Explanation:300-400 wordsSearch through common media sources looking for examples of fallacies. Some common places to find fallacies include advertisements, opinion pieces in news media, and arguments about politics, religion, and other controversial issues. You may also notice fallacies in your daily life.Present three distinct informal logical fallacies you have discovered in these types of sources or in your life. Make sure to identify the specific fallacy committed by each example. Explain how the fallacies were used and the context in which they occurred. Then, explain how the person should have presented the argument to have avoided committing this logical error.
07ch_hardy_reason.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
7
Informal Fallacies
Enterline Design Services LLC/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
1. Describe the various fallacies of support, their origins, and circumstances in which specific
arguments may not be fallacious.
2. Describe the various fallacies of relevance, their origins, and circumstances in which
specific arguments may not be fallacious.
3. Describe the various fallacies of clarity, their origins, and circumstances in which specific
arguments may not be fallacious.
239
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 239
4/9/15 11:30 AM
We can conceive of logic as providing us with the best tools for seeking truth. If our goal is to
seek truth, then we must be clear that the task is not limited to the formation of true beliefs
based on a solid logical foundation, for the task also involves learning to avoid forming false
beliefs. Therefore, just as it is important to learn to employ good reasoning, it is also important to learn to avoid bad reasoning.
Toward this end, this chapter will focus on fallacies. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; more
specifically, they are common patterns of reasoning with a high likelihood of leading to false
conclusions. Logical fallacies often seem like good reasoning because they resemble perfectly
legitimate argument forms. For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in Paris.
Therefore, you live in France.
Assuming that both of the premises are true, it logically follows that the conclusion must be
true. The following argument is very similar:
If you live in Paris, then you live in France.
You live in France.
Therefore, you live in Paris.
This second argument, however, is invalid; there are plenty of other places to live in France.
This is a common formal fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Chapter 4 discussed how
this fallacy was based on an incorrect logical form. This chapter will focus on informal fallacies, fallacies whose errors are not so much a matter of form but of content. The rest of this
chapter will cover some of the most common and important fallacies, with definitions and
examples. Learning about fallacies can be a lot of fun, but be warned: Once you begin noticing
fallacies, you may start to see them everywhere.
Before we start, it is worth noting a few things. First, there are many, many fallacies. This
chapter will consider only a sampling of some of the most well-known fallacies. Second, there
is a lot of overlap between fallacies. Reasonable people can interpret the same errors as different fallacies. Focus on trying to understand both interpretations rather than on insisting
that only one can be right. Third, different philosophers often have different terminology for
the same fallacies and make different distinctions among them. Therefore, you may find that
others use different terminology for the fallacies that we will learn about in this chapter. Not
to worry—it is the ideas here that are most important: Our goal is to learn to identify and
avoid mistakes in reasoning, regardless of specific terminology.
Finally, there are many ways to divide the fallacies into categories. This chapter will refer to
fallacies of support, fallacies of clarity, and fallacies of relevance. Avoiding fallacies may be difficult at first, but ultimately, as we learn to reason more fairly and carefully, we will find that
avoiding fallacious reasoning helps us develop habits of mental fairness, trustworthiness, and
openness, enhancing our ability to discern truth from error.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 240
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Section 7.1
Fallacies of Support
7.1 Fallacies of Support
When reasoning, it is essential to reach conclusions
based on adequate evidence; otherwise, our views
are unsubstantiated. The better the evidence, the
more credible our claims are, and the more likely
they are to be true. Fallacies can lead us to accept
conclusions that are not adequately supported and
may be false. Let us learn some of the most common
ways this can happen.
Begging the Question
One of the most common fallacies is called
begging the question, also known as petitio principii. This fallacy occurs when someone gives reasoning that assumes a major point at issue; it assumes
a particular answer to the question with which we
are concerned. In other words, the premises of the
argument claim something that someone probably
would not agree with if he or she did not already
accept the conclusion. Take a look at the following
argument:
Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock
With fallacious reasoning, the
premises only appear to support the
conclusion. When you look closely at a
fallacious argument, you can see how
the premises fail to offer support.
Abortion is wrong because a fetus has a right to live.
There is nothing wrong with this argument as an expression of a person’s belief. The question is whether it will persuade anyone who does not already agree with the conclusion. The
premise of this argument assumes the major point at issue. If fetuses have a right to live,
then it would follow almost automatically that abortion is wrong. However, those who do not
accept the conclusion probably do not accept this premise (perhaps they do not feel that the
developing embryo is developed enough to have human rights yet). It is therefore unlikely
that they will be persuaded by the argument. To improve the argument, it would be necessary
to give good reasons why a fetus has a right to life, reasons that would be persuasive to people
on the other side of the argument.
For more clarity about this problem, take a look at these similar arguments:
Capital punishment is wrong because all humans have a right to live.
Eating meat is wrong because animals have a right to live.
