Okay, Elizabeth, will do!
I fused the two-part Hot Topics post (originally written on Feb. 6th 2005) into a single post in order to facilitate printing. Enjoy!
-----------------------------------------
Hi all,
Well, this is going to be my longest post ever. So long, I've had to split it in two for the forum to accept it. No, it's not related to crossdressing. This is Mordor and in Mordor we find arguments. I know it may not appeal to everyone and you don't have to read it if you don't want to. I want to try to give people certain tools they can use to better formulate and defend their arguments with. "Arguments," here, by the way, means not disagreements or fights, but claims supported by rationally acceptable premises. On the flip side, I'm hoping that what follows will help people uncover flawed arguments.
When I attended my very first class in my university philosophy course (oh so many years ago, now!), the first thing the prof asked us was, "Have any of you here
never taken a 'Critical Thinking' course?" He looked those of us who raised our hands right in the eye and said, "If I had my way, I would not let you within ten yards of this classroom until you've passed such a course." Needless to say, we managed as best we could. Later in the course of my academic itinerary, and at the very first opportunity, I did take such a course (and, yes, I passed it
). Learning how to think, with a view to making some defensible claim, is not as difficult as it sounds. So, as a public service to this forum (or, at least, to this part of the forum), I present an excerpt from the book,
Logic and Rational Thought, by Frank Harrison. I hope you find it useful.
Love,
CJ
P.S.
Sadly, I have to say that I've seen, right here on the forum, many examples of quite a few of the fallacies described below. Those who flame others, for instance, often resort to the use of the
ad hominem fallacy (see below).
In many ways, perpetrators of fallacies are to language what magicians are to vision. Both create illusions of what is correct. For the most part, however, a person is not taken in by the tricks of the magician. The magician is on stage and clearly set apart from those watching. The audience waits for the tricks, is entertained by them, and perhaps even attempts to figure out how they are done. Fallacies are verbal illusions, but they are not set apart from what is taken as correct. Nor are they woven into arguments to entertain. Rather, they are often used to persuade when there is insufficient evidence on which to establish a claim. While the tricks of the magician are taken for what they are, this is seldom the case with instances of fallacies.
(...)
There are typical limitations making it difficult to see fallacies. A lack of strong linguistic abilities is one. The firmer a grasp someone has of vocabulary and grammar, the less likely he will miss fallacies. For instance, to censor and to censure are concepts often confused. "Censor" means the repression, by a recognized authority, of something objectionable. "Censure" means moral disapproval of something. A person might censure any disrespect of the American flag but not demand any legislative action making it illegal to burn that flag or wear it as decoration on the back side of swim shorts.
Another common stumbling block to grasping fallacies is lack of a broad range of experiences needed to come into intimate contact with other cultures and world views. A person well trained in a particular specialty can display a mental narrowness prohibiting her from realizing various ways of interpreting an argument. The broader and deeper an individual's general knowledge, the more likely she will be aware of faulty reasoning.
(...)
It is common to accept or reject some claim simply because of an emotional predisposition toward that claim. Someone, intentionally or not, can play on the feelings of the listener. (...) A primary goal of using emotional language is to persuade, independently of solid evidence, someone to accept a claim. A claim can be made more acceptable when the desires and beliefs of the hearer are heightened by emotionally charged language. It does not seem necessary to demand evidence for what is considered obvious. Yet particular claims and arguments should never be accepted simply because they concur with already held opinions. Nor should they be rejected simply because they are not in keeping with particular beliefs. In everyday practice, however, both situations occur too frequently.
[A short table of contents:]
Fallacies of relevance
- Ambiguity
- Equivocation
- Vagueness
- Relative Words
- Appeal to Irrelevant Authority
- Appeal to pity
- Appeal to the masses
- Appeal to special interests
- Appeal to ignorance
- Fake precision
- Hasty conclusion
- Neglect of relevant evidence
Fallacies of rationality
- Ad Hominem ("Against the Man")
- Tu Quoque ("You, Too")
- Red Herring
- Straw Man
- Is-Ought
- Deceptive Alternatives
- Wishful Thinking
- Novelty
- Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
- Questionable Clauses
- Slippery Slope
- Gambler's Fallacy
- Circular Argument
- Inconsistencies
- Factual Certainty
- Question Begging
Fallacies of relevance
Ambiguity
...occurs when either (1) a claim introduced as a premise is ambiguous and no reasonable interpretation of that premise within the context of the argument supports the conclusion, or (2) a claim introduced as the conclusion is ambiguous and no reasonable interpretation of the conclusion within the context of the argument is supported by the premises. A claim is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in two or more distinct ways and the context in which it appears does not indicate which interpretation is to be taken as the proper one. Syntactical ambiguity occurs when different interpretations of a sentence result from unclear grammatical structure. (...) Semantic ambiguity occurs when an expression has two or more different meanings and the context in which that expression is used does not clarify its use.
Equivocation
...occurs when when justifying the conclusion of an argument depends on the meaning of a single ambiguous expression shifting between two or more claims within the argument. A shift of meaning is at the heart of the fallacy of equivocation. For such a shift to flaw an argument, the following three features have to be present. (1) Some word or phrase has to be essentially used [a claim or word is essentially used if and only if without it the conclusion could not be justified or have the appearance of being justified]; (2) that expression must occur in at least two distinct premises or at least in one premise and the conclusion; and (3) the expression in question must have different meanings in at least two of its occurrences.
Here is an instance of equivocation:
Considering all pregnant women, only a relatively few have unnatural abortions. That is, a medically induced abortion is not the natural, or normal, way of terminating a pregnancy. What is unnatural, of course, falls outside the mainstream of social action. But something is harmful and repugnant if it falls outside the mainstream of social action. Certainly, society ought legally to guard itself against what is repugnant and harmful to it. So, abortion ought to be outlawed by society.
The argument begins by using "natural" and "normal" in a statistical sense. Throughout [the argument], however, there is a shift to a moral sense of "natural" and "normal." Only if this shift is ignored can the anyone suppose that the premises support the conclusion.
Vagueness
...occurs when either a vague premise is understood in an arbitrarily precise way while attempting to maintain an illusion of a broad meaning in order to substantiate a specific conclusion, or a vague conclusion is understood in an arbitrarily precise way while attempting to maintain an illusion of a broad meaning to be supported by some specific evidence. A claim is vague when its meaning is not clear because of some word or phrase used in a vague way in the claim. A word or phrase is vague when the boundaries of its application are not clear. Just because a word or phrase used in expressing an argument is vague, it does not follow that the argument is flawed. However, vague claims can be deceptive when used in presenting evidence to support a more specific conclusion. the difficulty is to determine whether a vague claim is relevant to the more specific conclusion.
Suppose someone says:
Since Joan is a Christian, she ought not dance, wear anything but plain and simple clothes, smoke, and certainly never drink any alcoholic beverages.
(...)
How is "Joan is a Christian" relevant in supporting the conclusion? Conservative Baptists are Christians, but so are liberal Episcopalians. Some Baptists might accept [the conclusion], but most Episcopalians would not. The word "Christian" is used in too vague a way to support the specific conclusion.
Vague conclusions also typically lead to arguments that are not cogent. [A cogent argument must satisfy these three requirements: (1) the premises support the conclusion; (2) only considerations relevant both to the justification and rejection of the conclusion are taken into account by those arguing; and (3) the premises are rationally acceptable.] Suppose someone says, "The Judeo-Christian tradition has led to more hatred than love." What claims are specific enough to count as presenting evidence for or against this assertion? This question presupposes at least that a reasonable account can be given of "Judeo-Christian tradition" that does justice to all the diverse, even incompatible, beliefs, movements, rituals, and so on, suggested by this phrase. And then there are the words "hatred" and "love"! Before evidence can be offered for a claim, that claim has to be specific enough for a person to judge what evidence can or cannot count as relevant.
Relative words
The fallacy of relative words occurs when a distinct situation in which a word can be used appropriately is confused with another distinct but related situation in which that same word can be appropriately used in a different but related way.
[Examples:]
Since a cracker costing $22.98 is expensive, it follows that a sports car costing $22.98 is also expensive.
A flea is an insect. Thus, a large flea is a large insect.
In Mozambique and Ethiopia there is real poverty. There are no economic conditions in the United States even remotely comparable to those in Mozambique and Ethiopia. Hence, in the United States there is no real poverty.
