S.
Lourdunathnan
Fallacies…
To err is human but to be conscious of error is to be human with a difference.
…S. Lourdunathan
1. Difference between Truth/falsity Vs Validity/invalidity
2. Two types: (A) Formal /Structural / Textual (or) (B) Contextual
/ informal fallacies: Syllogistic reasoning (mainly deduction) can
have formal fallacies leading to invalid reasoning. Formal fallacy is
with reference to the violation of the established
norm/structure/system/code/ syntax/rules/grammar of the system.
Formal fallacies include:
(i) Fallacy of Ambiguity:
A term is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. It is only
when we cannot tell which meaning is intended that confusion
arises. Only the context can inform the correctness of the meaning
of the word. E.g. Girls are Bright
(ii) Fallacy of equivocation or fallacy of quadruplicating of
terms:
Ambiguity due to the use of two or more different senses of the
same word in the given argument or system of reasoning. It is
advisable to use a word with a singular and similar sense
(meaning) throughout the text/thesis. For e.g. The word BRIGHT
can have more than one meaning and therefore can be misused as
well.
(iii) Amphiboly:
Each single word in the sentence is not ambiguous, but the
sentence as a whole, in its total structure, can be ambiguous and
therefore wrong. The ambiguity is due to wrong construction of the
sentence pattern. For e.g.: ‘the police hit the man with the stick,
can mean two different senses. This is a misleading sentence
structure. Mostly due to the wrong use of participles and inexact
use of negation. (iv) Fallacy of Undistributed middle, (v) Illicit
major/minor. (vi) Fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from
negative premises. (vii) Exclusive Fallacy, (viii) Existential fallacy.
3. Contextual Fallacies list is exhaustive, some of the common
contextual fallacies are:
(a) Fallacy of Significance:
Suppose I say, 60% of the top class people drink Pepsi, and
therefore, Pepsi is a good drink. Now, this is misleading because, it
does not say of what is meant by professionals; it does not also say
that these 60% people do not drink any other drinks other than
Pepsi. It may well be true that these 60% as well drink any other
drinks (brands) more frequently than Pepsi. Advertising claims
most often commit the fallacy of significance.
(b) Fallacy of Emphasis
1
S. Lourdunathnan
This is due to incorrect emphasis of the words in a sentence. Thus
a cigarette company may make such a claim: MADE FOR
EACH OTHER
Smoking is injurious to health
This is also the case with many of the companies that produce and
sell alcoholic drinks. Even the LIC firms have such episodes of
committing the fallacy of emphasis. They say PROTECTION
GURANTEED (with such and such conditions inscribed in small
letters). It writing a dissertation one could commit such fallacy.
The emphasis of the thesis may be different from the content of the
dissertation.
(c)Fallacy of quoting out of context or manipulating the
context
This is very relevant in writing a dissertation or thesis. For e.g. A
critic in reviewing a novel may write: “ I would enjoy this book if
and only if, it were the only book in the world, or if I were on a
desert island and had nothing else to read”. But the publisher or
the research scholar might lift certain portions in this remark, and
quote as follows: “ I would enjoy the book … If I were on a desert
island…” Quite Often research scholars consciously commit this
fallacy.
(d) Fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem (Argument against a
person, rather than what he says):
In politics, an issue is rised or brought to the public through mass
media as a public-issue, but under scrutiny it boils down as an
issue of argument against the opponent political person. Politicians
seem to be the masters of committing this fallacy or use it as a
tactic for political power. Often people who enjoy social status or
power commit this fallacy as a tactic to punish or to find fault with
their subordinates to maintain their position in power.
(e) Fallacy of Arguing from Authority
This fallacy takes the form – the statement X is true because the
person P who is in authority/power says so. But truth and falsity of
claims does not depend upon the prestige of authority. Not
guaranteed by the authority in position. Rather truth or falsity
depends upon the strength of evidences that either confirm or
confute the claim. Most often, research scholars mislead
themselves by believing that a text is true because some great
persons said so. This fallacy can also be termed as the fallacy of
text-proof, which in turn would commit the fallacy of begging the
question.
(f) Arguments that appeal to Sentiments:
Fallacy due to appeal to feelings rather than reason. Take for
example, the belief that the world is flat, because the Church
fathers/Bible believed it to be and many ‘good Catholics’ believed
the same. Such argument is fallacious, because it is based on
2
S. Lourdunathnan
belief/religion that appeals to feeling or emotion or tradition rather
than reason or science such as geography or astronomy. Take
another example such as, Ayodya is the birthplace of Rama.
Statements such as ‘we are Hindus and therefore Indians, and who
ever is not a Hindu cannot be Indians’. Such type of reasoning is
fallacious because they tend to invite religious sentiments rather
than reason or science. Look at the following fallacious reason-
You are students of AAC, therefore you should obey my orders.
There are two types of such fallacies due to appeal to sentiments.
(i) Argumentum Ad Misericordiam: Look at the following
examples that are fallacious due to ad Misericordiam:
Karl Marx is intelligent because he is poor
X could not have committed the crime because he is a
priest or because he has a big family.
Americans are generous because they are rich etc.
Irrelevant issues such poverty, priesthood, big family is
fallaciously placed as a point of argument or reasoning to
defend/offend the case in consideration.
(ii) Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance):
This is a common type of fallacy. It contends that, some claim or
statement is true because there is no evidence to disprove it.
