1213: Logical Fallacies
Strawman
Your writer has committed the Strawman Fallacy when he
ignores his opposition’s actual position and constructs an exaggerated version
of that position to argue with instead – as if, instead of arguing with his
real opponent, he were to argue with a strawman version.
Alison: I think school children ought to be
given healthier meals at school.
Jack: You health nuts! You won’t be happy
until we’re feeding kids nothing but tofu and and bran! What kid is even going
to want to eat that junk, I ask you?
Alison: Well, what do you want to give
them? A bowl of sugar and a spoon? That would be fine with you?
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (or False Cause)
Your writer has committed this fallacy when they confuse
correlation with cause. Simply because one thing follows another thing or
occurs around the time another thing occurs does not necessarily mean that A
caused B. That is, just because the leaves fall on the sidewalk in the autumn
and shortly thereafter cracks appear in the sidewalks does not mean that
falling leaves make the sidewalks crack. Some other force may be at work.
Hank the Cow Dog Fallacy:
Hank the Cow Dog believes that he barks the sun up each morning. (Well, he
barks, right? And the sun comes up? What more do you want?)
Or: “Allowing citizens to
carry handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed
right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980’s, the number of multiple-victim public
shootings have other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. ” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, 2000
Ad hominem
Your writer has committed the ad hominem fallacy when he
attacks the person making the argument rather than arguing with the facts or
with the argument itself. Whenever someone is reduced to calling names or
making personal attacks, you want to be nervous the value of their work as a
source.
The only legitimate attack upon a person is to call into
question their credentials – that is, to say that this person is not qualified
to be writing upon this topic. That’s not ad hominem: that’s to the point.
Ad hominem: “Who cares what
Ann Coulter says? She’s just a scrawny old bulimic.”
Or: “Michael Moore should
shut up and go on a diet.”
Hasty Generalization
Your writer commits this one when he makes a conclusion
based on a very small body of evidence. For instance, does watching too much TV
make kids fat? Heavens no! My twin nephews watch TV ten to twelve hours a day,
and they’re skinny as rails!
That’s a hasty generalization. You can’t conclude anything
from a sample based on my twin nephews, who are (in fact) little hyperactive
speed demons. One data point is not enough. Even fifteen is enough. Fifty might
be, depending on how representative they are. Always check where your writer
got his data and how general it is.
Argument from Authority
This one is tricky. It’s when people assert that something
is true because an Authority says
it’s true. Well, okay. But check carefully into that authority. Do you accept
the authority?
For instance, in the scholarly community, we tend to accept
the authority of the peer-reviewed
journal, but not like they were, for instance, handed down by God Almighty.
That is, we accept that authority, but we question it. We argue with it. We
understand it can be wrong.
And speaking of God Almighty, we only cite the Bible as an authority in papers when we
are writing for an audience that also accepts that Bible as an authority. Some
people accept the Christian Bible as an authority. Others don’t – some people
are Buddhists. Some believe in the Koran. Others are atheists. So citing the
Bible as an authority in a text only works when you are certain your audience
is composed of fellow Christians – and only then when you were certain those
Christians were of the same sect you come from, since various sects of
Christianity interpret that text in different ways.
Then there’s using anecdotal
evidence – this is evidence where you
are the authority. The trouble with this evidence is that you can only cite
yourself and your experience, and your experience is only your own. Your reader
is in no position to test it – has no way to check your source. It’s worth
something, but you should use it sparingly and carefully.
False Dilemma (Either /Or)
This is when your writer pretends we have only two choices. Either
we put fluoride in our water supply or everyone’s teeth will fall out! Well,
there’s almost always more than two choices, and anytime anyone says “either….or…”
to you your alarms should go off.
Appeal to Pity
This is when your writer plays on your heart-strings. Now
any decent writer will appeal to your pity – will give you human details in an
attempt to appeal to your heart – it’s when the writer gives you nothing but
sob-story, or nothing but demagoguery (i.e. does nothing but attempt to outrage
you with vicious attacks on his opposition) that you want to start doubting his
use as a source.
Example: If you’ve seen the
videos that demonstrate the horrible conditions under which pigs and other
animals are kept and under which they are slaughtered – these are effective
appeals to pity. They don’t, however, add much to the debate about whether
animals should have legal rights.
Begging the Question
This is not what it sounds like. This is when, instead of
proving his point, your writer simply assumes his point, and goes on from
there. So, let’s say your writer wants to prove that spanking kids makes them
behave better. If he was begging the question, his argument might go like this:
Kids who don’t get
spanked are brats. If you don’t want brats around, you need to spank early and
often. Every time I’m at the Wal-Mart, I’m surrounded by wailing brats. Whale
on them, I say. Enough with the brats!
No attempt here is made to prove that smacking a kid will
de-brattify it. The writer simply asserts his point, and then re-asserts it. That’s
begging the question --otherwise known as arguing in a circle. That doesn’t
prove anything, and won’t convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.
Biased Sample
Suppose you wanted to find out the percentage of folk in
Fort Smith who wanted to repeal the blue laws that make selling alcohol illegal
on Sunday. And suppose you did your survey in a bar on Saturday night.
That there’s a biased sample fallacy. Watch our for your
writer’s sources. Look for biased samples.
No comments:
Post a Comment