Module 13 (remaining part)

To understand how scientific hypotheses (or theories) are chosen when there are multiple
possible explanations for a phenomenon, the key idea is that not all scientific hypotheses are
equally valid, even if they are testable and relevant. To decide which one is the best,
scientists use certain criteria.

1. Compatibility with Established Theories

 A new hypothesis should fit with what is already well-established in science. If it

doesn’t, it could contradict other confirmed facts, which makes it less likely to be
true.
 Sometimes new hypotheses replace old ones, like Einstein's theory of relativity
replacing Newton's laws of gravity, but this doesn’t happen easily. The older theory
has to be adjusted to fit the new one if possible, not just discarded.

2. Predictive Power

 A good hypothesis should be able to predict future events or phenomena. The more
accurate its predictions, the stronger the hypothesis.
 If a hypothesis predicts something that doesn’t happen, it gets rejected. For example,
Einstein’s theory predicted the bending of light around the Sun, which was confirmed
in 1919 when scientists observed it during a solar eclipse.
 The ability to be "falsified" (i.e., proven wrong by an experiment) is an important
feature of any hypothesis. If there is no way to test or potentially disprove it, the
hypothesis is not very useful.

3. Simplicity

 If two hypotheses explain the facts equally well, scientists usually prefer the simpler
one. This is known as "Occam’s Razor," the principle that simpler theories are usually
better, as they don’t rely on unnecessary complications.
 For example, the Copernican (Sun-centered) model of the solar system was simpler
than the Ptolemaic (Earth-centered) model, even though both could explain the
movements of the planets.

Example of Galileo and the Heliocentric Theory

 In the early 1600s, many believed in the Earth-centered (geocentric) model of the
universe. But Galileo’s observations using a telescope challenged this belief.
 Galileo discovered four moons orbiting Jupiter, which showed that not everything in
the sky revolves around the Earth. This supported the heliocentric (Sun-centered)
model proposed by Copernicus.
 Despite critics, Galileo’s findings confirmed the heliocentric model and disproved the
Earth-centered theory, which had been accepted for centuries
Module 10 Fallacies
Fallacy is a type of argument that seems to be correct, but contains a mistake in reasoning.
When we argue or think, we want our reasons (premises) to support our conclusion in a
logical way. A fallacy happens when the reasoning doesn’t actually support the conclusion,
even though it might seem like it does.

There are two main types of fallacies:

1. Formal Fallacies: These are mistakes that happen because of the structure of the
argument itself. In a formal fallacy, the argument has a clear, identifiable pattern of
error. For example, the "affirming the consequent" fallacy occurs when someone
wrongly assumes that if "A implies B," then just because B is true, A must also be
true. This is like saying, "If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet, so it
must have rained." This is a mistake because there could be other reasons the ground
is wet (like someone watering the garden).

2. Informal Fallacies: These are more common and arise from confusion in the content
of the argument—how words or ideas are used. These mistakes happen when
language is misleading or unclear, and people make assumptions based on those
misunderstandings. They are patterns of mistake that are made in the
everyday uses of language. Informal fallacies, arise from confusions
concerning the content of the language used. There is no limit to the
variety of forms in which that content may appear, and thus informal
fallacies are often more difficult to detect than formal ones. It is language
that deceives us here; we may be tricked by inferences that seem
plausible on the surface but that are in reality not warranted.

The purpose of studying fallacies is to understand where our reasoning can go wrong, so we
can avoid mistakes and also recognize when others are making them. However, it’s important
to be careful not to unfairly label something as a fallacy just because we don’t fully
understand it or misinterpret the intent of the person making the argument.

CLASSIFICATION OF FALLACIES

Informal fallacies can be grouped into different categories based

on the type of error they involve.

1. Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are the most numerous and the most frequently
encountered.
These fallacies happen when the reasons given in an argument aren’t really related to the
conclusion, even though they may seem to be. They try to make the argument sound
convincing, but they don’t actually support the point being made. Some examples are:

 R1: The appeal to the populace – This is when someone argues something is true
because many people believe it (e.g., "Everyone thinks this is the best movie, so it
must be great!").
 R2: The appeal to emotion – This is when someone tries to persuade you by
appealing to your feelings rather than logic (e.g., "You should donate to this charity,
or you'll be a bad person!").
 R3: The red herring – This is when someone introduces an irrelevant topic to
distract from the original issue (e.g., "I know I failed the test, but what about all the
problems with the school system?").
 R4: The straw man – This happens when someone misrepresents someone else's
argument to make it easier to attack (e.g., "You want to lower taxes? So you just want
the government to have no money!").
 R5: The attack on the person – This is when someone attacks the character of the
person making the argument instead of addressing the argument itself (e.g., "Why
should we listen to John about climate change? He’s not even a scientist!").
 R6: The appeal to force – This is when someone tries to make you accept a
conclusion by threatening you (e.g., "Agree with me, or else!").
 R7: Missing the point (irrelevant conclusion) – This is when someone argues for a
conclusion that doesn’t actually follow from the premises (e.g., "We should not ban
smoking in public places, because banning smoking would hurt business").

2. Fallacies of Defective Induction

These fallacies happen when the premises are related to the conclusion, but they’re weak or
not convincing enough to support the conclusion. Some examples:

 D1: The argument from ignorance – This is when someone claims something is
true just because it hasn’t been proven false (e.g., "No one has ever proven that aliens
don’t exist, so they must be real").
 D2: The appeal to inappropriate authority – This is when someone argues
something is true because an authority figure says so, even if that authority isn’t
qualified to speak on the subject (e.g., "My favorite actor says this diet works, so it
must be true").
 D3: False cause – This is when someone assumes that just because two things happen
together, one must cause the other (e.g., "Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team
wins. So my socks must be causing the victories!").
 D4: Hasty generalization – This is when someone makes a broad conclusion based
on limited evidence (e.g., "I met two people from New York, and they were rude. All
New Yorkers must be rude!").

3. Fallacies of Presumption

These happen when someone assumes too much in their argument—making unsupported or
unreasonable assumptions that lead to faulty conclusions. Some examples:
  P1: Accident – This is when a general rule is wrongly applied to a specific case it
was not meant to cover (e.g., "Freedom of speech means I can say anything I want,
even in a crowded movie theater.").
 P2: Complex question – This happens when a question is asked in a way that
assumes something unproven or controversial (e.g., "Why are you always so lazy?"
— This assumes the person is lazy without proving it).
 P3: Begging the question – This is when the argument’s conclusion is hidden in the
premises, making the argument circular (e.g., "I’m right because I’m always right.").

4. Fallacies of Ambiguity

These fallacies happen when the language in the argument is unclear or misleading because a
word or phrase is used in different ways. Some examples:

 A1: Equivocation – This is when a word is used in two different ways in an

argument, leading to confusion (e.g., "The law says everyone has the right to life.
Since I have the right to life, I should be able to do whatever I want!").
 A2: Amphiboly – This happens when a sentence is grammatically ambiguous,
leading to different interpretations (e.g., "He saw the man with the telescope" — did
he see the man who had the telescope, or did he use the telescope to see the man?).
 A3: Accent – This is when the meaning of a statement changes depending on which
word or phrase is emphasized (e.g., "She didn’t say he stole the money" could mean
she didn’t say it, or it could mean she didn’t say he did it).
 A4: Composition – This is when someone assumes that what is true of the parts must
be true of the whole (e.g., "Each player on the team is excellent, so the team must be
great").
 A5: Division – This is the opposite of composition. It’s when someone assumes that
what is true of the whole must be true of the parts (e.g., "The team is great, so each
player must be great").

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance are bald mistakes; they might better be called fallacies of irrelevance, because
they arise when there is no real connection between the premises and the conclusion of an argument.
Because that connection is missing, the premises offered cannot possibly establish the truth of the
conclusion drawn. Of course, the premises may still be psychologically relevant, in that they may
evoke attitudes likely to cause the acceptance of the conclusion.

Fallacy of relevance is A fallacy in which the premises are irrelevant to the conclusion.

1. Appeal to the Populace (Argumentum ad Populum)

This fallacy happens when someone tries to convince you of something by making it seem
like "everyone is doing it" or "everyone believes it," rather than using solid reasons. The
argument doesn't rely on facts, logic, or evidence, but on emotions or popular sentiment.

