Introduction

Last week I stated that language is messy and we can so easily get “cheated” by language or people using language (on purpose) sloppily. This week I want to briefly introduce the most important logical fallacies (which fall under the fallacies of relevance) and why I think everyone needs to be aware of them. To answer the question “How might I live?” sufficiently, we need to know when people/companies/politicians, etc., are trying to deceive us and when they are trying to make us accept some premise which does not have any relevance to the conclusion.

Relevance and Motivation

For me personally, I see on a daily basis how people misuse (on purpose or not) language or that they just do not argue well. The most dangerous, I think, category of fallacies most people (again, on purpose or not) commit is that of relevance. What does this entail? Briefly put, when you argue, you can stylistically put the argument forth in syllogistic form. This is basically a three-part argument:

• Socrates was a human
• All humans are mortal
• Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

From this we state that the premisses lead to the conclusion. “Socrates was a human” and “All humans are mortal” leads to the conclusion that “Socrates was mortal”. We could have given premisses that lead to the same conclusion but which are totally irrelevant and blatantly false.

• People with three legs are mortal
• Socrates had three legs
• Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

The conclusion is true, and it leads from the premisses, so it was a valid argument, but the premisses are blatantly false. And this is where I think most people will agree: that it is a nonsensical argument. But the problem is that people in everyday language make a similar mistake: they use premisses that are false, but not in the nonsensical manner false, but in the irrelevance sense. The premisses is irrelevant to the conclusion. People with three legs are mortal is a wacky example, but it illustrates the point: we can argue with false premisses and get a true conclusion. The most dangerous of arguments are those we do not even know are relying on false and sometimes irrelevant premisses. I will briefly list the fallacies I think is important to know about because in our modern era people tend to not even know that they are mis-leaded by these fallacies. Or in other words, they do not even realize someone deceived them.

Fallacies of Relevance

These fallacies’ premisses are all logically irrelevant to the conclusion one is trying to reach. They are persuasive in the manner they play on our emotions. We can in some sense say that those who are familiar with these fallacies can purposefully misuse them in order to mis-lead you (emotionally). I will list here 11 such fallacies and give a brief explanation/example.

• Argumentum ad Baculum: This is often translated as appeal to force. I think the easiest example of this is when the big corporate companies like the gas/petrochemical companies tell the people who write/vote on policies to remember who pays their salaries or sponsors. Simply put, when someone coerces you with implicit or explicit force, the premisses in the argument does not follow logically, or the premisses are not relevant.
• Argumentum ad Hominem: Often translated directly as “to the man”, this fallacy refers to when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. In other words, someone will call into question someone’s personality or character traits rather than focus on the argument itself. Again, the person’s personality does not logically have relevance to the argument at hand, so calling it into question cannot logically make the argument better. Emotionally, however, it is very persuasive.
• Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: Or simply argument from ignorance. This is sometimes a very subtle and persuasive argument to make because of how “logical” it might seem. Simply put, because there is no evidence that xyz then it must be the case that it is xyz. Because we do not have evidence that aliens to not exist, they must exist. In other words, the absence of evidence counts as evidence.
• Argumentum ad Misericordiam: Or appeal to pity. This is rather self-explanatory. Take someone who has committed a robbery who stands in front of a judge. The lawyer might paint the person in a sad light as to appeal to the judge’s emotional side. The person was a good Samaritan or helped at a charity, and this one robbery cannot be so bad. In other words, this might be the positive fallacy to ad hominem, that is, rather than attack the person it tries to defend the person.
• Argumentum ad Populum: Or appeal to the people or populace. Again, this one seems self-explanatory. If the popular vote or the majority of people accept xyz, then it must be the case. Again, the premise is not logically relevant. In other words, if the majority of people accept xyz, how does it follow logically? It does not.
• Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Or the appeal to authority. This is my favourite example to use, as in my previous posts. I think this is the one fallacy that permeates our society and has been with us for so long that no one can “see” it anymore. Advertisements love to use this fallacy. Say a soap company gets Tiger Woods to tell us about all the exfoliating properties of this product, we might buy it because Tiger Woods said it was good. If we know logic, we will immediately say: Tiger Woods is a professional golfer and his expertise in golf does not make the case for him to explain the good or badness of said soap. In other words, someone with no authority in one area but with authority in another cannot make logically relevant claims in the former.
• Dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid: or the Fallacy of accident is when you take a particular case that differs from the norm or general case to refute the particular case. For example, because all birds can fly an ostrich can fly. But ostriches cannot fly.
• Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter: or Converse accident: or Hasty conclusion, is thus the converse of the previous fallacy. In this case, the norm is overly hastily concluded from the particular case. Because one plane crashed, all planes are unsafe.
• Non causa pro causa: or false cause fallacy, is when for example something prior to an event A is said to be the cause of that event. Because people on the beach ate ice-creams the amount of shark attacks went up. The premisses does not establish a good link and can thus be said to be irrelevant.
• Petitio principii or begging the question is simply when you use in your premisses the conclusion you want to show. It is sometimes also referred to as circular argumentation.
• Plurium interrogationum or complex question or loaded question is when someone (normally in an accusatory manner) asks you a question which contains in effect two questions. “When did you steal the chocolate” contains the hidden question “Did you steal the chocolate?” which is not explicitly asked. If someone tries to deny the first question the lawyer can say to the person “Okay if you did not steal it on Wednesday did you steal it on Tuesday?”.
• Ignoratio elenchi or Irrelevant conclusion is also a fallacy that is committed too much in our modern era. This is when you conclude that your opponent’s conclusion is false because you showed that a different conclusion is not the case. Again, what you are in effect doing is establishing that your conclusion is irrelevant to the one made at the start.

How Might I Live Without Fallacies

In life, you will never be without fallacies. People will either commit them on purpose or by accident. If you acknowledge yourself with these fallacies, you will become more aware of how other might purposefully try to mislead you by arguing for a premise that is logically irrelevant to the current argument. Leading a good life or trying to answer the question to as how you might live your life, is impossible with at least some knowledge of logical fallacies. Here I listed what I take to be some of the more common ones committed in our current era and how they might impinge on you leading a good life. So read them, do your own research on them and try and spot them in real life situations.

• philosophy
• logic
• education
• blog
• writing