Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal To Force
Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal To Force
Fallacies of Relevance: Appeal To Force
Relevance
The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic
that the arguments in which they occur have premises that
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises
may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion
may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does
not follow logically.
Appeal to Force
(Argumentum ad Baculum: Appeal to the “Stick”)
Appeal to Pity
(Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
Up until the late 16th century, most people believed that the
earth was the center of the universe. This was seen as
enough of a reason back then to accept this as true.
Ad Ad Ad
Hominem Hominem Hominem
(Abusive) (Circumstantial) (To Quoque)
Attacking the person Suggesting that the Claiming the argument
making the argument, person who is making the is flawed by pointing out
rather than the argument is biased or that the one making the
argument itself, when predisposed to take a argument is not acting
the attack on the person particular stance, and consistently with the
is completely irrelevant therefore, the argument claims of the argument.
to the argument the is necessarily invalid.
person is making. Helga: You should not be
eating that... it has been
scientifically proven that
My opponent suggests that Of course, your minister says
eating fat burgers are no good
lowering taxes will be a good he believes in God. He would
for your health.
idea -- this is coming from a be unemployed otherwise.
Hugh: You eat fat burgers all
woman who eats a pint of
the time so that can’t be true.
Ben and Jerry’s each night!
Fallacies of
Relevance
The fallacies of relevance share the common characteristic
that the arguments in which they occur have premises that
are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Yet the premises
may appear to be psychologically relevant, so the conclusion
may seem to follow from the premises, even though it does
not follow logically.
Accident
(a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid)
Straw Man
Substituting a person’s actual position
or argument with a distorted,
exaggerated, or misrepresented
version of the position of the
argument.
Zebedee: What is your view on the Christian God?
Mike: I don’t believe in any gods, including the Christian one.
Zebedee: So you think that we are here by accident, and all this design in
nature is pure chance, and the universe just created itself?
Mike: You got all that from me stating that I just don’t believe in any
gods?
Argument Against
Red the Person
Herring
(Argumentum ad Hominem)
Attempting to redirect the argument to
This fallacy always involvesanother issue One
two arguers. to which the(either
of them person doingorthe
directly
redirecting can better respond. While
implicitly) a certain argument, and the other then responds by directing his it is
or her attention not to the similar to the
first person’s avoidingbut
argument theto issue fallacy,
the first personthe
himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an of
red herring is a deliberate diversion
attention withargument
the intention
against ofthe trying
person. to
abandon the original argument.
Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth
would you have done that?
Ken: But what is morality exactly?
Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.
Ken: But who creates this code?...
Fallacies of
Weak Induction
The fallacies of weak induction occur not because the
premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion, as is the
case with the eight fallacies of relevance, but because the
connection between premises and conclusion is not strong
enough to support the conclusion.
Appeal to Ignorance
The assumption of a conclusion or fact
based primarily on lack of evidence to
the contrary. Usually best described
by, “absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.”
Although we have proven that the moon is not made
of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot
be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled
with spare ribs.
Hasty Generalization
Argument Against
Falsethe Person
Cause
(Argumentum ad Hominem)
This fallacy always involves two arguers. One of them (either directly or
implicitly) a certain argument,Concluding that
and the other then one thing
responds caused
by directing his
or her attention not to the another,
first person’ssimply
argumentbecause they
but to the first are
person
himself. When this occurs, the second
regularly person is said to commit an
associated.
argument against the person.
Slippery Slope
Weak Analogy
When an analogy is used to prove or
disprove an argument, but the analogy
is too dissimilar to be effective, that is,
it is unlike the argument more than it is
like the argument.
Complex Question
A question that has a presupposition built in,
which implies something but protects the
one asking the question from accusations of
false claims. It is a form of misleading
discourse, and it is a fallacy when the
audience does not detect the assumed
information implicit in the question and
accepts it as a fact.
How many school shootings should we tolerate before
we change the gun laws?
False Dichotomy
When only two choices are presented yet
more exist, or a spectrum of possible
choices exists between two extremes.
False dichotomy are usually
characterized by “either this or that”
language, but can also be characterized
by omissions of choices.
I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at
church today.
ArgumentSuppressed
Against the Person
Evidence
(Argumentum ad Hominem)
When only select evidence is presented
This fallacy always involvesintwo arguers.
order to One of them the
persuade (either directly or to
audience
implicitly) a certain argument,accept
and the other
a position, and evidence his
then responds by directing that
or her attention not to the first person’s argument but to the first person
would go against the position is withheld.
himself. When this occurs, the second person is said to commit an
The stronger argument
the withheld evidence,
against the person.the
more fallacious the argument.
My political candidate gives 10% of his income to the
needy, goes to church every Sunday, and volunteers one
day a week at a homeless shelter. Therefore, he is honest and
morally straight.
Equivocation
Amphiboly
Composition
Inferring that something is true of the whole from
the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. In
other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued
that because the parts have a certain attribute, it
follows that the whole has that attribute, too, and
the situation is such that the attribute in question
cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to
whole.
Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules are not the
source of consciousness. Therefore, your brain cannot be
the source of consciousness.
Division
Inferring that something is true of one or
more of the parts from the fact that it is
true of the whole. The fallacy is
committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous
transference of an attribute from a whole
(or a class) onto its parts (or members).