These arguments are nearly identical, yet they reach different conclusions about what types
of killing are wrong because of different assumptions about who has the right to live. Each,
however, is just as unlikely to persuade people with a different view. In order to be persuasive, it is best to give an argument that does not rest on controversial views that are merely
assumed to be true. It is not always easy to create non-question-begging arguments, but such
is the challenge for those who would like to have a strong chance of persuading those with
differing views.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 241
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Here are examples on both sides of a different question:
Joe: I know that God exists because it says so in the Bible.
Doug: God doesn’t exist because nothing supernatural is real.
Do you think that either argument will persuade someone on the other side? Someone who
does not believe in God probably does not accept the Bible to be completely true, so this reasoning will not make the person change his or her mind. The other argument does the same
thing by simply ruling out the possibility that anything could exist other than physical matter.
Someone who believes in God will probably not accept this premise.
Both arguments, on the other hand, will probably sound very good to someone who shares
the speaker’s point of view, but they will not sound persuasive at all to those who do not.
Committing the fallacy of begging the question can be compared to “preaching to the choir”
because the only people who will accept the premise are those who already agree with the
conclusion.
Circular Reasoning
An extreme form of begging the question is called circular reasoning. In circular reasoning,
a premise is identical, or virtually identical, to the conclusion.
Here is an example:
Mike: Capital punishment is wrong.
Sally: Why is it wrong?
Mike: Because it is!
Mike’s reasoning here seems to be, “Capital punishment is wrong. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.” The premise and conclusion are the same. The reasoning is technically logically valid because there is no way for the premise to be true and the conclusion false—since
they are the same—but this argument will never persuade anyone, because no one will accept
the premise without already agreeing with the conclusion.
As mentioned, circular reasoning can be considered an extreme form of begging the question.
For another example, suppose the conversation between Joe and Doug went a little further.
Suppose each questioned the other about how they knew that the premise was true:
Joe: I know that the Bible is true because it says so right here in the Bible, in
2 Timothy 3:16.
Doug: I know that there is nothing supernatural because everything has a
purely natural explanation.
Here both seem to reason in a circular manner: Joe says that the Bible is true because it says
so, which assumes that it is true. On the other side, to say that everything has a purely natural
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 242
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Section 7.1
Fallacies of Support
explanation is the same thing as to say that there is nothing supernatural, so the premise is
synonymous with the conclusion. If either party hopes to persuade the other to accept his
position, then he should offer premises that the other is likely to find persuasive, not simply
another version of the conclusion.
Moral of the Story: Begging the Question and Circular Reasoning
To demonstrate the truth of a conclusion, it is not enough to simply assume that it is true; we
should give evidence that has a reasonable chance of being persuasive to people on the other
side of the argument. The way to avoid begging the question and circular reasoning is to think
for a minute about whether someone with a different point of view is likely to accept the premises you offer. If not, strive to modify your argument so that it has premises that are more likely
to be accepted by parties on the other side of the debate.
Hasty Generalizations and Biased Samples
Chapter 5 demonstrated that we can reason from a premise about a sample population to a
conclusion about a larger population that includes the sample. Here is a simple example:
Every crow I have ever seen has been black.
Therefore, all crows are black.
Concept by Christopher Foster | Illustration by Steve Zmina
Some inductive arguments make generalizations about
certain groups, but in a hasty generalization, the sample size
is inadequate.
This is known as making an
inductive generalization; you
are making a generalization
about all crows based on the
crows you have seen. However,
if you have seen only a small
number of crows, then this
inductive argument is weak
because the sample of crows
was not large enough. A hasty
generalization is an inductive generalization in which
the sample size is too small.
The person has generalized
too quickly, without adequate
support.
Notice that stereotypes are often based on hasty generalizations. For example, sometimes
people see a person of a different demographic driving poorly and, based on only one example, draw a conclusion about the whole demographic. As Chapter 8 will discuss, such generalizations can act as obstacles to critical thinking and have led to many erroneous and hurtful
views (see also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100810122210.htm for a
discussion of the long-term effects of stereotyping).
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 243
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Not all inductive generalizations are bad, however. A common form of inductive generalization is a poll. When someone takes a poll, he or she samples a group to draw a conclusion
about a larger group. Here would be an example:
We sampled 1,000 people, and 70% said they will vote for candidate A.
Therefore, candidate A will win.
Here, the sample size is relatively large, so it may supply strong evidence for the conclusion.
Recall Chapter 5’s discussion of assessing the strength of statistical arguments that use samples. That chapter discussed how an inductive generalization could be affected if a sample
population is not truly random. For example, what if all of the people polled were in the same
county? The results of the poll might then be skewed toward one candidate or other based on
who lives in that county. If, in a generalization, the sample population is not truly representative of the whole population, then the argument uses a biased sample (recall the Chapter 5
discussion of Gallup’s polling techniques and see this chapter’s A Closer Look: Biased Samples
in History for a historical example of how even well-intentioned polling can go wrong).
Slanted polling questions represent just one method of creating deliberately biased samples;
another method is called cherry picking. Cherry picking involves a deliberate selection of
data to support only one side of an issue. If there is evidence on both sides of a controversial
question and you focus only on evidence supporting one side, then you are manipulating the
data by ignoring the evidence that does not support the conclusion you desire.
