Logical FallaciesJoin now to read essay Logical FallaciesLogical FallaciesLogical fallacies have existed since the dawn of time. As defined by Bassham et al a logical fallacy “is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning.” With this definition one must keep in mind that the definition of an argument according to Bassham et al is “a claim put forward and defended by reasons.” The ability to recognize logical fallacy will enable one to break down an argument. This ability is crucial to the critical thinking process.
Logical fallacies can be broken in to two categories; Fallacies of relevance and Fallacies of insufficient evidence. According to the philosophypages web site, Fallacies of relevance “clearly fail to provide adequate reason for believing the truth of their conclusions.” Fallacies such as; Staw Man, Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum), Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) and Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) are Fallacies of relevance whereas Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) and Weak Analogy are Fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallaices of insufficient evidence are “fallacies in which the premises, though relevant to the conclusion, fail to provide sufficient evidence for the conclusion.” (philosophypages, 2001) Fallacies such as Appeal to Force (argumentum ad baculum), Appeal to Pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) and Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) were “identified by medieval and renaissance logicians, whose Latin names for them have passed into common use.” (philosophypages, 2001)
The straw man fallacy occurs when a person on one side of an issue distorts the position of an opponent on the other side of an issue so that the issue can be easily attacked. The Nizkor Project says that “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a persons actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.” The straw man fallacy is widely used in society and is also sometimes very difficult to notice when this fallacy is being used. In fact most of us use this type of fallacy in our daily lives. Take for example, this seemingly innocent discussion between Bill and Jill about cleaning out a closet as written on the Nizkor Project web page.
Although the Nizkor Project is not a 501(c)(3). Their website boasts that they do not exist. In fact they do live in Washington state, so they seem to be somewhat of an oddity. They’re also part of a small army who just seem to have a habit of being very busy. We know that the people who own this site are extremely knowledgeable about some areas of the government in general, but more specifically, on federal legislation as a whole. These people also seem to make several very interesting remarks about some highly-respected and controversial organizations such as a new law that would require insurance plans to cover birth control, gay marriage and so on. They also seem to mention that some of the very important and influential people on the Internet in general are also the same people whose words they used to express their views, but not about Bill and Jill. Perhaps this is why we are, in fact, so frequently confronted by the following people who say the very opposite of the Nizkor Project is true;
A. Nizkor Project staff member
The members of the Nizkor Project are, quite literally, “niggers.” nigs don’t come in at all. Rather than saying “they’re all nuts” they are simply referring to themselves as “niggers.” nigs are, in fact, the people who actually know those nigs. nigs who are involved also don’t come regularly to meetings, and I myself find that it is relatively unusual for people to “mourn” and/or gush over the people who actually have a real problem with Nizkor Project policies or policy issues. When I asked the Nizkor Project what their official policy is regarding Nizkor Project actions, they would only state that “when one person decides that Nizkor Project policy or policy doesn’t fit in a way, such as by making that person’s views public, then the Nizkor Project promptly dismisses that person.” I know this just about everybody, though it is strange that someone should make such blatantly false statements. I mean, that’s not like they don’t have a lot of work to do if they are saying that Nizkor Project policy is the wrong one to issue, if they even make any such statements.
As with any major political issue and issue, it is often a good idea to question an Nizkor Project official. They may have different policy positions, perhaps because they have a background in the subject, but are still fairly new to our political dialogue, maybe because we’ve been taught that one can only come out whenever one has to talk about some particular topic, or maybe they have some degree of experience in politics and policy, maybe because they already think we have
“Jill: We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy.Bill: Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?Jill: I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous.”Politicians are infamous for the use of the Straw Man fallacy as this fallacy diverts the attention of the audience from one topic to another at the blink of an eye. Here is another example from the Nizkor Project web page “Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I cant understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that.” It is important that one understands how to recognize when the Straw Man fallacy is being used against him or her. Understanding when the Straw Man fallacy is being used, will give the critical thinker will be ability to assess whether or not the argument is legitimate, allowing the critical thinker to make a more informed decision. If the Straw Man fallacy is not recognized the critical thinker may make a decision based on fallacious information.
“The Appeal to Inappropriate Authority: Argument Ad Verecundiam. An argument commits the fallacy of the appeal to inappropriate authority (ad verecundiam) when the argument is based on an appeal to the opinion of someone who has no legitimate claim to authority to the topic being discussed. Clear examples of inappropriate appeal to authority appear in advertising “testimonials:” famous athletes endorsing products that have nothing to do with their area of competence.” (campus.murraystate) Much like the Straw Man fallacy the Inappropriate Appeal to Authority is commonly used in advertising. Turn to any channel on the television and one can find a product being endorsed by a celebrity. It is implied that the celebrity is an expert. One must question if the celebrity is truly an expert on the product he or she is endorsing. Take for instance Michael Jordan trying to sell underwear, or Joe Namath advertising panty hose. Is either of these sports figures experts on the product? Does either of these sports figures wear the product they are endorsing? Most likely not, however; their status makes the product appealing to the audience thereby increasing sales.
Another classic example of the inappropriate appeal to authority is sited by Fallacyfiles.org.