For example, an ad might say, "Everyone is buying this car because it's the best!" This
doesn't explain why the car is actually good; it just tries to persuade you to buy it because
others are. It manipulates emotions, like desire to fit in, rather than providing logical reasons.
A classic example is politicians using patriotic language to get people to support a cause, by
making them feel emotional or proud, even though the argument itself doesn't prove anything
rational.

2. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)

This fallacy happens when someone tries to get you to agree with them by making you feel
sorry for them or someone else, rather than providing logical reasons. It's using emotions like
sympathy or pity to win an argument.

For example, in a court case, a lawyer might say, "My client should not be punished because
they had a difficult childhood and they are very sad about it." While it's understandable to
feel sympathy, the guilt or innocence of the person should be decided based on facts, not how
much you pity them.

3. The Red Herring

This fallacy occurs when someone introduces an irrelevant issue to distract from the original
topic. It’s like throwing a "red herring" (a smelly fish) to confuse or mislead people.

For example, if two people are debating whether we should spend more on education, and
one person suddenly starts talking about how terrible the weather is, they are distracting from
the real issue. The weather is irrelevant to the topic of education spending. The purpose of a
red herring is to confuse the conversation and avoid addressing the real problem.

4.The Straw Man Fallacy Explained Simply

The straw man fallacy happens when someone misrepresents or distorts their opponent's
argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the real position or argument, they
create a "weaker" version of it (like a straw figure, which is easy to knock down) and argue
against that.

Example - Imagine you and someone else are debating a topic, and you argue something like,
"We should have some limits on how much big companies can pollute the environment."
Instead of addressing your actual argument, your opponent might twist it by saying, "So, you
think we should just shut down all factories and stop all business activities, right?"

This is a straw man because they are misrepresenting your position, making it seem extreme
or unreasonable (like saying you want to shut down all businesses), when you never said that.

The opponent doesn't actually address your idea of reasonable regulation; instead, they argue
against an exaggerated and extreme version of it. It's easier for them to win the argument this
way, but they haven't truly engaged with your real point.

The straw man fallacy distracts from the original argument by shifting it to something that’s
much easier to attack. It’s like fighting a fake version of your opponent's position, not the real
one. This is misleading because it doesn't address the actual issue, but only a distorted version
of it.

5. Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem)

The ad hominem fallacy (which means "against the person" in Latin) is when someone
attacks the person making an argument instead of addressing the argument itself. These, in
addition to being unfair to the adversary (as straw man arguments are also), are
hurtful, often inflicting serious personal damage

Two Main Types of Ad Hominem:

1. Abusive Ad Hominem:
This type involves attacking the person’s character, intelligence, or motives. For
example:
o “You can’t trust his opinion on climate change because he’s
a radical environmentalist.”
o “You’re just a conservative—what do you know about fairness?”

These attacks are meant to make the person look bad, but they don't actually address
the argument they’re making.

Poisoning the well - A variety of abusive ad hominem argument in which continued rational
exchange is undermined by attacking the good faith or intellectual honesty of the opponent.

2. Circumstantial Ad Hominem:
This form focuses on the person's circumstances or background to suggest they’re
biased or untrustworthy. For example:
o “Of course you support that policy—you're a business owner and it benefits
you.”
o “You’re only against the war because you're from a pacifist country.”

The fallacy here is that just because someone has certain circumstances doesn’t mean
their argument is automatically wrong.

Tu Quoque (You Too Fallacy):

A specific type of circumstantial ad hominem, this fallacy points out that the opponent is
guilty of something similar to what they're criticizing. For example:

 Person A: “You shouldn’t smoke; it’s bad for your health.”

 Person B: “Well, you smoke too! So, who are you to tell me not to?”

This doesn't address the original issue, which was whether smoking is bad for health. It just
shifts the focus to Person A's behaviour, which is irrelevant to the truth of the argument.

6. The Appeal to Force (Argumentum Ad Baculum)

The appeal to force fallacy (also called argumentum ad baculum, meaning "appeal to the
stick" in Latin) is when someone tries to win an argument by threatening force, harm, or
punishment instead of using logic or evidence.
Example:

 Threatening someone to get them to agree: “If you don’t agree with me, I’ll make
sure you lose your job.”
 Physical threats: “You better agree with me, or you’ll regret it.”