"Poverty" is used as a relative word in [the last example]. Admittedly, what counts as poverty in the United States is seen as abundance in other parts of the world. From this observation, however, it does not follow that there is no real poverty in the United States.
Appeal to irrelevant authority
...occurs when either (1) a recognized authority in one field is cited as supplying evidence for a conclusion in another field, or (2) when someone is assumed to be an authority when not and is appealed to as supplying evidence for a conclusion.
Appeal to pity
...occurs to the extent that, instead of giving evidence to support a conclusion, an arguer appeals merely to the pity of the receiver to accept the conclusion.
Appeal to the masses
...occurs when merely the beliefs or actions of a group, large or small, are substituted for evidence for or against some claim.
Appeal to special interests
...occurs when evidence for some conclusion is presented or accepted merely because of some special interests the presenter or receiver of the argument has.
An instance of this fallacy occurs when special interests are offered as evidence, or in place of evidence, in the premises to support some conclusion. Special interest groups use this fallacy heavily. Since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, federal social services and benefits have grown immensely. Many have been extended far beyond the purposes for which they were first envisioned. None of these services and benefits are free. They are paid for, in very large part, by deductions taken out of the pay of those presently working. Large groups of people are now benefiting from these federal programs and a large number of people foresee themselves as being aided by them. It is to these people that special interest organizations appeal in lobbying for, say, catastrophic national medical insurance to be underwritten by the federal government:
While it is the case that social security deductions have risen considerably in the last ten years, nonetheless, you ought to support XYZ in its move to put political pressure on the federal government for a catastrophic health insurance program. It is you who are going to benefit most from it.
Merely whether someone is going to benefit from such a federally sponsored program--even if a very large number of people are to benefit from it--is not in itself relevant evidence for substantiating the merits of a federally sponsored program. The same benefits might be supplied more effectively and at less cost through, for instance, private insurance policies.
Appeal to ignorance
...occurs when either a conclusion is said to be correct merely because there is no known evidence to establish that it is not, or when a conclusion is said to be incorrect merely because there is no known evidence to establish that it is correct. In both cases, only this lack of evidence is used to support a conclusion.
[Example:]
Ron has never said anything concerning minority rights. Therefore, he obviously doesn't support them.
Fake precision
...occurs when a claim seeming to have mathematical, or statistical, precision that is impossible, or very likely impossible, to have is used as evidence in support of a conclusion.
You ought to use brand B of pain reliever because more than 73% of all doctors use it.
(...)
How is "73% of all doctors" to be interpreted, even assuming that "doctor" means a physician? What is to be understood by "all"? Are these physicians 73% of all the physicians in the world, in the western world, in the United States, in California, at the Mayo Clinic, or at the County Regional Clinic? And by what methods was "73%" obtained? Why was it not "71%"? Unfortunately, not one of these questions was answered. Even so, "73%" can be persuasive because of its apparent precision.
Hasty conclusion
...occurs when a conclusion is drawn from premises that, while relevant to establishing the conclusion, do not supply enough evidence to establish the conclusion.
[Example:]
No Mideastern leader can be trusted. All of them I've heard anything about are hard-core liars.
Imagine [this] being presented by someone whose only opinions of Mideastern leaders are based on reports and editorials found in U.S. news media.
Hasty conclusions can also result from small samples of, or limited experience with, something. Here is a similar example:
Of course all gays are effeminate. What evidence do I have? Why, every one of them I've ever known has been.
Neglect of relevant evidence
...occurs when considerations unfavorable to a conclusion are ignored or considered in a way less important to that conclusion than they are.
It is often the case that evidence relevant to the overthrow, or weakening, of a claim is ignored or minimized by an arguer. The reasons for ignoring unfavorable relevant evidence are not difficult to appreciate. Many people consider persuasion to be their primary goal in arguing. If the goal of arguments is persuasion, then it is appropriate to ignore or deemphasize counterevidence to any claim set forth. Yet if the goal of arguments is not to persuade, but to provide relevant and rationally acceptable evidence to substantiate a conclusion, then no relevant evidence can be safely ignored or considered unimportant. And, from the viewpoint of rational thought, the primary purpose of an argument is to provide relevant and rational evidence for the substantiation of some claim. As a general guide of rational thought, the arguer ought to set forth the strongest available version of an argument. To do this, however, requires a sensitivity to relevant factors that could count against the claim being suggested. The arguer then needs to address, and resolve, any counterevidence. If this cannot be done, it is better, at least tentatively, to suspend accepting or rejecting the conclusion of the original argument.
Fallacies of rationality
Ad Hominem ("Against the Man")
...occurs when an attempt is made to discredit an argument by bringing into question in some negative way the presenter of the argument instead of attacking the argument itself. There are two types of ad hominem fallacies; namely, abusive ad hominem [which attacks the personal character of the presenter of the original argument] and circumstantial ad hominem [which brings into question some particular condition or situation in which the presenter finds herself].
Imagine legislators debating whether capital punishment should be prohibited. The congresswoman from the ninth district argues for laws prohibiting capital punishment because there is no clear evidence that capital punishment reduces the crime rate while there is clear evidence that capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment often unevenly handed out by the courts. The representative from the fifth district has a different view, however. Supporting capital punishment, he says,
The congresswoman from the ninth district suggests that we ought to pass laws prohibiting capital punishment. She talks about cruelty. Well, that's the sort of thing we can expect from an impractical and soft-hearted grandmother. I tell you, her position is both wrong and dangerous.
The phrase "impractical and soft-hearted grandmother" creates an attack on the character of the congresswoman. This phrase is used to raise emotional ill-will against the congresswoman but is irrelevant to her argument. Even if it were true that the congresswoman is an impractical and soft-hearted grandmother, this would count neither for nor against her claims concerning capital punishment.
Tu Quoque ("You, Too")
...also called "Two Wrongs Make A Right Fallacy," occurs when (1) there is an attempt to defend an argument against attack by suggesting that the critic has done something very similar, if not the same thing, as what is being attacked,or (2) that the critic is presenting an argument as difficult to sustain as the argument under attack.
"You do it, too" or "You believe the same thing" are frequently telltale signs of a tu quoque. (...) An inconsistency between the actions and the argument of the presenter is seldom evidence counting against the cogency of that argument.
Red Herring
...occurs when an attempt to discredit an argument is made by interjecting considerations that, while broadly related to the original argument, are extraneous to the specific claims of that argument.
Suppose someone argues for the premise that "Education in the United States is far behind Japan." In opposition, the following is offered:
It is said that education in the United States is far behind Japan. This cannot be true, however. More people are finishing high school and going to college than ever before in the United States. The number of people in the professions is steadily increasing. None of this would be possible without increased education.
The opponent does not address the claim, "Education in the United States is far behind Japan." Rather, he introduces quantitative considerations concerning the numbers of people finishing various levels of schooling at the pre-college, undergraduate, and post-graduate levels. Nothing is said concerning the nature or quality of this instruction. What the opponent offers is a red herring.
Straw Man
...occurs when an attempt to discredit an argument is made by recasting it in a weak, exaggerated, or foolish way not intended by the arguer and, then, attacking that refashioned argument as if it were the original one.
There are many ways to distort an argument. (...) An argument can be distorted by extending the scope of the conclusion beyond that intended by the arguer. An argument can be distorted by oversimplifying it to make it look ridiculous. Taking an argument in whole or part out of context can distort it. An argument can be distorted by introducing emotionally negative words or by replacing the definitions, intended by the arguer, of essentially used words with some other definitions.
Is-Ought
...occurs when a conclusion asserting what ought to be the case is based solely on considerations of what is or has been the case. This fallacy also occurs in arguments asserting that something ought not to be the case solely because it is not nor has been the case.
Granted, what is the case is sometimes what ought to be the case. Nevertheless, claims concerning what ought to be the case cannot, in general, be justified by appealing solely to considerations of what is in fact the case.
(...)
Is-ought fallacies sometimes appeal to a sense of tradition. An is-ought fallacy merely appealing to tradition is different from one appealing to the status quo. Often claims concerning the traditions of a family, social organization, region of a country, or the nation carry with them powerful emotional overtones triggering deeply responsive feelings. These emotional overtones, and the responses to them, can make an instance of the is-ought fallacy very attractive. (...) The mere fact that something is traditional does not provide rationally acceptable evidence for an is-ought claim. An instance of the is-ought fallacy can be reinforced by appeals to guilt, ingratitude, or loyalty. (...) [S]uch emotions provide a strong motivation to act. But a strong motivation to act is not evidence for a claim that one ought to act that way.
Deceptive Alternatives
...also called "False Dilemma," occurs when a disjunctive premise incorrectly suggests, explicitly or implicitly, that the alternatives mentioned by the disjunction are mutually exclusive and exhaust all possible alternatives relevant to the conclusion.
(...)
The fallacy of deceptive alternatives presents two (sometimes more) conditions as if they were mutually incompatible while also excluding any other possibilities. A "black or white" situation is posed. This suggestion can be wrong, ignoring other considerations relevant to the argument. Not all alternatives introduced into an argument are deceptive, however. There are clues indicating alternatives that are likely deceptive, flawing an argument. If the alternatives are prefaced with expressions such as "it is obviously true," "without a doubt," or "it is evident," be cautious of a deceptive alternative. When there is suspicion of a deceptive alternative, the best approach is to seek out other possible relevant alternatives that have been ignored. Finding such alternatives, ask if the conclusion is still justified.
Wishful Thinking
...or, "Fallacy of Desire," occurs when belief that some claim is correct (or incorrect) is substituted for evidence for that claim being correct (or incorrect).
[Example:]
Surely God exists because I have complete belief that He does.
Novelty
...occurs when there is an attempt to substantiate some conclusion that one thing is better than another by appealing merely to the fact that something is new, modern, or the latest fad. (...) Merely because something is new does not, in general, provide evidence that it is in some way better.
Confusing Sufficient and Necessary Conditions
...occurs when a necessary condition is presented as a sufficient one or a sufficient condition is taken as a necessary one in supporting some conclusion.
(...)
Consider a politician arguing like this:
To have social justice and fair opportunity for all, there is going to be a redistribution of national wealth through a progressive tax program. The increased tax dollars, obtained from those who have more resources, will be used in social, health, and educational programs. My supporters know I firmly support a progressive tax program to fund these governmental functions. Consequently, the results of my political actions in the legislature will bring social justice and fair opportunity for all.
Unfortunately, a redistribution of wealth is not a sufficient condition for social justice and fair opportunity for all. (...) A redistribution of wealth may be a necessary condition [for this, but] suppose the national wealth were not redistributed through a progressive tax program. Would this guarantee that there would not be social justice and fair opportunity for all? No, for a great many social programs can be, and are, funded through private resources. Hence, the legislation suggested... seems neither a sufficient nor necessary condition of social justice and fair opportunity for all.
Questionable Clauses
...occurs when (1) a phenomenon is claimed to be the cause of something when it is not or when a phenomenon is claimed to be the cause of something when there is poor evidence to support that it is and (2) this causal claim is offered as evidence for some conclusion.
Slippery Slope
...also known as the "Domino Fallacy," occurs when it is asserted, without appropriate evidence, that one phenomenon will necessarily lead to another, and that this second will necessarily lead to still another in a chain of events until some final situation, usually unpleasant, is brought about.
Gambler's Fallacy
...occurs when it is suggested as evidence for some conclusion that simply because a random event has had a certain run in the past it will have a different outcome in the future.
Circular Argument
...or "Begging the Question," occurs when the conclusion of an argument is a restatement, usually in different vocabulary or form, of one of the premises.
Inconsistencies
...occur when an argument contains contradictory claims, or when an arguer claims one thing at one time and its contradiction at another without providing reasons for this change of position.
Factual Certainty
The Fallacy of Factual Certainty, or Apriorism, occurs when it is suggested, explicitly or implicitly, that a factual claim is absolutely beyond any doubt whatsoever; that no evidence can count against that claim.
Question Begging
...occurs in presenting an argument in ways suggesting a position on the conclusion without giving rationally acceptable evidence for that conclusion or giving only weak evidence.
Harrison, Frank R., Logic and Rational Thought, West Publ. Co, St-Paul, MN, 1992 (pp. 475-531)
(For those of you who'd like more information, you can go here:
http://www.infoshop.org/critical_thinking.html) --CJ
The course is for first year law students here in the USA. Talk about complex material, all I wanted to do was learn how to improve my debating skills. How to "win an argument." 
Proud Military Family - Navy, Army, Coast Guard, National Guard 
Sorry about the Hot Topics barrier; I completely forgot about that.
But, alas! I'm merely the messenger... I wrote this: