TRICKS OF PERSUASION - FALLACIES IN ARGUMENTS

Argument = not a fight, but the progression of ideas from premises to conclusion. In logic we start with premises (our assumptions, our givens), we reason from them, and we reach conclusions. Formal logic depends on the form of the argument for validity; e.g. a valid syllogism: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. A fallacy is an error in arguing (in reasoning). There are many types of fallacies, both formal and informal. Recognizing the most common may help both in clarifying your own thinking and in defending yourself against manipulation. Formal fallacies are due to errors in the form of the argument; e.g. an invalid syllogism: All men are mortal. Fido is mortal. Therefore, Fido is a man. (Check that you understand why the conclusion does not follow!) Informal fallacies are due to some other error in reasoning, e.g. attacking the person instead of the point at issue (ad hominem), hasty generalization. Informal fallacies have been categorised in many ways. Heres one way.
(See http://peernet.lbpc.ca/edombrowski/media_criticism/02gfallacies.html for more about this stuff.) CATEGORY 1: FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE

This category of fallacies deals with those errors in thinking created by bringing in ideas or emotions which are not relevant to the argument and reaching the conclusion based on them rather than on the argument and its support. l. ad hominem: (argument against the man) shifting from argument based on reason to an attack on the arguer: You cant believe him. Hes been in prison. 2. ad verecundiam: (appeal to authority) accepting an argument not on its own merit but because of the status of the person putting it forward. Acceptance of authority is particularly dubious if the status of the person has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Vitamin C must be a cure for colds, because Dr. Newton says so, and he is a highly regarded physicist. Both of these above share a tactic: arguing for the acceptance or rejection of a statement not on the basis of the argument but on the basis of the source, the speaker. 3. ad populam: (argument to the people, or appeal to the gallery) attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude -- a favourite device of advertising and propaganda. It can involve slanted language , glamorous association, or mass appeal: 1000 housewives cant be wrong ." "Every right-thinking American will agree that.." 4. wrapping oneself in the flag: (can overlap with ad populam) using appeals to patriotism or other emotional allegiances shared by the audience to gain acceptance, especially if implying that one's opponent does not possess the allegiance to as high a degree. "As a loyal Canadian, I cannot stand by and see our military forces weakened by budget cutbacks." "I criticize this fine institution only because I love it

so much. I am a loyal dissenter." This tactic can provoke a love-and-patriotism competition rather than examination of evidence. 5. ad baculum: (appeal to force) arguing that a statement is true because the opponent will be harmed if he or she does not assent to it : I wouldnt advise you to disagree with Johnson in tomorrows meeting. He is on the Promotions Committee, which decides next week on your application. It might also be an appeal to fear: If you dont buy our product, your competitor will get ahead of you and cut you out of the market. 6. ad misericordiam: (appeal to pity ) arguing for the truth of a statement because someone would suffer if it were false -- use of emotional grounds for persuasion. I must have been driving under the speed limit, because Ill lose my license if Im convicted again. Claims of victimization can persuade an audience with a strong concern for social justice to accept accusations. 7. special pleading: accepting a general principle , but making oneself or ones own group an exception on grounds that one would not accept in others. Everyone should pay income tax honestly but I really need the money. A lineup is a fair way of getting lunch, but I have to go to the front because.... 8. ignoring the question / red herring: getting off the topic,distracting the attention from the argument. Diversionary tactics are often used by people who find the direction of discussion rather uncomfortable CATEGORY 2: FALLACIES OF LOGIC This category of fallacies groups together errors of thinking based on failure of clear reasoning -- failure to reason from evidence in inductive reasoning, and failure to follow a logical pattern in deductive reasoning. 1. problem with the premise (The premises of an argument are the assumptions with which we start. We need to recognize what we are assuming.) (a) missing premise: The assumption is not stated, but lies behind the statement made. e.g. This dress must be good, because it was very expensive. We may agree or disagree with the premise, but only by calling it to conscious awareness can we examine it. This fallacy can also lead to "begging the question". e.g. This senseless language requirement should be abolished. First we must establish that the language requirement is senseless, and only then argue that on such grounds it should be abolished. (b) false premise: The premise (regardless of whether it is a missing premise or one clearly expressed) is false. If we start with false information, we are not likely to reach true conclusions. e.g. He must be pretty rich, because he goes to Pearson College. Closely related are 2, 3, and 4 below. Something has gone wrong with the movement from the premises to the conclusion in a deductive argument. 2. complex question: failure to separate the premise from the conclusion based on it, so that neither yes nor no is appropriate. In agreeing or disagreeing, we are implicitly accepting a premise that we may want to reject. e.g. Have you stopped beating your wife? "Have you stopped cheating on exams?" 3. argument in a circle: using as a conclusion material that has already been assumed in one of the premises: A: Youve got to do what I say because Im in charge. B: How do I know that youre in charge? A: Because everyones got to do what I say. 4. non sequitur: (it does not follow) assuming that a statement follows from the one before, even though they may not be related . I cant understand why I do so badly in Math; after all, I bought the most expensive textbook on the bookstore shelf. This fallacy may overlap with others, since all fallacies are

