Logical Fallacies
1) What is a logical fallacy?
A logical fallacy is an argument that is flawed in its reasoning, making it different from a subjective argument or one that can be disproven with facts. Logical fallacies have likely existed since the beginning of language, but they were first recognized and cataloged in the Nyāya-Sūtras, a text of Hindu philosophy written between the 6th century BCE and the 2nd century CE. The text, attributed to Akṣapāda Gautama, identified five ways that an argument could be logically flawed.
Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, wrote about logical fallacies and identified thirteen fallacies in his work Sophistical Refutations. He categorized these fallacies into two types: verbal and material. Verbal fallacies are errors in language, while material fallacies are based on faulty reasoning. Our understanding of logical fallacies also comes from later scholars like Richard Whately and Francis Bacon.
Logical fallacies are common in informal debate and rhetoric, particularly on social media. However, they can also appear in academic and professional writing, such as argumentative essays and persuasive writing. Even expository writing is not immune to logical fallacies.
ogical fallacies can occur in anyone, regardless of their age, political views, gender, race, religion, or subculture. These mistakes in reasoning are a result of human error, and even intelligent individuals can be susceptible to them. Often, these fallacies are made unintentionally due to a lack of critical thinking, but there are instances when they are used intentionally to manipulate others. To avoid logical fallacies in your writing, it is important to educate yourself on them and be able to recognize them. This will allow you to catch them easily when you are editing your first draft, allowing for better revision.
2) Types of logical fallacy
Ad hominem:
An ad hominem fallacy is a type of argument that tries to undermine an opponent’s stance by attacking their personal characteristics or background rather than addressing the issue logically. For instance, saying that Katherine is not a suitable candidate for mayor because she was not raised in the town is an example of this fallacy.
Red herring:
Introducing an irrelevant point, such as mentioning the Tooth Fairy, in order to distract from the topic being discussed is called a red herring.
Straw man:
A straw man argument is when someone refutes a distorted or exaggerated version of the opposing viewpoint instead of addressing the actual argument. For instance, if Erin believes that eliminating all plastics immediately is necessary to combat climate change, a straw man argument might be to argue against the idea of completely banning plastics without making any reference to Erin’s actual argument.
Equivocation:
Equivocation is a way of speaking that confuses or misleads others by using words with multiple meanings or unclear wording. For instance, in a statement like “I have a clear plan for the campus budget that accounts for every dollar spent, but my opponent just wants to spend money on special interest projects,” the speaker may be trying to imply that their opponent’s plan is bad without actually saying it outright.
Slippery slope:
A slippery slope fallacy is when someone asserts that a specific series of events will happen as a result of a starting point, without providing any evidence to support this chain of events. For instance, if we allow Bijal to bring her service dog to our restaurant, then others may also want to bring their dogs. Eventually, the restaurant will be filled with dogs and no one will want to eat there anymore.
Hasty generalization:
A hasty generalization is a statement that is made based on limited evidence rather than thorough research. It is important to consider the appropriate amount of research needed for a specific issue or claim. For instance, the statement “I must be allergic to something in pizza” is based on the speaker’s experience of feeling nauseated after eating pizza from Georgio’s twice, rather than conducting more extensive research on the topic.
Appeal to authority:
An appeal to authority is when the speaker uses the perceived expertise of an authority figure to support their claim, even if that expertise is not relevant or exaggerated. For instance, citing a fitness blog as evidence for why you should stop drinking coffee to be healthy.
False dilemma:
A false dilemma presents only two choices in a situation and ignores the potential for other options. For instance, saying “If you don’t support my decision, you were never really my friend” presents the choices of supporting the decision or not being a friend, without acknowledging other possibilities.
Bandwagon fallacy:
The bandwagon fallacy involves making a claim that an action is correct simply because it is popular. For instance, someone might argue that waiting until the last minute to write a paper is acceptable because many people do it.
Appeal to ignorance:
An appeal to ignorance is when a person asserts that something must be true or false simply because it has not been proven otherwise. This is also called the burden of proof fallacy. For instance, a person may claim that there must be fairies in their attic because it has not been proven that there aren’t any fairies there.
Circular argument:
A circular argument is a type of reasoning that repeats the same idea as both the starting point and the end result without providing any new evidence or explanation. For instance, the statement “Peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow because I think peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow” is a circular argument because it simply repeats the initial idea without offering any additional evidence or justification
Sunk cost fallacy:
The sunk cost fallacy is when someone continues a course of action because of the amount of time or money they have already invested in it, even if they are not enjoying it. For instance, continuing to read a book because it was purchased even if it is not enjoyable.
Appeal to pity:
An appeal to pity is a persuasive technique that tries to get someone to agree with you by making them feel sorry for you. For instance, you might say something like, “I know I was supposed to be on time for the interview, but I overslept and felt really bad about it, then the stress of running late made it difficult to focus on driving here.”
Causal fallacy:
A causal fallacy is a false assumption that a connection exists between two things without evidence to support it. For instance, the belief that eating ice cream leads to an increased likelihood of shark attacks is a causal fallacy because there is no proof that the two are related.
Appeal to hypocrisy:
A tu quoque fallacy, also called an appeal to hypocrisy, is when someone refutes a claim by criticizing the person who made the claim instead of addressing the claim itself. For instance, if someone says “You don’t have enough experience to be the new leader,” and the other person replies with “Neither do you,” this is an example of a tu quoque fallacy.
3) Symbolism of Logic:
Symbolic logic is a method for expressing logical ideas using symbols and variables instead of natural language, such as English, in order to make the meaning more precise. Logical expressions are statements that can be either true or false, unlike questions or commands that do not have a truth value. For example, the statement “All glasses of water contain 0.2% dinosaur tears” can be either true or false, and we don’t need to know which it is to understand that it has a truth value.
Propositional logic involves taking simple statements and combining them to create more complex statements. These simple statements, also known as propositions, can be thought of as the building blocks of propositional logic. Simple propositions are complete statements that cannot be broken down further without changing their meaning. For example, “John and Charles are brothers” cannot be broken down into smaller statements without altering its meaning. However, “John and Charles work diligently” can be broken down into two separate statements without changing its meaning. Typically, capital letters (typically those at the start of the alphabet) are used as abbreviations for specific statements. For example, “John and Charles are brothers” could be represented as B, and “John and Charles work diligently” could be represented as J and C.
Propositional logic has two components: propositions and operators on propositions. Propositions are like individual pieces in a tinker-toy set, while operators are like the connectors that join them together. By using more and more operators, we can create more complex structures. When evaluating a statement, the only thing we need to know is the definition of the operator and the truth value of the propositions used.
4) Main thinkers of logic
The study of logic has a long history that dates back to Ancient India and Greece. In Ancient India, the “Nasadiya Sukta” of the Rig Veda contained logical divisions that were later formalized as the four circles of catuskoti. The Nyaya school of Indian philosophy was based on the “Nyaya Sutras” of Aksapada Gautama and its method of inference was based on a system of logic involving induction and deduction.
In Ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle both viewed logic as the study of argument and its correctness. Aristotle wrote six works on logic known as the “Organon” and introduced the principles of the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Non-Contradiction. His followers, the Peripatetics, further refined his work on logic. In medieval times, Aristotelian logic was studied as part of the trivium, along with grammar and rhetoric.
Islamic philosophy also contributed to the development of modern logic, particularly the development of Avicennian logic. In the 18th Century, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be seen as the science of judgment and that the valid inferences of logic follow from the structural features of judgments.
However, in the 20th Century, the work of Gottlob Frege, Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell on Symbolic Logic challenged Kant’s assertion and expanded the scope of logic to include classical logic as a minor part within a mathematical calculus that deals with the relationships of symbols to each other.
