Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Philo 1: Fallacies (a) (b) one step or action is taken it will invariably lead to similar steps or

actions, the end results of which are negative or undesirable; always

Fallacies are product of incorrect reasoning. (Non Sequitur) 𝑃→𝑄 𝑃→𝑄 assume a chain reaction of cause-effect events which result in some
The premise set does not lead to the conclusion set. 𝑄______ ~𝑃______ eventual dire outcome.
∴𝑃 ∴ ~𝑄 c. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence: premises fail to provide adequate
Types: evidence for the conclusion
1. Formal: based on structure; validity is the issue i. Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Popular Sentiment/Appeal to
a. Affirming the Consequent (wrong form of Modus Pollens) Popularity/Bandwagon Fallacy): assuming that the conclusion is
b. Denying the Antecedent (wrong form of Modus Tollens) proven because people in general believe it to be true
2. Informal: based on the content; soundness is the issue ii. Appeal to Tradition: persuading others of a certain belief by appealing
a. Fallacies of Ambiguity: intended meaning is not clear to their feelings of reverence or respect for some tradition, instead of
i. Fallacy of Equivocation: given word or phrase may have more than one giving rational basis for such belief
meaning iii. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate
ii. Fallacy of Amphiboly (Syntactic Ambiguity): meaning of word is Authority/Appeal to General Eminence/Appeal to a Famous
indeterminate because of the loose or awkward way by which its words Person): persuading others by appealing to people who command
are combined respect or authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at
iii. Fallacy of Improper Accent: false conclusion due to misplaced accent hand
iv. Fallacy of Vicious Abstraction: misleading the people by using vague iv. Accident: one applies a general rule to exceptional cases
or abstract terms v. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization: the quantity of the evidence is not
b. Fallacies of Relevance: evidence is of the wrong kind in order to establish a commensurate with the scope and the importance of the conclusion
conclusion. being drawn. (Sometimes associated with Converse Accident)
i. Argumentum ad Hominem (Argument Against the Person) vi. Fallacy of Division: treating a collective attribute distributively
1. Abusive (Appeal to Personality/Poisoning the Well): attack on the vii. Fallacy of Composition: treating distributed characteristics as if it were
person’s personality. collective.
2. Circumstantial Argument Against the Person: the circumstance viii. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to Ignorance): a statement is
of the person’s life are such that he/she could be expected to hold true because it cannot be proven false and vice-versa
exactly those views. ix. False Cause: when A is identified to cause B with insufficient grounds
3. Tu Quoque or “You-Too Argument”: attempt to defend one’s self to justify the causal relationship.
by making a counter-charge against the accuser. x. Complex Question asking a question in such a way that if one answers
ii. Appeal to Emotions the question as stated, one is at least assenting to (or dissenting from) at
1. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity): persuading the least one statement assumed by the question.
people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy with such xi. Black or White Fallacy (Fallacy of False Dilemma): one assumes that
feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to the there are only two contrary alternatives available, ignoring the
arguer’s conclusion possibility of other alternatives between contraries.
2. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force): persuading others xii. False Analogy: drawing a comparison between two or more things
to accept a position by using threat or pressure instead of presenting where a significant difference exists between them
evidence for one’s view d. Other Fallacies
3. Appeal to Desire: ignoring the issue by appealing to the desires, i. Fallacy of Contradictory Premises: argues on the basis of premises
interests or passions of the people to get the conclusion accepted that make up a contradiction or a paradox
iii. Straw-Man Fallacy (Straw Person Fallacy): a) one misrepresents the ii. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: offers a poorly supported claim about
position that one wishes to oppose and b) one attacks the misrepresented what might have happened in the past or future, if (the hypothetical part)
position as if it were the real position one wishes to oppose circumstances or conditions were different; also entails treating future
iv. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question/Circular Argument): when a hypothetical situations as if they are fact
given statement is offered as evidence that the very statement is true
v. Slippery Slope: an argument that suggests taking a minor action will
lead to major and sometimes ludicrous consequences; suggests that if