PHILOSOPHY

(LOGIC)
MR. NICKY C. CARDENAS
Objectives
Define the meaning of fallacy.

Explain the difference between formal and informal
fallacies.

Realize the significance of studying fallacies.

Know the different types of informal fallacies:
(1) relevance, (2) presumption, (3) ambiguous
language.
Continuation
Know how fallacies of relevance, of presumption
and of ambiguous language are committed.


Analyze and identify the specific fallacies of
relevance, of presumption and of ambiguous
language committed by an argument.


Utilize informal fallacies in practical situations.
Lesson Outline

FALLACIES
FORMAL INFORMAL
Fallacies of
Relevance
Fallacies
of Presumption



1. Ignoratio Elenchi
2. Ad Ignorantiam
3. Ad Verecundiam
4. Ad Hominem
5. Ad Populum
6. Ad Misericordiam
7. Ad Baculum




fallacies of presumption:

1. fallacies of begging
the question
*assumptio non-probata
*circulus in probando
2. fallacy of complex
question
3. fallacy of false cause
4. fallacy of accident
5. fallacy of hasty
Generalization

Fallacies of
Ambiguous language



*fallacies of ambiguous
language
1. Equivocation
2. Amphiboly
3. Accent
4. Figure of Speech
5. Composition
6. Division



Unlocking
of
Difficulties


A. Term
B. Proposition
C. Argument
DIVISION OF LOGIC
Semantic Web Activity:
What is the meaning of Fallacy?
Fallacy
?
?
?
?
Fallacy means
Derived from the Latin word fallere which means to
deceive.



It is a violation of the logical principle disguised under a
show of validity.



A plausible argument that uses false or illogical
reasoning. Hence, it is deceptive in presentation.

Continuation


Kinds

Sophism- fallacy is committed with the intention of
deceiving others.



Paralogism- fallacy is committed unconsciously.





What is the difference of
formal and informal fallacy?




DIFFERENCE

Error in the form of an
argument
Outside the content of
language
Formal
Fallacy

Error in the content of an
argument
Dependent upon language
Informal
Fallacy
What is the significance of
studying fallacies?
PHILOSOPHY
(LOGIC)
CORE VALUE


Fallacies of Relevance
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion)


Meaning: When an argument relies on premises that are
not relevant to its conclusion.


It is the fallacy that proves a conclusion not pertinent and
quite different from that which was intended or required.


E.g.: But your honor, members of the jury, roses are red.
Violets are blue. I love Julia Baretto. Therefore, you must
acquit my client, Daniel Paddila, of all these charges.


Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved. Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true. Not-p is true.
E.g.: If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or
UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been
proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy
occurs.
On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy,
and so on do exist because their non-existence has not
been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam

The informal structure generally has the basic
pattern:

Authority on subject x, L says accept statement p.
p is outside the scope of subject x.
p is true.

E.g.:Tomorrow is a holiday according to the janitor of
the school.

If you use Palmolive shampoo, your hair will be as
beautiful as that of KC Conception.

I am the best of the best according to my mother.



Argumentum ad Hominem

Informal Structure of ad Hominem

Person L says argument A.
Person L's circumstances or character is
not satisfactory.
Argument A is not a good argument.

E.g.: Francis Bacon's philosophy should
be dismissed since Bacon was removed
from his chancellorship for dishonesty.

To Quoque
(you too)- a variation of Ad Hominem which
arises when one claims that a certain action is
all right because someone or everybody else
does it.

e.g. Sometimes our instructor does wear his
I.D., so theres nothing wrong if we do not
wear sometimes our I.D. too.


Argumentum ad Populum

Informal Structure of Ad populum

"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a
conclusion on the grounds that all or most people
think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe
statement p is true.
Statement p is true.

E.g.: Ms. Grace Poe, daughter of the late famous
Filipino actor Mr. Fernando Poe, should be the next
Philippine President because she was number one (1) in
the senatorial election.

Argumentum ad Misericordiam

The informal structure of the ad misericordiam
usually is something like this:

Person L argues statement p or argument A.
L deserves pity because of circumstance y.
Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.

E.g.: Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic
ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way to
the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to
tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.


Argumentum ad Baculum

Often the informal structure of argumentum ad
baculum is as follows.

Person L says accept argument A or event x will
happen.
Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening.
Therefore, argument A is a good argument.

E.g.: Allow me to marry you, or else I will kill myself.

Kiss me, or else we will break up. You will no longer
see me.

Fallacies of Presumption
Fallacies of begging the question (petitio principii)
It is the assumption of the truth of the proposition or
that of a premise which is yet to be proven.
Ex: Abortion is murder because it is the intentional
taking of the life of a human being.
Assumptio non-probata
It occurs when we simply assume the truth of an
unproved premise, that is, without giving any evidence
to support it.

E.g.: All men are polygamous. Therefore your father is
polygamous.

Continuation
Circulus in Probando

It is arguing in circle/vicious circle. It
occurs when we use two unproved
propositions, each to establish the validity
of the other.