The fallacy is that threats don’t provide any valid reason or evidence to support the argument.
It’s just an attempt to intimidate or coerce someone into agreeing.

7. Missing the Point (Ignoratio Elenchi)

The missing the point fallacy (also called ignoratio elenchi) occurs when the argument
doesn’t actually address the issue at hand. The person making the argument may talk about
something related, but not the thing they’re supposed to be discussing.

Example 1:

 Person A: "We should increase funding for public schools."

 Person B: "But education involves a lot more than just schools; a child’s upbringing
is important too."

Person B's response is reasonable but doesn't address Person A’s argument about
funding public schools.

Example 2:

 Person A: "We need to reduce inheritance taxes because it's unfair to tax the same
money twice."
 Person B: "But we need the money to fund the government."

Person B’s argument is a good point but doesn’t address the issue of double taxation.
It’s missing the point.

EXERCISE ANSWERS-

*1.* Jacques Chirac’s microphone excuse (New York Times excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Red Herring
*Explanation*: Instead of addressing his controversial statement
about nuclear Iran, Chirac distracts by blaming the microphone and
being "on the record," diverting attention from the actual issue of
the remark itself.

*2.* Nietzsche’s Philosophy (Santayana excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Ad Hominem
 *Explanation*: Nietzsche's philosophy is dismissed by attacking
him personally as a "harmless young scholar and constitutional
invalid," rather than critiquing his ideas on their own merits.

*3.* James G. Blaine’s nomination speech (Ingersoll excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Appeal to Emotion
*Explanation*: The speech uses highly emotional and poetic
language to evoke loyalty to Blaine, rather than providing logical
reasons for his nomination.

*4.* Thomas Paine on the King of England (Common Sense excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Ad Hominem
*Explanation*: Paine attacks the king's character by calling him
wicked and cruel, appealing to hatred rather than addressing his
specific policies or actions with logical arguments.

*5.* Book Review by Michiko Kakutani

*Fallacy: *Ad Hominem
*Explanation*: The review attacks the book as a "partisan screed"
with "nutty asides" instead of critiquing its content with substantive
evidence.

*6.* Prince soliciting votes (Silone excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Appeal to Force
*Explanation*: The Prince’s agents imply that those who don’t
vote for him may lose their jobs, using veiled threats to manipulate
voters rather than reasoned persuasion.

*7.* Nazi publishers threatening consequences for canceling

subscriptions
*Fallacy: *Appeal to Force
*Explanation*: The statement implies "unfortunate consequences"
if readers cancel their subscriptions, using intimidation rather than
logical reasoning to retain subscriberS.
*8.* Bruce Bawer’s book critique (New York Times excerpt)
*Fallacy: *Straw Man
*Explanation*: Critics claim Bawer exaggerates the difference
between Western and Muslim values, misrepresenting his argument
to make it seem overly simplistic and flawed.

*9.* Argument Against Atheism

*Fallacy: *Straw Man
 *Explanation*: The argument misrepresents atheists by claiming
they must "have infinite knowledge" to assert God’s non-existence,
oversimplifying their position to refute it.

*10.* Thrasymachus’ insult to Socrates (Plato’s Republic)

*Fallacy: *Ad Hominem
*Explanation*: Thrasymachus attacks Socrates personally by
mocking him as ignorant and "sniveling," avoiding the need to
respond to Socrates’ argument directly.

*11.* Paul Feyerabend on addressing unreasonable people

*Fallacy: *Ad Hominem
*Explanation*: Feyerabend dismisses potential critics by implying
they lack the "minimum of reason," avoiding engagement with their
arguments.

*12.* Clarence Darrow’s plea to a jury

*Fallacy: *Appeal to Emotion
*Explanation*: Darrow appeals to the jury's self-image and local
pride, rather than presenting logical arguments to support his case.

*13.* Animal cruelty debate (New York Times excerpt)

*Fallacy: *Red Herring
*Explanation*: Astella Kung diverts attention from the issue of
animal cruelty by bringing up the unrelated issue of homelessness,
shifting focus away from the original argument.

