Part II:
Watching out against the material fallacies - 1
Practically every language textbook cautions us against the logical fallacies, which have bedeviled mankind from the very beginning and even long after Aristotle had painstakingly classified them and had cautioned us against them over 2,400 years ago. Logical fallacies are those errors in our judgment that often result from fuzzy thinking, errors that—on hindsight—we sometimes can correct not long after. For political ends, however, some propaganda practitioners have developed the art of using language to deceive and to deliberately trap us into making such judgment errors. This is the danger that logical fallacies foist on our everyday lives.
Logical fallacies are of three broad categories: material or informal fallacies, fallacies of relevance, and verbal fallacies. Let’s see how they operate to befuddle the minds of even supposedly rational thinkers, including ourselves.
is an illogical statement that weakens an argument
Material or informal fallacies
We present an argument through two basic tools of language: premises and presuppositions. Our premises are what we start our arguments with; to be believable, of course, these arguments must be self-evident or already part of so-called “common knowledge.” For instance, everybody accepts as true—as a “given”—that the sun rises from the east. What we should be wary about such presuppositions is that we often take them for granted based on blind faith alone. They generally cannot be proved or disproved at the moment they are presented.
Take this sweeping statement: “More people die in cities than anywhere else. Therefore, living in the city will hasten your death.” The material fallacy here is assuming that one outcome is caused by another just because one happens after the other, but the two outcomes could be both caused by another event, or, as in this case, they could be totally unrelated. Indeed, a conclusion isn’t adequately proven when the premises of an argument contain wrong presuppositions—a wrongness that could be artfully obscured by astute propagandists or by well-versed academic debaters.
Taking these caveats into account, let’s now formally look into nine of the most common kinds of material or informal fallacies: false cause, hasty generalization, misapplied generalization, false dilemma, compound question, false analogy, contradictory premises, circular reasoning, and insufficient or suppressed evidence.
False cause. The first example of material fallacy given above is of this kind—it assumes that an event is caused by another event simply because it happens after the latter: “More people die in cities than anywhere else. Therefore, living in the city will hasten your death.” Statistically, because of the denser populations of cities, more people do die in cities than in the countrysides. However, this is only because there are much more numerous city dwellers than countryside dwellers who will eventually die whether from natural or other causes. It doesn’t follow though that living in the city will hasten your death. For instance, if you are a sickly person, the modern medical facilities of city hospitals could very well prolong your life rather than hasten your demise.
The most common false-cause fallacies are superstitions. Despite being well-educated, for instance, many people fall prey to this absurd false-cause belief: “Never proceed on your way when a black cat crosses your path. It is bad luck and many people actually died when they ignored that omen.” It just could have happened that sometime in the past, perhaps one or two people died from one cause or another after proceeding when a black cat crossed their path, but this doesn’t mean that this is a sure outcome of that eventuality.
Also common is the false-cause fallacy of chain letters like this one: “Juan de la Cruz didn’t forward his copy of this particular e-mail to three other people, and three days later Juan died.” Who among us has not been taken in by this veiled threat?
Part II:
Watching out against the material fallacies - 2
We first took up false cause as among the nine most common kinds of material fallacies. The fallacy of false cause wrongly assumes that one outcome is caused by another just because one happens after the other, when the two outcomes could be both caused by another event, or they could be totally unrelated. This time we’ll discuss the fallacies of hasty generalization, misapplied generalization, false dilemma, and compound question.
Hasty generalization. We fall victim to this fallacy when we make a general rule based on only a few examples, or on examples that are really exceptions. Take this statement: “His parents were great public administrators; therefore, he will be a great administrator, too.” The hasty generalization here is presuming that the traits and skills for good public administration can be passed on genetically to one’s offsprings without fail. If this were true, then all a country needs to do to be administered well perpetually is to breed a family—nay, a dynasty—of genetically excellent public administrators. We all know that this remains a pipe dream for all nations all over the world.
Misapplied generalization. When we misapply a certain generalization to a specific case that’s actually an exception to the rule, that generalization becomes materially fallacious. Look at this generalization: “Vegetables are nutritious; therefore, this piece of cabbage must be nutritious.” Cabbage is nutritious, of course, but maybe that particular cabbage you’d like to cook may already be rotten and no longer edible—hence, no longer nutritious.
Here’s an even more scalding generalization: “The graduates of X University have not worked hard and made a genuine effort in college, so they cannot keep any of their appointments and present carelessly written papers.” The fallacy here is that while the accusation may be true of certain students, it may not apply with respect to all the students of X University in general. It would have been fairer and more accurate to specifically address the accusation to—and rebuke—the students who were actually guilty of such academic transgressions.
