words to know Flashcards
This argument uses
force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.
It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader.
Appeal to force
The genetic fallacy is the claim that an idea, product, or person must be untrustworthy
because of its racial, geographic, or ethnic origin.
Genetic Fallacy
: Attacking or praising the people who make an argument, rather than discussing
the argument itself. This practice is fallacious because the personal character of an individual is logically
irrelevant to the truth or falseness of the argument itself
Personal Attack
To argue that proposals, assertions, or arguments must be false or dangerous because they
originate with atheists, Christians, Muslims, communists, capitalists, the John Birch Society, Catholics,
anti-Catholics, racists, anti-racists, feminists, misogynists (or any other group) is fallacious. This
persuasion comes from irrational psychological transference rather than from an appeal to evidence or
logic concerning the issue at hand. This is similar to the genetic fallacy, and only an anti-intellectual
would argue otherwise.
Abusive
: To argue that an opponent should accept or reject an argument because of
circumstances in his or her life. If one’s adversary is a clergyman, suggesting that he should accept a
particular argument because not to do so would be incompatible with the scriptures is such a fallacy. To
argue that, because the reader is a Republican or Democrat, she must vote for a specific measure is
likewise a circumstantial fallacy. The opponent’s special circumstances have no control over the truth or
untruth of a specific contention. The speaker or writer must find additional evidence beyond that to
make a strong case. This is also similar to the genetic fallacy in some ways. If you are a college student
who wants to learn rational thought, you simply must avoid circumstantial fallacies.
Circumstancial
Using an appeal to popular assent, often
by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a
favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of
argument is Shakespeare’s version of Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three
basic approaches:
Argumentum ad poplum
“Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the
majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be
true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance,
“85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong.
IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid,
nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may
once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority’s belief didn’t mean the earth really was flat
when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical
fallacy.
Bandwagon Approach:
“Draping oneself in the flag.” This argument asserts that a certain stance is true
or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with
pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for
emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless
communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his
American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.This approach is unworthy
of a good citizen.
Patriotic Approach
This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but
rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the
necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of
the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.
Snob Approach
This line of thought asserts that a premise must be true
because people have always believed it or done it. Alternatively, it may conclude that the premise has
always worked in the past and will thus always work in the future: “Jefferson City has kept its urban
growth boundary at six miles for the past thirty years. That has been good enough for thirty years, so
why should we change it now? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Such an argument is appealing in that it
seems to be common sense, but it ignores important questions. Might an alternative policy work even
better than the old one? Are there drawbacks to that long-standing policy? Are circumstances changing
from the way they were thirty years ago?
Appeal to Tradition
An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be
reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous
individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a
strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or
economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite
Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious. The worst offenders usually involve movie stars and
psychic hotlines. A subcategory is the Appeal to Biased Authority. In this sort of appeal, the authority is
one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal
motivations that render his professional judgment suspect: for instance, “To determine whether
fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents.” Or again, “To find out
whether or not sludge-mining really is endangering the Tuskogee salamander’s breeding grounds, we
interviewed the supervisors of the sludge-mines, who declared there is no problem.” Indeed, it is
important to get “both viewpoints” on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a
source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments.
Appeal to Improper Authority
An emotional
appeal concerning what should be a logical issue during a debate. While pathos generally works to
reinforce a reader’s sense of duty or outrage at some abuse, if a writer tries to use emotion merely for
the sake of getting the reader to accept what should be a logical conclusion, the argument is a fallacy.
For example, in the 1880s, prosecutors in a Virginia court presented overwhelming proof that a boy was
guilty of murdering his parents with an ax. The defense presented a “not-guilty” plea for on the grounds
that the boy was now an orphan, with no one to look after his interests if the court was not lenient. This
appeal to emotion obviously seems misplaced, and the argument is irrelevant to the question of
whether or not he did the crime.
Appeal to Emotion
Asserting that an argument must be false because the
implications of it being true would create negative results. For instance, “The medical tests show that
Grandma has advanced cancer. However, that can’t be true because then she would die! I refuse to
believe it!” The argument is illogical because truth and falsity are not contingent based upon how much
we like or dislike the consequences of that truth. Grandma, indeed, might have cancer, in spite of how
negative that fact may be or how cruelly it may affect us.
Argument from Adverse Consequences
Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you
personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. For instance, one person might assert, “I
don’t understand that engineer’s argument about how airplanes can fly. Therefore, I cannot believe that
airplanes are able to fly.” Au contraire, that speaker’s own mental limitations do not limit the physical
world—so airplanes may very well be able to fly in spite of a person’s inability to understand how they
work. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter.
Argument from Personal Incredulity