*14.* Tobacco regulation and consumer health

*Fallacy: *Tu Quoque (Appeal to Hypocrisy)
*Explanation*: Tobacco producers are accused of hypocrisy for
supporting price regulations while opposing consumer health
regulations, which does not address whether their stance on
consumer health is valid.

*15.* British anti-German propaganda during WWI

*Fallacy: *Appeal to Emotion
*Explanation*: The British government inflames anti-German
sentiment through emotional and exaggerated depictions in
cartoons, byp
FALLACIES OF DEFECTIVE INDUCTION

Fallacy of defective induction

A fallacy in which the premises are too weak or ineffective to warrant the conclusion.

1. Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

A fallacy in which a proposition is held to be true just because it has not been proven false, or
false because it has not been proven true. Also known as “argument ad ignorantiam.”

An argument from ignorance is flawed because lack of

evidence against something doesn't prove it's true.
Similarly, lack of evidence for something doesn't prove
it's false. It’s like saying, "I can’t prove there’s no life on other
planets, so there must be life out there," or "I can't prove there's
life on other planets, so there definitely isn’t."
Examples:

1. The Quilt Story: There is a myth that quilts were used as secret codes on the
Underground Railroad to help slaves escape. However, historians have found no proof
that this ever happened—there's no evidence or written record of it. But the person
designing a memorial for Frederick Douglass insists that the quilt legend should be
included in the memorial because "No one can prove it isn’t true." This is a classic
case of the argument from ignorance: just because something hasn't been disproven, it
doesn’t mean it’s true.
2. Science Example (Galileo vs. Aristotle): A long time ago, scientists believed that the
moon was a perfect, smooth sphere. But Galileo used a telescope and discovered the
moon’s surface was uneven with mountains and valleys. Some people didn’t want to
accept this, so they argued, "We can’t prove those imperfections aren’t just hidden by
an invisible layer of crystal!" This is another argument from ignorance, where they
just assumed their belief was true because there was no way to prove it wrong.

2. Appeal to Inappropriate Authority (Argumentum ad

Verecundiam)

This fallacy happens when someone argues that something is true just because an authority
figure or expert said so, even though that person may not actually be an expert in the
relevant area. It’s an error because just because someone is an expert in one field doesn’t
mean they know everything, or that they’re always right—even experts can make mistakes.

Example:

 Imagine a famous actor says that a certain brand of toothpaste is

the best. While the actor may be famous, they are not a dentist or a
 dental expert, so their opinion isn’t valid for deciding what’s best for
your teeth. It’s an appeal to inappropriate authority to trust
them on that matter.

Key Point:

 Experts can be wrong or biased, so it’s important to make sure their

expertise matches the topic. For example, Darwin is an expert in
biology, but if someone asks him about politics, his opinion on that
may not be more valuable than anyone else's.

3. False Cause (Argument non Causa pro Causa)

The false cause fallacy happens when someone wrongly assumes that one event caused
another, just because they happened close together in time. It’s a misunderstanding of the
cause-and-effect relationship.

Types of False Cause:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”): This is when you
assume that because something happened right after another thing, the first
thing caused the second one.
o Example: A student says, “Every time I wear my lucky socks
to a test, I get an A. So, my socks must be making me smart.”
This is a false cause because wearing socks doesn’t actually
cause better test results. It just happens by coincidence.

2. Slippery Slope: This is when someone argues that a small change will lead to a huge,
undesirable change later on, even though there's no evidence to support that.
o Example: Someone might argue, "If we allow same-sex
marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!" This is a
slippery slope because there’s no reason to believe that
allowing one thing will inevitably lead to something extreme
like this.

4. Hasty Generalization
A hasty generalization is a fallacy that occurs when someone makes a broad conclusion
about a group of people, things, or events based on very little evidence, often just one or two
examples. It’s like jumping to a conclusion too quickly without enough information.

Examples of Hasty Generalization:

1. Stereotyping:
 o Imagine someone meets a rude person from a specific country
and then says, "People from that country are all rude." This is
a hasty generalization because they are basing their entire
view of a group of people on just one individual.

2. Health Claim:
o A person might argue, "I know someone who has eaten deep-
fried food every day and has low cholesterol, so fried foods
must be good for you." This is a hasty generalization because
they're using one case to make a claim about all fried
foods.

Fallacies of Presumption Overview

Fallacies of presumption occur when an argument depends on an unwarranted

assumption that is either false or dubious. These assumptions are often hidden or
"smuggled" into the argument, making it seem valid when it’s not. These fallacies make the
argument misleading because the conclusion is based on something that was never properly
justified or proven.

Here are three common types of fallacies of presumption:

1. Fallacy of Accident

A fallacy in which a generalization is mistakenly applied to a particular case to which the

generalization does not apply

Example:

 Generalization: "Freedom of speech is a right, so it should never

be restricted."
 Accidental Fallacy: "Since freedom of speech is a right, it's okay
for someone to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre."

Here, the general rule about freedom of speech is being applied without considering
the special circumstances (e.g., causing panic) where it shouldn’t apply.

2. Complex Question (Plurium Interrogationum)

This fallacy occurs when a question is asked in such a way that it presupposes something is
already true. The question itself is framed to trick or mislead the person being asked, by
hiding an assumption within it.
Example:

 "Why are you always so rude when you don’t get your way?"

The question assumes that the person always acts rudely when things don’t go their way,
which might not be true. It pressures the person to accept that assumption as part of their
answer.

Another Example:

 "Why did you stop beating your dog?"

This question assumes the person has beaten their dog in the first place, even though they
might not have.

3. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

An informal fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is stated or assumed in any one
of the premises. Also known as “circular argument” and petitio principii.

Example:

 "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because
it is the word of God."

This is circular because it assumes that the Bible is true because God says so, but it also
claims that God exists because the Bible says so. There's no outside proof or reasoning—just
a repetition of the same claim.

Another Example:

 "I’m trustworthy because I never lie."

This is a circular argument because the claim of trustworthiness is based on the fact that the
person never lies, but "never lying" is what would make them trustworthy in the first place. It
doesn't give any outside evidence to prove trustworthiness.

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY

An informal fallacy caused by a shift or a confusion in the meanings of words

or phrases within an argument. Also known as a “sophism.”
1. Equivocation

Equivocation happens when a word or phrase has more than one meaning, and the argument
switches between those meanings without making it clear. This causes confusion and can
make an argument seem valid even when it isn't. For example, the word "faith" can mean
confidence in something (like a president's ability) or belief in something without evidence
(like believing in telepathy). If someone uses both meanings of "faith" to argue for the
existence of God, the argument is fallacious because it’s not clear which meaning of "faith" is
being used.

2. Amphiboly

Amphiboly is when a sentence is poorly worded or confusingly structured, so it can be

interpreted in different ways. The argument relies on one interpretation in the premise and
another interpretation in the conclusion, which leads to a fallacy. For example, if someone
says, “Women prefer Democrats to men,” it could mean that women prefer Democrats over
men, or it could mean women prefer Democrats more than men do. The unclear structure
leads to confusion and a fallacious argument.

3. Accent

The fallacy of accent happens when the meaning of a statement changes depending on which
words are emphasized or stressed. This can distort the argument. For example, the
sentence “We should not speak ill of our friends” can mean different things depending on
what you emphasize:

 Friends: Don’t speak ill of friends, but it’s okay to speak ill of non-
friends.
 Speak: Don’t speak badly, but it’s okay to act badly toward your
friends. The same words, when stressed differently, can change the
message, leading to a misleading conclusion.

4. Composition

The fallacy of composition occurs when someone assumes that what’s true for the parts of
something is also true for the whole thing. For example, if every part of a machine is
lightweight, it doesn't mean the entire machine is lightweight. The argument is flawed
because the total weight of the machine depends on how the parts are put together, not just
their individual weight.

5. Division

This is the opposite of the composition fallacy. It happens when someone assumes that
what’s true for the whole thing must also be true for each part of it. For example, if a team is
great at winning games, it doesn't mean every single player is great. Arguing that “The team
is strong, so every player must be strong” is a fallacy because the team’s success might come
from a few standout players, not the entire group.