3.2 Fallacies of Relevance PDF

Preview

Summary

Download 3.2 Fallacies of Relevance PDF

Description

1. APPEAL TO FORCE ★ The fallacy of appeal to force occurs when an arguer presents a conclusion and tries to convince you to accept the conclusion, since otherwise some harm will follow. ★ The threat may be: ○ Implicit or explicit . ○ Physical or psychological . ★ The appeal to force fallacy usually accomplishes its purpose by psychologically impairing the reader or listener from acknowledging a missing premise that, if acknowledged, would seem to be false or eat least questionable Example: “It’s a good idea for you to hire me as your security guard, since everyone who hasn’t hired me has ended up in the hospital just a few days later!” ● This is a fallacious form of argument because rather than supporting conclusion (say, by citing data that support it), the premise only gives a reason to want to believe the conclusion. Wanting or not wanting to believe the conclusion is irrelevant to its actual truth or falsity.

2. APPEAL TO PITY ★ The appeal to pity fallacy  occurs when an arguer attempts to support a conclusion by merley evoking pity from the reader or listener. ★ The pity may be directed toward the aruer or toward some third party. Example: “I deserve to get an A in this class. If I don’t, I won’t be able to be a psychology major, and my life will be ruined, my mother will have a heart attack... (etc.)” ● Although the premises cite reasons for wanting the conclusion (“I deserve to get an A for this class”) to be true, they do not support its actual truth. So while they may be psychologically effective at convincing a listener, they are not logically relevant.

3. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE In both the direct a  nd indirect f orms of this fallacy, the listener’s emotions or desires are being manipulated or exploited to get the reader or listener to accept the conclusion, but good (logical) reasons to believe the conclusion are not given. a. Direct a  pproach: ★ the emotion being manipulates is the euphoria or sense of power connected to being part of a large group. ★ Occurs when an arguer, addressing a large crowd of people, excited the emotion and enthusiasm of the crowd to win acceptance for his or her own conclusion. 1

★ The objective is to arouse a kind of mob mentality. ● Political conventions provide excellent examples of this. Imagine a convention center full of people chanting that some candidate named Smith is “the best.” This might dispose the chanters to actually believe that Smith is the best. The implicit argument is that all of us feel very strongly about it, hence it must be true. b. Indirect a  pproach: i. Bandwagon argument: the arguer states that you should buy (or believe) X because so many other people are buying (or believing) it ii. Appeal to vanity: the idea is that if you buy (or believe) X you will be admired, or more like some admired person.

4. ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PERSON This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them advances (either directly or implicitly) a certain argument, and the other responds by directing his or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the person himself . In other words, the messenger, rather than the message, is attacked. a. Ad hominem a  busive: ★ Either the person is criticized outright, or his/her argument is associated with someone else and then that other person is criticized rather than the argument. ★ This fallacy is very common on TV and radio talk shows specializing in polarized viewpoints. Example 1: “How can you believe that? Only a total moron would believe that.” Example 2 (less direct): “How can you believe that? That’s what [Rush Limbaugh] [Keith Olbermann] believes!” b. Ad hominem c  ircumstantial: ★ Rather than criticizing the person, attention is focused on the person’s circumstances, suggesting that they predispose the person to argue for the conclusion. ★ Attempts to discredit the opponent’s argument by alluding to certain circumstances that affect the opponent. Example 1: “Of course Joan argues that native Americans should receive more aid; she grew up on an Indian reservation.” Example 2: “Of course you argue that we shouldn’t bomb Afghanistan. After all, you’re a Muslim.” ● Note that even if it’s true that an arguer is predisposed to argue one way or another, this fact is irrelevant  to the actual soundness or cogency of that person’s

2

argument. c. Tu quoque: ★ The second arguer attempts to make the first appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith. ★ The second arguer usually accomplishes this by citing features in the life or behavior or the first argues that conflict with the latter’s conclusion ★ The fallacy often takes the form, “How dare you argue that i should stop doing X, you do (or have done) X y  ourself.” Example 1: “Your argument that I shouldn’t smoke cigarettes is ridiculous. After all, you smoke yourself!” Example 2: “How can you argue that ranching is an ecological disaster? You eat meat!” Exceptions- Occasionally the arguer’s history or character is relevant to the soundness or cogency of their argument: (i) Their argument involves the statement that they have good character (say, in a political race), or (ii) Their conclusion depends entirely on their testimony and honesty (say, if they are the sole witness to an event).

5. STRAW MAN As in the ad hominem  fallacies, Straw  Man is usually found in objections to arguments previously given, so it is common on polarized talk shows and in political debates. The pattern of Straw Man is as follows- I. The original argument (usually just the conclusion) is distorted (usually made more extreme), II. The distorted argument or conclusion is shown to be bad for one reason or another, and III. (iii) This fact is set forth as a reason not to accept the original argument (which has not actually been addressed). Example- Imagine that someone has offered a detailed argument for decriminalizing marijuana, and someone else offers the following counterargument: “Obviously, John’s true agenda is to legalize all drugs. But surely we don’t want our children shooting up heroin in the restroom! The public health consequences of widespread heroin use would be devastating to our society. We must not agree with John’s conclusion!” ● Notice that it is not  being argued that legalizing marijuana would lead to legalizing heroin, a possible example of a different fallacy called slippery slope  (which we will discuss soon). Rather, the conclusion of original argument is ignored for a conclusion that is easier to criticize.

3

6. RED HERRING As in the ad hominem a  nd Straw Man fallacies, Red Herring is usually found in objections to arguments previously given. ★ The red herring fallacy is committed when the argues diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to a different but sometimes subtly related one. ★ He or she then finished by either drawing a conclusion about the different issue or by merely presuming that some conclusion has been established. ★ By doing so, the argues purports to have won the argument. ★ Instead of distorting the original argument or conclusion, the objector suggests he/she will be criticizing it, but then changes the subject (often to a topic that is more “sexy” or interesting), and finally acts as if the original argument has been refuted. Example: You give an argument for the conclusion : “College is too expensive these days.” I say:  “That’s not right.” You now expect me to tell you what’s wrong with your argument, but instead I change the subject and argue towards a different conclusion: “ The problem is that many of today's college students aren’t prepared for college. They learned nothing in high school, and massive amounts of remedial work are needed just to bring them up to freshman level. What we need to do is improve the quality of our grade schools and high schools.” ● Maybe this is a partial explanation  of why college is expensive, but it is not a logical objection to the original argument. The objector’s strategy here is to lead the debate off-track (hence the name “red herring”, a strong-smelling fish that could confuse hunting dogs). Note that while both Red Herring and S  traw Man usually occur in fallacious objections to a previous argument, and both change the original arguments topic, Straw Man is more specific: it distorts t he original argument’s conclusion. Finally, once the subject has been changed, both draw the conclusions that one would expect in the altered context.

7. MISSING THE POINT ★ In this fallacy, the arguer doesn’t come to the conclusion that is actually implied by his/her premises. That is, the premises logically imply one conclusion, but the arguer unexpectedly draws a surprising (and generally unsupported) conclusion. ★ If you recognize that this fallacy is being committed: be able to identify the correct conclusion, the conclusion that the premises logically  imply. ○ The conclusion must be significantly different from the conclusion that is actually drawn.

4

We all would like a well-functioning democracy, but nobody votes anymore. To function proper democracy requires that a significant number of the citizens vote. We should therefore abolish democracy. ● The expected conclusion here (given the first premise, which states that “we all would like a well-functioning democracy”) is that we should find ways to encourage voting, not that we should abolish democracy. ★ Note that missing the point differs from r ed herring in two important respects: ○ the arguer is usually not objecting to a previous argument (rather, he/she is missing the point of his/her own premises), ○ and in red herring the arguer changes the subject – or “swerves” off the appropriate path – almost immediately after giving the impression that he/she is going to criticize the original argument; in missing the point, the “swerve” occurs only when the conclusion is stated. Missing the point is a sort of “catch all” fallacy that you should view as applying only when no more specific fallacy is being committed .

8. ACCIDENT ★ This (poorly named) fallacy occurs when a general rule is applied to a specific sort of case to which it was never intended to apply. This sort of case has some special property or attribute (i.e., some “accident” that makes it an exception to the general rule). ★ Typically, the general rule is cited (either directly or implicitly) in the premises and the wrongly applied to the specific case mentioned in the conclusion. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness. John pursues happiness by killing innocent people. Therefore John has a right to kill innocent people. ● The problem here is that the legal right to pursue happiness is intended to apply only to legal ways of pursuing happiness. Killing innocent people has the “accidental” property of being illegal, which keeps the general rule from applying.

5...