Claims such as ‘God exists’ is said to be true on the basis that
there is no evidence to disprove it. But the point is that, it is not
enough to show that there is no contrary evidence, but we must
also show sufficient positive evidences in favour of our claims to
be reasonable.
(j) Fallacy of begging the question (Petitio Principi) Look
at the following example:
A: “India is a spiritual country.”
B: “How do you know?”
A: “Because Gandhi says it is”.
B: “But how do you know that Gandhi is reliable?”
A: “Because Gandhi hails from India, which is a spiritual
country.”
This fallacy is due to either the same statement when used both
as a premise and a conclusion in an argument or when one of
the premises could not be known to true unless the conclusion
were first assumed to be true. In other words, this is due to
‘assuming what one tries to prove’. This is also known as
circular argument. Note: the closer the assumed premise is to
the conclusion, the fallacy is easily detectable. But when the
premise and conclusion is widely separated, by a long chain of
reasoning or arguments it is difficult to detect this fallacy. Prove
of Induction, often begs the question.
(j) Fallacy of composition
3
S. Lourdunathnan
It holds that what is assumed to be true of a part is asserted to
be true of the whole. xU ghid Nrhw;Wf;F xU NrhW gjk; is a fallacy
of composition. For e.g. Nehru is wealthy therefore India is
wealthy illustrates the kind of fallacy of composition. But on the
contrary, if conclusion is based on sound evidences to effect that
many Indian are wealthy, this is a case of sound induction.
(k) Fallacy of division (argument by specification)
It holds that what is true of a whole is also true of all its parts.
Thus if you say, “Loyola College is an excellent educational
institution; therefore, X who is the head of Loyola college is an
excellent educator”. The error that is committed in this form of
reasoning is called the fallacy of composition. What is true of
the whole is not necessarily true of its parts. Look at another
example. “India is a poor country, therefore, Mr. TATA BIRLA is
poor.” Note that what is true of the whole of the country need not be
true of its individual parts.
(l) Fallacy of irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi)
Deriving some other (altogether contrary) conclusion than what is
intended/possibly inferred from the evidences or premises. On the
strength of the evidences, if P is derivable, and if R is derived, then it
is called fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. Research scholars have to
take attention to this fallacy while working at their thesis.
(m) Fallacy of Non-Sequitur
This is to say that the conclusion does not follow or necessitated from
the evidences or premises. Though all premises may be true, it cannot
guarantee that the conclusion is a necessary derivation. E.g. Priest –
river Ganges – the sun rising in the east.
(n) Statistical Fallacy
We need to handle not only glass but also statistics with care.
Exercise caution in employing statistics to prove or disprove any
case under consideration. One can use statistics to prove
anything. Misuse of statistics to prove otherwise is fallacious
and perhaps punishable. The famous story of two philosophers
using statistics to prove that Water matters more in intoxication
than any other alcohol. Look at the advertisements that provide
some sort of statistics to prove that a particular detergent is
cleaner than any other. E.g. The story of the American medical
scientists.
(o) Fallacy of visual repetition: (Today Mass media like TV commit
this fallacy as a tactic for Profit motives).
Note: A student or scholar who is seriously aware of such above-
mentioned errors is likely to avoid errors in his dissertation /a
particular form of reasoning) or in his everyday life than a
person who is not aware of these and can be mislead.
---------------
FALLACY
4
S. Lourdunathnan
Textual/Formal Reasoning: Contextual/Informal /Inductive:
Valid or Invalid True or False
Ambiguity
5
S. Lourdunathnan
FALLACY
CONTEXT TEXT
SIGINIFICANCE
EMPHISIS
AUTHORITY
ARGEMENTUM AD HOMINUM
APPEAL TO SENTIMENTS
QOUTING OUT OF CONTEXT
BEGGING THE QUESTION
PETITO PRINCIPI
COMPOSITION
NON-SEQUENCE
DIVISION
IRRELEVENT CONCLUSION
STATISTICAL FALLACY
REPETITION
Caffeine and Schizophrenia and Common Sense
There is a story told about a group of researchers at a large mental hospital
who were trying to inquire into the causes of schizophrenia. One researcher
while doing his routine laboratory tests on some of the schizophrenia. patients
in the hospital, made a startling that the level of caffeine in the stools of the
schizophrenia. patients was dramatically higher than in ‘normal’ patients.
They reported the finding to their colleagues with the result that a number of
researchers within the hospital began to verify the same findings.
As evidence of relationship between caffeine and schizophrenia seemed to
grow, a number of the researchers began to work out elaborate theories to
explain this constant and consistent invariable relation between caffeine and
schizophrenia. They become so enthusiastic that they applied for, and
received, government grants to study this relationship. Large-scale
investigation was geared with the establishment of a research institute.
Several thousand months and several thousand dollars were spent.
One day, one of the manual workers in the research institute filled with
curiosity about what is going on in the research institute asked one of the
researchers. He first apologized for talking out his curiosity; he said that he
understood little about the exuberant research project undertaken and that
sophisticated research analysis and results carried out in the hospital. At the
same time there is something about the research that caffeine and
schizophrenia him. When urged to continue, he simply said to the researcher:
“ Did you know, that the coffee machine is on the same floor as the
schizophrenia ward?”
The moral of the story should be clear. To begin with the basic aptitude for
researcher is commonsense.
Ref: Williamson/Karp/Dalphin (ed), The Research Craft, An introduction to
social science methods, Little Brown and Company, Boston 1977, pp. 57-58.
