Ray Bradbury said, ""

Things that make me dismiss other people's arguments

Two things make me completely dismiss what someone is saying: the presence of exclamation points on sentences which should be declarative, and logical fallacies. The former indicates the person thinks I am a dog which responds only to the tone in which one speaks, and the latter indicates he has nothing to say and knows it. Both annoy me to no end, and their presence in an argument automatically will make me dismiss it, even if it is uttered by James Madison himself. These things multiply faster than rabbits snorting powdered viagra; I usually will not enter a thread in which they have made their appearance, for I know the thread will most likely continue its descent.

I will step through some of the most common logical fallacies which occur in arguments. For a whole hell of alot more, read David Fischer's "Historian's Fallacies."

There are four forms of logical fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of presumption, fallacies of ambiguity, and formal fallacies. Fallacies of relevance occur when someone attempts to persuade another of the validity of a conclusion by pointing to irrelevant material. Fallacies of presumption occur where an unwarrented assumption is hidden in order to make an argument appear valid. Fallacies of ambiguity occur where the terms in an argument change meaning, giving the appearance of validity. Formal fallacies occur when someone attempts to persuade another of the validity of a conclusion by a disingenous and invalid argument- I'll go through them later.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argument toward ignorance. It is the attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by arguing that it has not been proved false, or vice versa. "Just because you never saw the UFO, doesn't mean it wasn't there."  It is an appeal to ignorance, an attempt to prove a negative.  It is valid only in cases governed by "innocent until proven guilty," such as medical research, background checks, the reasonable-doubt standard of judicial arguments, etc., where no evidence of harm or guilt can be validly taken to prove the absence of side effects or innocence.  Remember that you cannot prove a negative.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Argument toward an inappropriate authority. It is the attempt to prove a proposition true by appealing to an authority without expertise in the relevant field.  "Even Leonard Euler called interest usury." This is usually easy to spot in commercials, celebrity statements, or when college students cite Werner Heisenberg's physics to support arguments for moral relativism (Interesting note: Heisenberg published a book, Physics and Philosophy, condemning all attempts by contemporary moral relativists to extract moral lessons from his Uncertainty Principle). 

Argumentum ad hominem, abusive. An abusive argument toward a person. In modern times, it is the attempt to prove a proposition true by saying that the person claiming it is Hitler. It turns the argument away from the conclusion, and targets the person claiming it. Remember that for a dime, any no-good neo-Nazi promiscuous bum on the street can recite a mathematical formula or a statement of fact. Any derogatory mention whatsoever of the person, falls under this fallacy. Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for an asshole to state a truth,  calling him on his character has no bearing.

Argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial. It is the attempt to prove a proposition true by appealing to the circumstances of the person claiming it. "You're just saying that because of your background." It is very persuasive, until you remember that for a dime, anyone in any circumstance could recite a mathematical formula or a statement of fact.  Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for some one from some group to state a truth, calling him on his circumstance has no bearing.

Argumentum ad hominem, tu quoque. "You yourself." Keep in mind that unless it is physically impossible for a hypocrite to state a truth, it has no bearing.

Poisoning the well. This fallacy was born out of an argument between Charles Kingsley and Cardinal John Henry Newman. Kingsley had argued that Newman's arguments were invalid because as a Roman Catholic, Newman's prime loyalty was not to truth but to G-d. Newman responded by arguing that according to Kingsley, this made it impossible for any Roman Catholic to advance any argument, as everything they said would be tainted. Newman called this "poisoning the well of discourse."  It is an attempt to render impossible any arguments from a specific group by tainting them.

Argumentum ad populum. Argument toward the mob's emotions. It is an attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by emotionally-charged rhetoric. This is most commonly seen nowadays by people publicly calling their opponents Hitler. It is an attempt to circumvent the process of argument, and appeal directly to people's emotions. This rhetoric can also, as the name implies, take the form of merely appealing to a majority consensus.

Argument ad misericordiam. Argument toward pity. It is an appeal to the emotion of pity and an attempt to prove the truth of a proposition by the sorrows facing the person claiming it. The most famous case is that of an apocryphal child who killed his parents, then argued in court, "Take pity on me, I'm an orphan." This is most often seen in political arguments about the elderly- "Look at this old lady struggling to open a can. Obviously, our country needs nationalized healthcare for the elderly."