identifiable by the fact that the conclusion "does not follow" from the premises. The term "non sequitur" is applied when something truly irrelevant intrudes to deflect the reasoning. Although we can never have certainty in an inductive conclusion (except in a case where we can examine a complete closed group of objects), we still want sufficient evidence (whatever that is) before we consider a belief justified. The next two fallacies are based on accepting inadequate evidence. 5. ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance, arguing from absence of evidence) arguing that a statement is true because there is no evidence which shows it to be false or false because there is no evidence which shows it to be true. Absence of evidence is used as the basis for the conclusion. Martha Corey, we hereby condemn you for being a witch. You have not proved to the court that you are not one. 6. hasty generalization: sloppy inductive reasoning, generalizing from unrepresentative or insufficient cases: "That racial/ethnic/religious groups is so X. I work with three people from that group, and they're very X." 7. argument of the beard (How many hairs make a beard?) arguing that a distinction cannot be made because there is no clear dividing line between the extremes; obscuring real differences by emphasis on the differences only of degree: There is no difference between a child and an adult because there is no one moment in a persons life at which time he ceases to be a child and becomes an adult. It derives from the argument that one cannot specify how many hairs a man must have on his chin before it can be said that he has a beard. (Dieters delight: One more little piece wont make any difference.) 8. oversimplification is a generic term for ignoring alternatives and complexities and thus implying that the question can be settled more easily than is the case. A black or white argument, one form, ignores differences of degree, and presents only the extremes as alternatives (He is either a hero or a villain.) Applied to alternative courses of action, this fallacy can be called a false dilemma: Either we must take up arms against our oppressor or we must say farewell to all the liberties which we hold dear. Might there not be another alternative? 9. truth is in the middle: assuming that an average or a compromise is necessarily the solution to alternatives. If I see two $5 bills on the floor and ask myself whether it would be reasonable to steal them, does it make any sense to conclude that it would be all right to take one ? Other major fallacies: 10. false cause: It can be difficult to make a causal connection between events. In seeking the causes of a war, how many do we take into account, and which ones do we emphasize? How do we separate them from each other? How far back in history do we go, tracing causes of the causes? Can we eliminate false hypotheses by setting up a control, as in a lab experiment? Do we assume the causal connection will hold in the future? One type is post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): assuming that because one event followed another, it must have been the result of the other: When that important dignitary visited the college, the weather improved. I wish hed return and bring the sunshine back! After that black cat crossed my path, I had a terrible day. It must have brought me bad luck. I ate breakfast today -- and I got mail! 11. false analogy: using a likeness to something else as the basis for argument. Any two things have some point of similarity; it cannot be concluded that they therefore are alike in other regards. "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" - used to justify violence as a means to an end. Heard on the radio March 16, 2003: "Saddam Hussein is a cancer in the body of Iraq. We need surgery to remove the cancer and that surgery is a war."