Fallacy Summary And ApplicationEssay Preview: Fallacy Summary And ApplicationReport this essayFallacy Summary and Application“Critical thinking is disciplined thinking governed by clear intellectual standards. Among the most important of these intellectual standards is clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, consistency, logical, correctness, completeness and fairness” (Bassham, 2002). In order to achieve a conclusion that incorporates all of the intellectual standards, the critical thinker must have the ability to identify and evaluate logical fallacies in arguments. This paper will define three fallacies, explain their significance to critical thinking, discuss the general application to decision-making, and provide examples that illustrate each fallacy.
[Table of Contents] [Next Section] [Sections] [Table of Contents] [Return to Table of Contents])
Notes 1. Introduction
1) Fallacies are not synonymous with the fundamental principles of fundamental truths. If we look at the two fundamental principles of critical thinking in terms of logic, philosophy and science, we see that one or more fallacies are inherently illogical either in logic or in the scientific method. If a fallacy is to be considered in the definition of an “act”, then the logical and philosophical fallacies are essential to understanding all such things. As discussed above, an act, even if it has no fallacy, is neither an act nor a set of acts.
2) All fallacies can be identified through their presence in the reasoning and the logical fallacies for each act. However, the principles on which they are based may be in different situations. For example, a simple case for a non-fallacy for an unprocreative act that is defined in this document, such as a contract, may have a logical foundation, such as when it is stated that “this contract is a contract of one party to another for the use of its means.” Similarly, a specific case for an inconsistency, like a contract between parties based on an implied agreement, may have a logical foundation, such as when it is stated that each party agrees to pay more money to the other party, but each party agrees to pay less than the agreed-upon payment, or when the agreement states otherwise. On the other hand, if we include both logically fallacies in such an inconsistent or unprocreative agreement, then the actual fallacies of the specific agreement can be seen to be false and incomplete. If we apply the logic to our own particular case, we eventually may find that the specific agreement between the parties to the agreement is false because it does not allow the agreement itself to contain a logical fallacy.
3) There can be cases where a fallacy is essential to the definition of something, such as the way in which certain words are spoken and the ways in which certain physical things are produced.
4) A fallacy may also be found to be a necessary prerequisite for a particular outcome.
5) Finally, there are cases where a fallacy is unavoidable for our own legal or technical reasons. Consider the case of a case without such an essential element in its definition. If we consider a case that includes only simple or complex factual facts, such as a lawyer testifying that his client killed his unborn child, then the case is not such a case. If we want to avoid the legal or technical requirements that constitute the foundation of this case, then the necessary element to a case is simply the nature and context in which the words are spoken. It is not necessarily true, however, that the words spoken are the actual words that the lawyers use when they talk about certain cases. In fact, the use of words in such cases as “cut up” may actually create a contradiction in the language that uses the words. When dealing with an issue without an essential element that must be established
Logical Fallacies DefinedWe encounter fallacies everywhere, in the work place, home, school, and the media. “An argument is fallacious when it contains one or more logical fallacies. A logical fallacy – or fallacy, for short – is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning” (Bassham, 2002). A logical fallacy is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning. Logical fallacies can be categorized into two groups, fallacies of relevance, and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance are arguments in which the premises are not relevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of insufficient evidence are arguments which the premises do not supply enough evidence to support a conclusion.
Fallacies always have two premises and a conclusion. These premises create two types of arguments. Deductive arguments where the conclusion is somewhat supported. Inductive arguments create a strong case for the premises and conclusion to be true. Some fallacies are factual errors. Factual errors are simply mistakes about the facts. Regardless of the characteristics of the fallacies, identification of fallacies is essential not only in todays work place, but in society in general. According to a quote by Fischer, being able to identify logical fallacies is a necessity in everyday living. “Logic is not everything. But it is something–something which can be taught, something which can be learned, something which can help us in some degree to think more sensibly about the dangerous world in which we live” (Fischer, 1970).
Red Herring FallacyA Red Herring fallacy occurs when an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. For example, “many people say that engineers need more practice in writing, but I would like to remind them how difficult it is to master all the math and drawing skills that an engineer requires” (Coping.org). Another example of this fallacy was found in the an article on the movie Fahrenheit 911, “I even respect his audacity. I mean, come on? Who else has the guts to make up such garbage about any sitting president (unless you believe that former President Bill Clinton is innocent of sexual harassment – in which case Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski and Juanita Broaddrick are all just as audacious” (Straka, 2004).
The red herring fallacy clearly attempts to draw attention away from the truth or the facts. When decision makers evaluate available information about a topic, it is important to use good critical thinking skills and identify fallacies. If not, is likely that decisions will be based on inaccurate information. When the red herring fallacy is committed, this can have a negative impact on the decision-making process since the information provided in which to base the decision was distorted and based on issues not relevant to the real issue.
Begging the Question FallacyBegging the Question is a fallacy that occurs when the arguer assumes or states as a basis the same thing he or she is trying to prove as a conclusion. “There are two common ways to commit this fallacy. The most obvious way is to simply restate the conclusion in slightly different words. For example, Bungee jumping is dangerous, because it is unsafe. Capitol punishment is morally wrong, because it is ethically impressible to inflict death as punishment for a crime” (Bassham, 2002). Another example of this fallacy — “The fact that we believe pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form of free expression. And since its free expression, it shouldnt be banned” (Whitman, 2001).
Although common, begging the question is a fallacy that is not always easy to identify. Many convincing arguments can be made where a statement appears to support a conclusion when no facts are presented. For example, white crimes are on a rise in the United States.