Fallacious thinking: Informal Fallacies of Relevance and How Language is Messy
Part 11: Fallacious thinking: Informal Fallacies of Relevance and How Language is Messy
Introduction
We live in through language. We use it to communicate and basically to survive. We cannot go without language. With this emphasis on the importance of language, one would think that flawless communication would be a given. This is not the case. Language is inherently messy. The same word can have a different meaning in a different context. Different words can have the same meaning in different contexts. And because language is a performative action, it is something you do, people can (mis)use language for various (nefarious) reasons. The most immediate example is that of advertisements. We are (as consumers) bombarded through language and we need to make a split-second decision if we want to buy a product or not. If I am a fan of some sports star (e.g. Tiger Woods) and that star says on the TV or on the radio that this or that soap is best for xyz reasons, one would be more susceptible to buy the product if one does not know Logic and how to identify Logical Fallacies. In the following post, I will briefly introduce what I think is the most important category of logical fallacies that everyone should know (or be aware of) because of how prevalent they are in our digital era. This will make you aware of how the popular media, etc., wants to deceive you.
Inductive vs. Deductive arguments
Without getting into the “nitty-gritty” of Logic (as I mentioned there are other sources that are far more superior), let me briefly explain the difference between inductive and deductive arguments. It would be beneficial to briefly explain what an argument is in logic. Aristotelian logic works with categorical syllogisms. These arguments have three premises or two premises and a conclusion. It also works with three terms. For example,
- All humans are mortal
- Socrates was a human
- Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
There are the terms “human”, “mortal”, and “Socrates”. The above argument is an example of a deductive argument. If the premises (“All humans are mortal” and “Socrates was a human”) are necessarily true the conclusion (“Therefore, Socrates was mortal”) cannot be invalid. One might go as far as stating that the conclusion is already inferred via the premises. Inductive arguments are just the opposite. One cannot necessarily infer the validity from the premises, but one can state that an inductive argument is true or false. One can also add premises to an inductive argument. Science primarily works with inductive arguments. Today, a particular argument can be true, but in light of new discoveries, the argument can become false. This is not possible with a deductive argument.
Therefore, regarding inductive arguments, we cannot really make the claim that it is valid or invalid. It is up to science to tell us rather if premises are true (or various other ways of deciding on the truth or falsity of an argument). Regarding deductive arguments, we can say that an argument if either valid or invalid. The premises can be “whacky” but if the premises lead to a true conclusion, the argument is valid. See the following argument:
- All pink elephants have six feet,
- Peter was a pink elephant,
- Therefore, Peter had six feet.
The conclusion leads from the premises and is thus valid. It is, however, not a sound argument because Peter does not have six feet because that would be impossible. We can thus state that it was an unsound argument. Furthermore, Logic tells us that the argument is valid, but science tells us that it is and unsound argument (i.e. a false conclusion).
Informal Fallacies of Relevance
If we incorrectly argue for a conclusion (purposefully or by accident) we can deceive others (again purposefully or by accident). We can argue incorrectly with such psychological persuasiveness that the argument would convince someone that it must be correct. To use the example of Tiger Woods again, he might claim that this is the best soap, and we as consumer might take his word for it: it is the best soap. But if one is familiar with informal fallacies one would immediately recognize that Tiger Woods’ expertise lies with golf and not with soap. Tiger Woods thus does not necessarily have the correct expertise to give the statement that this soap is the best soap, and therefore the conclusion does not follow the premises. More specifically the premise is not logically relevant to the argument. And this is the most important part for this post: if one can successfully recognize that some arguments have premises that are logically not relevant, you will look at life differently. (In next week’s post, I will list a couple of informal fallacies by name and give examples.)
Fallacious thinking and How You Might Live
If you buy a particular soap because of an advert you saw/heard in which Tiger Woods said xyz is the best soap, you might have been psychologically persuaded without knowing it to buy the soap. One might go as far as to state that this is akin to unconscious living. Being aware of how logically irrelevant premises can enter an argument will gear you to recognize this as incorrect arguing. How this implicates your way of living in life will hopefully be clear. Politicians use this incorrect way of arguing on a daily basis to convince you of xyz or advertisements want you to buy product xyz so they use logically irrelevant premises in an effort to persuade you to buy. Living a life with the awareness of these fallacies would be one the philosopher will promote. So please see next week’s post for a list of fallacies I think are more prevalent in our digital society.
Comments