For example, suppose an infomercial gives many examples of people who used a certain
product and had amazing results and therefore suggests that you will probably get great
results, too. Even if those people are telling the truth, it is very possible that many more
people did not have good results. The advertisers will, of course, only put the people in the
commercial that had the best results. This can be seen as cherry picking, because the viewer
of the commercial does not get to see all of the people who felt that the product was a waste
of money.
A Closer Look: Biased Samples in History
In 1936 the largest poll ever taken (10 million questionnaires) showed that Alf Landon would
soundly defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt in the presidential election. The results were quite the
opposite, however. What went wrong? The answer, it turns out, was that the names and
addresses that were used to send out the questionnaires were taken from lists of automobile owners, phone subscribers, and country club memberships (DeTurk, n.d.). Therefore, the
polls tended to be sent to wealthier people, who were more likely to vote for Landon.
Typically, finding a representative sample means selecting a sample randomly from within the
whole population. However, as this example shows, it is sometimes difficult to make certain
that there is no source of bias within one’s sampling method. In fact, it is really difficult to get
inductive generalizations just right. We must have a sufficiently large sample, and it must be
truly representative of the whole population. We should be careful to look at a large sample of
data that accurately represents the population in general. There is a complex science of polling and analyzing the data to predict things like election results. A more in-depth discussion
of this topic can be found in Chapter 5.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 244
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
Appeal to Ignorance and Shifting the Burden of Proof
Sometimes we lack adequate evidence that a claim is true or false; in such situations it would
seem wise to be cautious and search for further evidence. Sometimes, however, people take
the lack of proof on one side to constitute a proof of the other side. This type of reasoning is
known as the appeal to ignorance; it consists of arguing either that a claim is true because
it has not been proved to be false or that a claim is false because it has not been proved to
be true.
Here is a common example on both sides of another issue:
UFO investigator: “You can’t prove that space aliens haven’t visited Earth, so
they probably have.”
Skeptic: “We haven’t yet verified the existence of space aliens, so they must
not exist.”
Both the believer and the skeptic in these examples mistakenly take a failure to prove one
side to constitute a demonstration of the truth of the other side. It is sometimes said that the
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, there are some exceptions in which
such inferences are justified. Take a look at the following example:
John: There are no elephants in this room.
Cindy: How do you know?
John: Because I do not see any.
In this case the argument may be legitimate. If there were an elephant in the room, one would
probably notice. Another example might be in a medical test in which the presence of an antibody would trigger a certain reaction in the lab. The absence of that reaction is then taken to
demonstrate that the antibody is not present. For such reasoning to work, we need to have
good reason to believe that if the antibody were present, then the reaction would be observed.
However, for that type of reasoning to work in the case of space aliens, the believer would
have to demonstrate that if there were none, then we would be able to prove that. Likewise,
the skeptic’s argument would require that if there were space aliens, then we would have
been able to verify it. Such a statement is likely to be true for the case of an elephant, but it
is not likely to be the case for space aliens, so the appeal to ignorance in those examples is
fallacious.
The appeal to ignorance fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of shifting the burden of
proof, in which those who have the responsibility of demonstrating the truth of their claims
(the so-called burden of proof) simply point out the failure of the other side to prove the
opposing position. People who do this have not met the burden of proof but have merely
acted as though the other side has the burden instead. Here are two examples of an appeal to
ignorance that seem to shift the burden of proof:
Power company: “This new style of nuclear power plant has not been proved
to be unsafe; therefore, its construction should be approved.” (It would seem
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
har85668_07_c07_239-278.indd 245
4/9/15 11:30 AM
Fallacies of Support
Section 7.1
that, when it comes to high degrees of risk, the burden of proof would be on
the power plant’s side to show that the proposed plants are safe.)
Prosecuting attorney: “The defense has failed to demonstrate that their client was not at the scene of the crime. Therefore, we must put this criminal
in jail.” (This prosecutor seems to assume that it is the duty of the defense to
demonstrate the innocence of its client, when it is actually the prosecution’s
responsibility to show that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.)
It is not always easy to determine who has the burden of proof. However, here are some reasonable questions to ask when it comes to making such a determination:
•
•
•
Which side is trying to change the status quo? One person trying to get another
person to change views will usually have the burden of proof; otherwise, the other
person will not be persuaded to change.
Which side’s position involves greater risk? A company that designs parachutes or
power plants, for example, would be expected to demonstrate the safety of the
design.
Is there a rule that determines the burden of proof in this context? For example, the
American legal system requires that, in criminal cases, the prosecution prove its case
“beyond reasonable doubt.” Debates often put the burden of proof on the affirmative
position.
Generally speaking, we should arrive at conclusions based on good evidence for that conclusion, not based on an absence of e …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Order a plagiarism free paper now. We do not use AI. Use the code SAVE15 to get a 15% Discount
Looking for help with your ASSIGNMENT? Our paper writing service can help you achieve higher grades and meet your deadlines.
Why order from us
We offer plagiarism-free content
We don’t use AI
Confidentiality is guaranteed
We guarantee A+ quality
We offer unlimited revisions