E.g.: The Bible is the Word of God?
How do you know? Because it is written
by men who were inspired by God. How
do you know that this men were inspired
by God? Because the Bible says so.


Fallacy of Complex Question

E.g.:
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Have you stopped smoking?

Consists in asking either a multiple
question as though it were a single
question, and then demanding a simple
yes or no for an answer and thus tricking
someone into making admissions he did
not intend.


Fallacy of False Cause

Consists in assuming a cause or reason for
a thesis that which in reality is not.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this,
therefore because of this)

E.g.: Night comes before day; therefore
night causes day.

I got well after praying to Medicus Typoos,
the god of health. Therefore I got well
because of praying to this god.


Fallacy of Accident


Concentrating on one accidental aspect of
a thing which may or may not actually
happen.
Examples:
Alcoholic drinks lead to drunkenness and
should therefore be forbidden.
Good food leads to overeating and should
therefore be forbidden.
Illegal Drugs leads to addiction and should
therefore be forbidden.


Fallacy of Hasty Generalization

It consists in arguing that what is true of a few
members of a class must also be true of all members
of that class. (Particular to General)

This fallacy is a violation of the Law of
Subalternation: The truth of the particular does not
imply the truth of the universal. What is true of the
part may not be true of the whole.

E.g.: Tonio and Tinoy, known NPAs, supported Mr.
Constantino in his election bid; hence, Mr.
Constantino is an NPA himself.

Fallacies of Ambiguous Language
Fallacy of equivocation

It is the fallacy of using a word in two senses in an
argument. Aside from being an equivocal term, the
ambiguous word could also be an analogous term.

It is a deceptive argument which lets the listener believe
that two different terms (represented by one word or
sound) are actually the same.

E.g.: God is a Perfect Being.
Michelangelo is a god.
Therefore, Michelangelo is a Perfect Being.


Fallacy of Amphiboly


It is a deception resulting from the grammatical or
syntactical ambiguity of language.

Although it uses univocal terms, an amphiboly
can be interpreted in various ways.

E..g.: Clean and decent dancing every night
except Sunday.


Fallacy of Accent


Very similar to amphiboly only that it creates ambiguity
not through its grammatical structure but through its
changing emphasis.

The oral counterpart of amphiboly.

Consists of emphasizing the wrong word in a sentence.

E.g.: TWO LOUISIANS CAUGHT SLEEPING
TOGETHER AT BACK OF THE AMPHITHEATER
because their father kicked them out from their house.

Fallacy of Accent
Another Example:


SALE!
50% OFF
on selected items
Fallacy of Figure of Speech

The confusion between the metaphorical
and ordinary uses of a word or phrase.
Consists in wrongly inferring similarity
of meaning from similarity of word
structure.

E.g.:
What is immaterial is not material
And what is insoluble is not soluble
Therefore what is inflammable is not
flammable.


Fallacy of Composition


The fallacy of composition consists in
taking words or phrases as a unit when
they should be taken separately.

E.g.: 1.) Nicky: I admit that thieves and
murderers cannot enter the kingdom of
heaven Yes, I am a thief, but not a
murderer. So I can still enter the kingdom of
heaven.

Continuation

2.) From Each to All

Arguing from some property of constituent
parts, to the conclusion that the whole
(composite) item has that property.


Los Angeles Lakers is an excellent team
since Kobe Bryant is an excellent player.


Fallacy of Division

Consists in taking separately/individually
what should be taken together as a
unit/collectively..
Arguing from a property of the whole, to
each constituent part.

E.g.:
Rats are all over the world.
My pet, Sparky, is a rat.
Therefore, Sparky is all over the world.

Small Group Activity
Brainstorming and Small Group Activity:

Instruction:
Students are allowed to brainstorm on their theoretical
knowledge about the informal fallacies based on the
discussion.

Students are grouped into a small group that consists of 5-6
members only.

Then, students are expected to determine, analyze and
provide one (1) argument that manifests a kind of fallacy
under each category of informal fallacies.
Group Activity Cont
Each argument under the fallacies of relevance,
presumption and ambiguous language must show
relevance in practical examples and/or experiences,
observations, issues/problems, etc. in the different
aspects of human life.


The class is given 6 minutes to discuss and
formulate informal fallacies.


Lesson Outline

FALLACIES
FORMAL INFORMAL
Fallacies of
Relevance
Fallacies
of Presumption



1. Ignoratio Elenchi
2. Ad Ignorantiam
3. Ad Verecundiam
4. Ad Hominem
5. Ad Populum
6. Ad Misericordiam
7. Ad Baculum




fallacies of presumption:

1. fallacies of begging
the question
*assumptio non-probata
*circulus in probando
2. fallacy of complex
question
3. fallacy of false cause
4. fallacy of accident
5. fallacy of hasty
Generalization

Fallacies of
Ambiguous language



*fallacies of ambiguous
language
1. Equivocation
2. Amphiboly
3. Accent
4. Figure of Speech
5. Composition
6. Division





Reporting/Sharing Activity


Assignment