Argumentum ad baculum. Argument by the stick. It is literally the act of pointing to a stick and saying, "feel lucky, punk?" It is the most obvious fallacy. "Anyone who is so careless to make this fallacy, ought to be sent to North Korea," would be an example.

Ignoratio Elenchi. Mistaken proof. Also known as the non sequitur. It is an attempt to establish a conclusion from an argument which instead establishes a different conclusion.  The argument does not establish the conclusion, but is close enough to seem plausible.  This is most common in politics, wherein an argument is put forth claiming the existence of a general social problem, but concludes in a specific solution. For example, an argument that there is indeed poverty in America, is taken to lead to the conclusion that the welfare program must be expanded, the argument that the elderly do indeed have troubles, is taken to lead to the conclusion that social insurance programs must be expanded. It ignores the question of which means is most appropriate to the ends. Given that poverty exists, how does its mere existence prove that welfare, and not any of the other possible methods of eradicating it, is required? Ask yourself- "Ok, X exists. But why do Y?"


Complex question. The asking of a question which assumes an affirmative response to a previous question. "When did you stop beating your wife?" implies that you already answered "yes" to the question, "did you ever start beating your wife."  "Why did you kill Bob?" implies that you already answered "yes" to the question, "did you kill Bob?"  Wherever a question presumes the truth of some conclusion in it, this fallacy occurs.  Watch out for a complex question when you see someone aggressively pushing for a simple "yes or no" answer.

False Cause. The presumption of a causal connection which does not exist.  The most famous example is claiming that since every mass murderer drinks water, water causes mass murder. When this causal connection is proposed simply because one thing preceeded another thing, this fallacy is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Petitio Principii. Begging the question. It is to assume the conclusion to be true in the attempt to prove it. It is a circular argument. It is valid- as such an arugment does prove the conclusion, merely by containing it as one of the premises.

Accident and converse accident. A fallacy of accident is the application of a generalization to an individual case which does not fall within it.  A converse accident occurs when from a specific case a generalization is extended to a number of cases.


Equivocation. It is the use of several meanings of a word in one argument, placing a pun in an argument. One example is "All men are rational animals. Women are not men. Therefore women are not rational animals." The word "men" is used in the first premise to mean "all humans," in the second premise it means only males.

Amphiboly, or the fallacy of accent. The way in which the argument is worded or spoken changes its meaning. This includes everything from accenting a specific word, to removing context. The most famous example is that of a captain disgusted with the alcoholism of his first mate, and almost every day wrote "The mate was drunk today." The mate waited until a day when the captain was sick, then wrote in the log, "The captain was sober today."

Composition. Claiming that the attributes of parts can be claimed of the whole, or that the attributes of the parts of a collection can be claimed of the whole collection. To claim that since  "this car has high gas mileage," the radio also has high gas mileage, is nonsensical. Care must be taken to distinguish between the use of a term distributively, regarding each member of a class, or collectively, regarding the entire class. For instance, although college students may each drink more than homeless people, homeless people may collectively drink more than college students.

Division. Claiming that what is true of a whole must also be true of its parts, or that the attributes of a whole collection are applicable to each element of the collection. For instance, to claim that since McDonalds is a wealthy corporation, the janitor in a local McDonalds is therefore wealthy.  Another famous example is: dogs are frequently encountered on the streets of Brooklyn, Shitzu's are dogs, therefore shitzu's are frequently encountered on the streets of Brooklyn.

Posted by: Tom "The Pooklekufr" Treloar at June 17, 2005 10:33 EST | Permalink | comments (2) |
politics, philosophy, hateblogging

Comments open but moderated. I reserve permission to kill spammers on sight.

#1  23 June 2005 - 03:13

 

Give Me More Sexy Llamas!

!!!!!

heh!

moehawk

#2  23 June 2005 - 06:31

 

I came to annoy you only !!!!!!!!!
See?!!!!!!! Annoyed yet? How about now?!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Oddybobo

Anonymous

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit Here.