FALLACIES IN
REASONING
Reporter: Maribeth C. Cagol
• When People engage in the process of reasoning,
sometimes they make mistakes. Such mistakes in reasoning
are called fallacies.
Miller points two kinds of fallacies:
1. Formal Fallacies- mistakes in reasoning due to a failure in
following the rules for the formal structure of valid
arguments.
2. Ex. When one argues that since feathers are light and the
light comes from the sun, therefore feathers come from
the sun.
3. Informal Fallacies- mistakes in reasoning due to
carelessness regarding relevance and clarity of language.
4.
Informal fallacies consist of fallacies of relevance and
fallacies of ambiguity.
• Fallacy of relevance (fallacy of matter) - usually
compelling of psychollogical reasons.
• Fallacy of ambiguity (fallacy of language) - mislead
because of confusion of language.
Miller lists the fallacies of relevance.
Fallacy of Relevance
Argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force)– meaning the use of threat, intimidation, or
pressure.
Ex. When a teacher threaten's his student with failure if the student does not give him a
high rating in a teacher evaluation survey.
Appeal to advantage- this takes place when appeal is made to a person or a group of
persons to adopt a belief, a policy or a course of action which the person or persons
involved would not do unless the advantage proferred were given, since the belief,
policy or course of action is contrary to the persons accepted norms of conduct.
Ex. When a rich man offers to pay the hospital bills of a young girl's sick mother,
provided the young girl consents to be his mistress.
Fallacy of Relevance
• Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive)– meaning the use of
either abusive, irrelevant attacks on the person; or of
irrelevant circumstances of the person.
•
• Ex. A is an advocate of socialism, and presents substantial
reasons for it. B opposes socialism. But instead of replying to
A's arguments, B points out to his audience, truthfully or
otherwise, that A is a bigamist, an ex-convict, or had a poor
scholastic record while in college. B commits the fallacy of
argumentatum ad hominem (abusive).
Fallacy of Relevance
Argumentum ad ignorantiam– or the use of the mere lack evidence
concerning the opposite of what is claimed.
Argumentum ad populum - or the use of an emotional appeal to the
passions and prejudices of the listeners.
Ex. A rabble rouser: "All Muslims to arms! A Muslim earlier today was
killed by a Christian!
Argumentum ad verecundiam – or the use of an unqualified expert or
irrelevant authority.
Ex. In a court of law, the accused is presumed to be innosent until
proven guilty.
Fallacy of Relevance
• Petitio principii – also known as “begging the question”. Or the
disguised use of a conclusion as one of the premises.
• Ex. "I believe that Z is an honest man because he said so, and, of
course, you can always trust the words of an honest man".
• Accident – or the application of a general rule to a specific
situation in which some accidental condition makes it an
exception to the rule.
• Ex. One commits this fallacy if he argues that since jogging is good
for the health (general rule), therefore, a person with a heart
disease (exceptional case) could also improve his health by
jogging.
Fallacy of Relevance
• Converse accident – or the drawing of a generalization on the basis of an
inadequate number of instances, or on the basis of atypical instances.
• Ex. If one argues that what is good for babies must be good for all persons,
including adult persons, as well; or that what is appropriate for hardened
criminals must be appropriate for all persons, then one commits the fallacy if
converse accident.
•
• False cause – or the use of an effect of a condition to prove the cause of that
condition. This fallacy is also known as non causa pro causa, meaning, “taking
what is not the cause is the reasoning known as post hoc ergo procter hoc,
meaning “after this, therefore because of this”.
• Ex. That X would be a good manager because he was born under the certain
sign of the Zodiac.
Fallacy of Relevance
• Complex question – or the use of a question which can be answered only on the
basis of an answer to a prior unasked question.
• Ex. In a criminal case, the prosecutor might commit this fallacy in the following
query to the accused "Where did you hide the goods you stole". before it has
even been established that any goods were stolen, that the accused stole them,
or that the accused was hiding them.
•
• Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to pity) - this fallacy is committed when
one appeals to pity or sympathy for the purpose of securing desired conclusion.
• Ex. A student who begs his teacher to give him a passing grade because he is
graduating; or because his parents would disown him if he fails the course is
also guilty appeal of pity.
• In addition to the fallacies of relevance, Miller also
enumerates the fallacies of ambiguity, as follows:
•
Fallacy of Ambiguity
Equivocation - This fallacy occurs when a word or expression changesits meaning in the
course of argument.
Amphiboly - meaning "thrown in the both side". This fallacy involves an ambiguous
grammatical contrustion that can be understand in two ways.
Misplaced accent - this fallacy consists of emphasizing a word ir expression, or
ommitting relevant information, in such a way as to yield a mislead composition
Composition - this fallacy results from attributing the characteristics of the parts of a
whole, to the whole itself.
Divison - this fallacy attributes the characteristics of the whole to its parts. It is the
opposite fallacy of composition.
