D.1. Fallacy: A fallacy is an argument which violates, often deceptively, the protocols of an argument as listed in M.1.6.
Remarks: These are examples of informal taken from Copi, and Cohen Introduction to logic. I have pointed out fallacies only and provided examples. However, you may want to observe how these relate the eight protocols in M.1.6, if it is an exercise in logic which interests you more. Few additional discussions and exercises are also added as well.
D.2.1. Argument from Ignorance
Example: Galileo, during his famous trail, claimed that he has seen mountains and valleys on the moon of earth. Since the theory, held by the then church, suggested that there are no mountains or valleys on moon, and that the moon is perfectly spherical, Galileo was criticized. His opponents said: Although there appears to be irregularities, these are, in fact, filled by invisible crystalline substance and that the moon is a perfect sphere. Now Galileo cunningly replied that: There are also mountains and valleys made of that crystalline invisible substance which we cannot see.
Observation: The invisible crystalline material has one implication - it cannot be seen. And what is invisible has two implications - it "may", or "may not" be this or that.
D.2.2. Appeal to inappropriate authority
Example: People in rural areas, when sick, believe in whatever their spiritual scholar tells them, although this scholar has not learned anything about medicine. This practice has resulted in several cases of health degradation.
Observation: The truth that someone is respected or has knowledge of spiritual affairs does not establish the truth that he has acquired a knowledge of medicine.
D.2.3. Argument against person (abusive or circumstantial)
Example: One philosopher attacks another by saying: He is Marxist, therefore, his methods are dishonest. Or vice versa: He is a businessman, and therefore, the thesis in his book is wrong because he has a vested interest in securing profits etc etc.
Observation: Again the truth of someone's belief, or profession, does neither establish the truth of facts they report in their book, nor the validity of their arguments.
D.2.4. Emotional Appeals:
I. Appeal to Emotions:
Example: Frequently religious or patriotic emotions are manipulated by fanatic leaders for gaining emotional support from the masses. Some of the masses brainlessly follow such a leader. And they assume that the claim, for which they have an emotional attachment, is true.
II. Appeal to pity
Example: A person who killed his parents appealed in court of law for leniency because he was now an orphan.
III. Appeal to force
Example: The president continues to have confidence in attorney general. I have confidence. You ought to have it. Because we work for president and that’s the way things are. If you have any other ideas different than party’s ideas, you can tell us, so that we can discuss your status.
Observation: Again the truth that one has certain emotional attachment to a thing, or person etc, feels a pity for someone, is afraid of something, etc all of such emotional states only inform us of that state. Their truth is limited to themselves only. Emotions are chemical states of human body, limited to it alone, and thus anything outside of ones body does not become a fact or true due to this state.
D.2.5. Irrelevant conclusion
Example: We must improve our defences therefore we must build this new weapon. The premise miss the point. The premise can be abstract or general whereas the conclusion is concrete or specific.
We must ask: Why only this new weapon? And why not anything else for example training of officers, improved diplomatic relations, intelligence, economic means, etc etc? What if diplomacy costs less than weapons, will it not be economically desirable? If so, weapons would be economically absurd decision. If weapons creation can trigger a weapons race in region, it would be absurd politically when peace is desirable.
Observation: It is an instance of having many conclusions, and when some of these are ignored arbitrarily, a possibility arises that the conclusion thus reached in ignorance may or may not be absurd.
D.2.6. Complex question
Example: Do you still smoke cigarettes?
Here are two claims that are questioned at once (compound proposition). 1) You smoke now. 2) You smoked regularly in past.
A simple yes or no answer falsely assigns a truth value to both. For example, if someone says, No. It means he has said I no longer smoke cigarettes. This means he has said: I used to smoke and I quit. Whereas in fact this person may never have smoked at all. Alternatively, a yes means he has been smoking for some time. Whereas he may have started smoking recently.
Observation: By being careless about implications of the terms used in question, the respondent would have replied in ignorance. Now it is sometimes difficult to maintain such degree of attentiveness, and thus desirable to postulate questions which are not complex ones. A question and answer of such sort would only result in fallacies.
D.2.7. False cause
Example: The death penalty is the cause of increased crime because number of prisoners increased after death penalty was enforced.
Observation: The truth of existence of the death penalty must be shown to logically connect with the truth of an increased crime. In absence of such a logical connection.
D.2.8. Begging the question
Example: This universe must be made by some intelligence. How else can universe come into existence?
Observation: The truth of the existence of universe must be shown to logically connect with the truth of an intelligence which created it. And in absence of such a logical connection.
Exercise – I: Would these propositions (death penalty, and universe etc) not be treated as assumed consequents? How can we distinguish between a correct consequent versus an incorrect consequent, or antecedent etc? And by the same token, what is a definition? How can we know that our definitions do relate with facts as we know them? These are a few questions to think about, if our purpose is not only to develop an understanding of logically correct but also practically useful reasoning.
D.2.9. Accident
Example: Socrates drew some commitments from Euthydemus that he will never steal, never tell a lie etc. A series of moral commitments were made. Then Socrates presented him with a series of hypothetical situations, where Euthydemus reluctantly agreed that it would be right to deceive (to rescue our country men) and to steal (to save life of friend).
Observation: The nature of generalization is always that it is true for most cases, and not all. Thus the truth of a generalization does not establish the truth of all cases belonging to. In fact, by definition, the truth of a generalization implies a minority of cases in practical observations where this truth is absent, and a majority where it is present. Although a perfect case where no minority cases exists is least likely possible. Thus, generalizations are suggestive, and not always conclusive.
To apply a generalization to each and every case is absurd because it violates the truth of generalization by definition of it (i.e. it admits that accidental cases can exist).
D.2.10. Converse Accident
Example: A specific case, or an anomaly in a data, cannot be used to make a claim about all members of a group. If someone says, I have been eating junk food and look at me, I am not fat, it does not mean we can eat junk food and remain smart.
Observation: Opposite of the case of generalization, a single observation cannot establish a generalization because a generalization by definition is something true for most of the observations. The truth of an only observation does not establish the truth of many observations.
D.2.11. Equivocation
Example: “Who did you pass on the road?” Asked the King. “Nobody.” Said the messenger. “Quite right. This young lady saw him too.” Said the king. “Surely Mr. Nobody walks slower than everyone.”
Here the Nobody in first instance means no one and in second instance it means a person.
OR more importantly,
Knowledge is power. Power tends to corrupt. Thus, knowledge tends to corrupt.
Here the shared term Power is used in two different meanings in each case. And this means that no connections, nothing shared exists between the terms in first and second propositions. Thus, conclusion does not follow.
Observation: There is no shared term, and thus no exclusive truth.
D.2.12. Amphiboly
Example: A king of mighty kingdom, before going to war against a mighty opponent, asked the priest for guidance. Priest being a clever person said: If the king goes to war with opponent, a mighty kingdom will fall. King loses that battle. The claim is still true because the two kingdoms were mighty and one fell.
Observation: Here the premises implied multiple conclusions, and in his ego, out of ignorance, the king interpreted only as if he will win. The other implications was that the other king will win. Thus, the premises lead to an absurd conclusion, or no truth could be deduced based on them.
D.2.13 Accent
Example: We should not speak ill of our friends.
Therefore, we have several possibilities depending upon which part do we emphasize: We should not speak at all. We should speak ill of enemies. Others (not we) should speak ill. We should not speak ill of anyone. We should speak ill of their friends. and so on and so on.
Observation: Here the premises imply multiple conclusions depending upon which term of premises is emphasized, and to arbitrarily place an emphasis on one term, and ignore others can lead to a possible absurdity. If we wish to focus on how "we" talk about our friends, we must report it in our premises that we are indifferent about how others talk but concerned with only ourselves. If we wish to focus on "ill talk", we may report it explicitly. Otherwise, a respondent my pick arbitrary emphasis on any part and provide a counter argument from the same premises.
D.2.14. Composition
Example: Every part of a truck is light, therefore the truck is light. This is naïve because the addition of several light weights does not add up to light weight, unless some special case (truck has only two very light weight parts).
Example: A bus uses more gasoline than a car. Therefore, all buses on road are consuming more gas than cars. Again the sum of all buses on road can be less than sum of all cars, in which case the conclusion can be false.
Or more accurately consider this: Because the cells in my body reproduce asexually, I, a human, a multicellular being, too divide asexually. (One wonders when are fat people going to divide?????).
Observation: The truth of 'one unit' does not establish the truth of a 'combination of all units'. Just like a truth of one observation does not establish truth of majority of cases, a truth of one unit in a mathematical equation does not establish the truth of results of that equation.
Just like mathematical equations breed results different from their inputs, any system composed of many units does not bear the same properties as any of its components, save such special cases as of fractals.
Thus, the truth of one unit does not establish the truth of a combination of all units.
D.2.15. Division
Example: A company X is important for some other company Y. Mr. A works in X. Therefore, Mr. A is important for Y.
Example: Because university students study law, medicine, etc. every student studies them.
Observation: From preceding, the truth of a combination of all units does not establish the truth of any one unit.
Opposite to the previous case, but using the same logic, a truth of results of an equation does not establish truth of any one unit in mathematical equation. And in a like manner, the truth of results of a system composed of many components does not establish the truth of properties of each of its components. Thus, the truth of combination of all units does not establish the truth of one unit.
Exercise – II: From the all the aforesaid, is it that the only fallacy that matter is fallacy of ignorance, of ignoring the concept of truth, and its implications? I believe all ills in thinking are consequent of ignorance, and since all actions depend on choice, and thus on thinking, all practical ills are result of ignorance, or a departure from a rational way of thinking. Perhaps, there is more to it, you may like to discuss this with yourself, or may like to share ideas with me.