False dilemma. Who has not been fascinated by the sensuous sell? “I allow only X [bathing soap, body lotion, intimate ointment] to touch my skin.” “I wear Y [briefs, panties, jeans] or nothing at all.” This materially fallacious argument prods us to overlook alternative possibilities, thus creating a false dilemma for us.
The false dilemma is also called the “either-or fallacy”—the choice is made to look like a dilemma when there are actually other viable alternatives. For example, someone respectable may have demonstrated an apparent skill in correctly predicting the outcome of horse races. Can the following statement then be made about that person? “Either that man’s a fraud or he’s psychic. Since it’s obvious he’s not a fraud, he must be truly psychic.” This is committing the fallacy of false dilemma, however, for it’s also possible that he’s a respectable person demonstrating psychic powers fraudulently, or he’s a fraudulent person who truly possesses psychic powers.
Compound question. Who has not yet encountered aggressive door-to-door preachers who, when politely told that you’re too busy, would tell you this in an aggrieved, mildly threatening tone: “You mean to say that you dare refuse God to enter your house?” This is the classic compound question, otherwise called the complex question or loaded question, devilishly phrased to limit the possibilities of one’s answer. Its simpler variation is the so-called persuasive definition, which deceptively fashions the terms of the argument to support the conclusion.
Also called “poisoning the well,” the compound question is designed to prevent or avoid any opposing arguments and incriminates the answerer regardless of the response he or she gives. This is because any answer would admit the preliminary conclusions built into the question.
Part II:
Watching out against the material fallacies - 3
We’ve already discussed five of the most common kinds of material fallacies—false cause, hasty generalizations, misapplied generalizations, false dilemma, and compound generalization—so we’ll now proceed to the remaining four: false analogy, contradictory premises, circular reasoning, and insufficient or suppressed evidence.
False analogy. When an analogy is drawn between dissimilar or totally unrelated objects or ideas, the result is the false, unreliable analogy that’s better known as the mangoes-and-bananas comparison: “Bananas are as delicious and tasty as mangoes.” But here’s a more complex, deceiving example: “Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is.” On closer scrutiny, we find this analogy to be false because minds (abstract) and rivers (physical) are actually totally dissimilar and unrelated objects.
We all know how powerful an analogy could be. It can persuade us to transfer the feeling of certainty we have about one subject to another subject that we may not have an opinion yet. But we must be extremely cautious with such analogies because they rely on the questionable principle that because two things are similar in some respects, they’d be similar in some other respects. Indeed, when relevant differences outweigh relevant similarities, a false analogy results.
Contradictory premises. A basic rule in logic is that a conclusion is valid only when its premises don’t contradict one another; thus, an argument with conflicting or inconsistent premises is automatically invalid, as in this classical question: “What will happen if an irresistible force meets an immovable object?” The fallacy here is that in a universe where an irresistible force exists, no immovable object could also exist because it would negate the existence of that irresistible force.
Two more of these brain-bending fallacies: “Into what shape of a slot would a rectangular circle fit?” “If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so huge and so heavy that He cannot lift it?” The premises of both of these questions can’t be valid, so there’s really no way of logically answering them.
Circular reasoning. This material fallacy results when the assertion to be proved is later used in the argument as an already-proven fact. Also known as “begging the question” (petitio principii in Latin), circular reasoning is common even among the intelligent; people just have a natural predisposition to it.
We sometimes engage in varying degrees of self-deception to keep our self-respect or massage our egos: “I must be good-looking because I really think so.” “Although I take bribes as a government official, I’m a man of integrity because I treat people well and give generously to charity.” (Clearly, though, charity and kindness of this type don’t prove integrity.)
Circular reasoning becomes dangerous when large sectors of the population actively pursue it as a way of life and as communal pastime: “He will be a good president because he’s already extremely wealthy and will have no more motivation to pocket public funds.”
Insufficient or suppressed evidence. This is the material fallacy that (1) uses as proof only the facts that support the predetermined conclusion, or (2) disregards or ignores all other pertinent facts. A loyal handmaiden of circular reasoning, this form of illogic gently prods people to close their minds to contrary evidence and decide solely on gut-feel.
Take these two examples: “This buffoon makes me laugh so I’ll vote for him as president; he has no public service experience, but he’s a fast learner so I’m sure he’ll learn to govern fast enough.” “We’ve had bright lawyer-presidents who just misgoverned our country terribly, so this time I’m voting for any trustworthy nonlawyer even with low IQ.”
We’ll move on next time to the second broad category of logical fallacies—the fallacies of relevance.
Next: Watching out against the fallacies of relevance September 1, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment