Fallacies

1581 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Roles of critical thinking in decision making

Fallacies are all around us. Every time we turn on a TV, or a radio, or pick up a newspaper, we see or hear fallacies. According to Dictionary.com, a fallacy is defined as a false notion, a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference, incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness, or the quality of being deceptive (www.Dictionary.com). Fallacies are part of everyday and become a staple in certain aspects of life. Political campaigns and reporters would be lost without the use of fallacies. Fallacies can be divided into two broad groups: fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of insufficient evidence occur because the premises fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, even though the premises may be logically relevant to the conclusion (Bassham, 2000). In this paper I will define three fallacies, explain their significance to Critical Thinking, and discuss their general application to Decision Making. The three fallacies I will discuss are Ad Hominem (attacking the person), Two Wrongs Make a Right, and Slippery Slope. Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person) Ad hominem occurs when we reject a person's argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person's argument or claim (Bassham 2000). This type of fallacy is a common occurrence in political debates. If a candidate cannot find valid reasons to dispute another candidate's claims or ideas then the candidate attacks the person himself, not the issues. It is important to mention that not every personal attack is a fallacy. A personal attack is only a fallacy if an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim, and the arguer attacks the person who offers the argument or claim, rather than attacking the merits of the argument or claim.

Show More
Related

  • France is Brave and Right to Ban the Burqa by Phyllis Chesler

    811 Words  | 2 Pages

    Chesler make many compelling persuasive arguments; however, a few logical fallacies appear in her line of thinking.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Unresisted Persuasion

    703 Words  | 2 Pages

    Summary – It can be very useful when things do not tend to fall your way by then switching things up on your opponent and using their most positive words in order to make it look negative. Every argument needs facts and if that does not work for you, you should probably redefine the issue being made. The importance and relevance of the argument should be taken into consideration. Remember that manipulating the definition of things in your favor is the way to go.

    Read More

  • Logical Fallacies In One Of Us

    700 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine being in a world that controls the life of its members ultimately taking the dignity and free-will from what every human- being is entitled to have. In the documentary One of Us, three young-people share the stories of their time in the Hasidic Jewish community and how their escape to freedom came back to bite them. The filmmaker utilizes pathos, ethos, and logical fallacies to make the audience feel compassion towards the ex-members of the Hasidic Jewish community and the suffering that comes with leaving the lifestyle.

    Read More

  • What The Dog Saw Analysis

    552 Words  | 2 Pages

    A straw man fallacy, in its most lucid form, is executed when a person not only disregards an opponent’s counterarguments, but also distorts them into exaggerated versions of themselves in the interest of making them easier to refute. In many cases, the adversary’s arguments are skewed to such a severe point that they wind up being completely different than what the adversaries were actually fighting for; however, this is all for the convenience of the proponent. An innumerable amount of politicians and authors are infamous for using this problematic method of disproving opposing arguments, even notable celebrities like George W. Bush. The straw man method of persuasion is a proficient way to make a personal stance sound factual, but it

    Read More

  • An Analysis of the Rhetorical Elements of Political Campaign Advertisements

    1054 Words  | 3 Pages

    It is very common among the United States’ political sphere to rely heavily on T.V. commercials during election season; this is after all the most effective way to spread a message to millions of voters in order to gain their support. The presidential election of 2008 was not the exception; candidates and interest groups spent 2.6 billion dollars on advertising that year from which 2 billion were used exclusively for broadcast television (Seelye 2008.) Although the effectiveness of these advertisements is relatively small compared to the money spent on them (Liasson 2012), it is important for American voters to think critically about the information and arguments presented by these ads. An analysis of the rhetoric in four of the political campaign commercials of the 2008 presidential election reveals the different informal fallacies utilized to gain support for one of the candidates or misguide the public about the opposing candidate.

    Read More

  • Why We Should Not Commit Logical Fallacies

    981 Words  | 2 Pages

    Logical fallacies are tricks and illusions of thought. They are often very sneakily used by politicians and the media to fool people into thinking in a specific way. There are a lot of ways that people make terrible and invalid arguments. Making a good argument is about using logic to prove a conclusion based on some given facts. In a valid argument, the conclusion actually does follow from the facts. Unfortunately, this can go wrong in many ways. Facts don 't always support conclusions in the way an argument 's author thinks he does. Those not versed in logic are blissfully unaware of how much our brain messes up the most basic of arguments, leading to the mess of random thoughts, white lies, misinformation,

    Read More

  • Hillary Clinton Presidential Debate Essay

    1328 Words  | 3 Pages

    The arguer is intent on changing the other’s beliefs. Further, the arguer usually tries to refute the opponent by showing or invalidating the opponent’s viewpoint. In this first presidential debate, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton stated their claims and provided supporting facts to prove each is the better candidate for president. Both Donald and Hillary set out to sway more people to “their side” as they choose to be president of the United States. First, there is the content.

    Read More

  • Class Humanities 101 : Critical Reasoning

    1038 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the techniques that I would use the majority of time was the ad-hominem fallacy. I would use claims of similar circumstances that the other person previously did to justify my actions. This allowed me to appear to have a moral high ground for my arguments. While I did have facts to back up these claims to a moral high ground, they did not contribute anything to the discussion (Paul & Elder, 2012). It only put the other person on the defensive and opened a gateway for more intense arguments. This intensity, on ...

    Read More

  • The Formal Informal Fallacies

    824 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the first week of class, we discussed informal fallacies. An informal fallacy is defined as a logical mistake. Five of the informal fallacies discussed were equivocation, ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority, and secundum. Each of these fallacies is comparable to what happens in everyday life conversations. Through analyzing, one should be able to determine how these logical mistakes connect with our everyday lives.

    Read More

  • Presidential Debate Ethos Pathos Logos

    707 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rhetorical Analysis Presidential Debate Clinton and Trump The presidential debate was an event where most of the population not only of United Stated of America but the whole world was waiting anxiously for. The first of the three presidential debates was developed in Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. The first debate drew a record of the audience being one of the most watched debated in the history of United States of America.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Fallacies

    995 Words  | 2 Pages

    Fallacies Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the reasoning of your argument. Fallacies have different types like Begging the Claim, Ad hominem, Straw Man and more. and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. A writer or speaker should avoid these common fallacies in their arguments and watch for them in the arguments of others. Learning to identify and avoid fallacies is crucial for professionals in all fields of life, literature, science, politics, etc.

    Read More

  • Procedural Fairness: Baker Vs. Canada

    1244 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Zundel vs. Citron case explains bias as, “a state of mind that is in some way predisposed to a particular result or that is closed with regard to particular issues,” (Zundel vs. Citron). Due to the importance that bias can play in a decision, the courts have created a legal test to determine if it exists in any given situation. The test is, “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically – and having thought the matter through –

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Six-Legged Meat Of The Future

    1201 Words  | 3 Pages

    An example is “For instance, swine and humans are similar enough that they can share many diseases” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). The authors create a Hasty Generalization fallacy by concluding that because humans and swine are similar, they share diseases. Furthermore, this makes the audience feel lost because the authors do not provide evidence of how “swine and humans are similar” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Similarly, the author says that “Because insects are so different from us, such risks are accordingly lowered” (Dicke and Van Huis 345). Again, the author fails to provide a connection between how the risk of getting an infection is lowered because humans and insects are different. The authors also create a Hasty Generalization fallacy because they conclude that the risk of humans getting infected is lowered just because insects and humans are different. In summary, the use of fallacies without providing evidence and makes the readers feel

    Read More

  • Ad Hominem Argument For Research Paper

    300 Words  | 1 Pages

    Is a personal attack against your opponent instead of properly rebutting their point you in essence attack the person’s character. For intense. If I were to get up to make a speech under the topic that. Resolved: The U.S should be the world’s military power, and I as the affirmation stand up to give my speech. Instead of giving a clear or logical reason as to why their points don’t hold water, I would say. “We all know that we clearly can’t trust what my opponents have said, because they don’t believe the U.S should be the world’s military power. Therefore, they’re evil, and none of their points stand.” As we can see this is not a true rebuttal to the point, but a personal attack against your opponent

    Read More

  • Ad Hominem Fallacy

    1619 Words  | 4 Pages

    First, we should understand what Ad Hominem is. An Ad Hominem fallacy has many different meanings depend on the situation and the people in that case. The online dictionary states that this fallacy means "appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason, "or "attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.". According to Glen Whitman at Northridge University, "Ad Hominem is argument directed at the person. This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater." But in philosophy study at Lander University, Ad Hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument." Based on what I see in my personal life, this fallacy means that people judge each other's action by their emotions, experiences and what they are told about others rather than their actions, ideas or their abilities.

    Read More

More about Fallacies

Open Document