Logical fallacy: Difference between revisions

From A+ Club Lesson Planner & Study Guide
mNo edit summary
Line 34: Line 34:
=== begging the question ===
=== begging the question ===


*broken leg fallacy
=== broken leg fallacy ===
**presents a solution for a problem caused by that or a related solution
*presents a solution for a problem caused by that or a related solution
**i.e, break the leg, then offer to fix it
*i.e, break the leg, then offer to fix it
*circular argument
===circular argument ===
**argument whose premise is its own conclusion
*argument whose premise is its own conclusion
**i.e., restates the argument rather than proving it
*i.e., restates the argument rather than proving it
**ex. "''She's a great skater because she skates well''"
*ex. "''She's a great skater because she skates well''"
*confusing credentials for evidence
===confusing credentials for evidence===
**i.e., "98% of dentists recommend flossing"
*i.e., "98% of dentists recommend flossing"
***does not provide evidence for the benefits of flossing, just that supposed experts say so
**does not provide evidence for the benefits of flossing, just that supposed experts say so
*either/or
===either-or fallacy===
*fallacy of relevance
*incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities
*false equivalence
===fallacy of relevance===
**illogical comparison of dissimilar subjects
===false equivalence===
**i.e., comparing "apples to oranges"
*illogical comparison of dissimilar subjects
*genetic fallacy
*i.e., comparing "apples to oranges"
**fallacy that of the origins of something determine its value
===genetic fallacy===
*fallacy that of the origins of something determine its value
**ex., the VW was designed by Hitler, and Hitler is evil, therefore the VW is evil
**ex., the VW was designed by Hitler, and Hitler is evil, therefore the VW is evil
*hasty generalization
=== Gish gallop ===
**
* rapid use of multiple arguments in order to overwhelm a debate or argument
*''ignoratio elenchi'' an argument that misses the point
** avoids scrutiny of individual arguments
*moral equivalence fallacy
** named for Duane Gish who spoke rapidly and without allowing the opponent to intervene or analyze each individual arguments
**illogically compares things of distinct moral or ethical dimensions
*** "gallap" indicates rapidly running horse
**ex., "''That politician who disagrees with me is a Nazi!''"
* defense against a Gish gallop is achieved by focusing on only one or a few of the core arguments that would thereby undermined the logical basis of all the others presented in the Gish gallop
*non sequitur
 
**" Humpty Dumptying" or "Humpty Dumptyisms":
===hasty generalization===
**= an "arbitrary redefinition" like that used by Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland"
 
**who tells Alice, "“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
===''ignoratio elenchi''===
*red herring
* an argument that misses the point
*strawman fallacy
===moral equivalence fallacy===
**= the target of an argument (the "strawman") has nothing to do with the actual argument
*illogically compares things of distinct moral or ethical dimensions
*either-or fallacy
**ex., "''Any politician that disagrees with me is a Nazi!''"
**incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities
===non sequitur===
*" Humpty Dumptying" or "Humpty Dumptyisms":
*= an "arbitrary redefinition" like that used by Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland"
*who tells Alice, "“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
===red herring===
===strawman fallacy===
*= the target of an argument (the "strawman") has nothing to do with the actual argument
*weak analogy
*weak analogy
*see  
*see  

Revision as of 16:50, 11 July 2023

Logical fallacies, or logical errors, are erroneous, illogical, or misleading arguments or claims; also called " informal logic fallacies"

  • erroneous = contains an error of fact or
  • illogical = draws a conclusion not supported by premises
  • misleading = deliberately constructed to deceive or mislead

See Social Studies skills: Logical and observational fallacies & paradoxes for list of logical and observational fallacies regarding the Social Sciences.

Logical fallacies and tricks[edit | edit source]

  • also called "rhetorical fallacies"

ad hominem[edit | edit source]

  • a form of "character attack"
    • ad hominem appeals to prejudice and emotions of the audience rather than addressing the opponent's argument itself
    • similar to a "false equivalency" that may include making an argument that "impugns" (insults, denigrates) the opponent's integrity through an association with someone or something else that is otherwise unrelated to the opponent's argument
      • ex.: "My opponent believes in private schools, just like all racists do"
  • can be a valid argument:

ad populum / bandwagon appeal[edit | edit source]

  • argument by exception
    • a fallacy of the particular, in which an argument is attacked based upon a single or rare instance of exception
    • ex.: "We're in a drought"
      • exception: "But it rained the other day"
      • fallacy: just because it rained once doesn't mean the drought is over

association fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • equates having similar ideas or circumstances to a group as being the same as that group
    • ex. "You think smoking is bad. Hitler thought smoking was bad."
  • = a type of ad hominem argument

begging the question[edit | edit source]

broken leg fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • presents a solution for a problem caused by that or a related solution
  • i.e, break the leg, then offer to fix it

circular argument[edit | edit source]

  • argument whose premise is its own conclusion
  • i.e., restates the argument rather than proving it
  • ex. "She's a great skater because she skates well"

confusing credentials for evidence[edit | edit source]

  • i.e., "98% of dentists recommend flossing"
    • does not provide evidence for the benefits of flossing, just that supposed experts say so

either-or fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • incorrectly argues only two options or possibilities

fallacy of relevance[edit | edit source]

false equivalence[edit | edit source]

  • illogical comparison of dissimilar subjects
  • i.e., comparing "apples to oranges"

genetic fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • fallacy that of the origins of something determine its value
    • ex., the VW was designed by Hitler, and Hitler is evil, therefore the VW is evil

Gish gallop[edit | edit source]

  • rapid use of multiple arguments in order to overwhelm a debate or argument
    • avoids scrutiny of individual arguments
    • named for Duane Gish who spoke rapidly and without allowing the opponent to intervene or analyze each individual arguments
      • "gallap" indicates rapidly running horse
  • defense against a Gish gallop is achieved by focusing on only one or a few of the core arguments that would thereby undermined the logical basis of all the others presented in the Gish gallop

hasty generalization[edit | edit source]

ignoratio elenchi[edit | edit source]

  • an argument that misses the point

moral equivalence fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • illogically compares things of distinct moral or ethical dimensions
    • ex., "Any politician that disagrees with me is a Nazi!"

non sequitur[edit | edit source]

  • " Humpty Dumptying" or "Humpty Dumptyisms":
  • = an "arbitrary redefinition" like that used by Humpty Dumpty in "Alice in Wonderland"
  • who tells Alice, "“When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

red herring[edit | edit source]

strawman fallacy[edit | edit source]

  • = the target of an argument (the "strawman") has nothing to do with the actual argument
  • weak analogy
  • see

See also