Philosophy Topic 3
Philosophy Topic 3
Philosophy Topic 3
3.0 Introduction
Learning Outcomes
It should be noted that logic differs with psychology in that it does not deal
with all types of thinking such as learning, remembering, day-dreaming,
supposing, but only with that type of thinking called “reasoning”.
You should remember that a logician is not concerned with why people think
in a certain way but with the formulation of rules that will enable us to test
whether any particular piece of reasoning is consistent and coherent, that
is, whether it is logical.
The study of logic is beneficial in that it will give you the learner:-
From the foregoing, you can see that through the study of logic, one can
acquire not only the practice in reasoning but also respect for reason.
Having defined logic and outlined its value, I would now like to turn your
attention to the next topic which is on the uses of language. Since we think
and reason in language, it is imperative that we understand the different
ways in which we use language. Welcome!
i. Informative Function
Pastor: ’Do you Peter take Mary to be your lawfully wedded wife, to love,
to cherish and to hold?’
Peter: ‘I do’ – these words spoken are equivalent to the action of Peter
taking Mary to be his wife.
Other examples of the performative use of language include things like:-
I congratulate you.
I sincerely apologize.
I suggest to you.
I put it to you, etc.
You should however, note that these functions of language are not
exclusive. This means that in any use of language, more than one function
may be used at the same time. For example, a poem is primarily expressive
but that does not mean that it cannot give us information.
Summary
In this topic, we have looked at the basic functions that language serves.
This is important because we communicate and reason through language.
It is therefore, useful to understand the functions of language so that you
can know what it is you are trying to put across so as to make your
arguments solid.
In the previous topics we have discussed logic and the uses of language
and we have noted that if there is an error in our reasoning or a problem
with our language, then our arguments will not be sound and we might end
up committing a fallacy. In this next topic therefore, I will take you through
the meaning of an argument, a fallacy, how we can commit fallacies and
how we can avoid them. What then is an argument?
Deductive Argument
A deductive argument is an argument where the conclusion follows
validly from the premises. In other words, this is an argument where the
truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. This means
that a deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the
premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows
necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed
to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion).
Like I have pointed out above, you can see that if the premises are true,
then simply it is not possible for the conclusion to be false. You should
note that, if you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of
the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if
you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.
Example:
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the
conclusion to be false because for example, Socrates may have been
allergic to fish or did not like fish. Words which tend to mark an argument
as inductive and hence make the conclusion probable rather than
necessary include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.
From the foregoing discussion, it may seem that inductive arguments are
weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the
possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely
true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained,
even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we do not arrive at
new information. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive
arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive Definition
You should note that an argument, whatever the subject matter is generally
constructed to prove that its conclusion is true. An argument whose
conclusion does not follow from the premises is one whose conclusion might
be false even if all its premises are true.
In cases like these, the reasoning is bad and the argument is said to be
fallacious, that is, you have committed a fallacy.
a) Formal fallacies
b) Informal fallacies
I would now like to welcome you to an analysis of the two categories of
fallacies. We are going to discuss what they are, how they are committed,
sample some of the fallacies and explain how we can avoid committing
them. Welcome!
3.3.2.2 Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies are also referred to as first class (1st Class) fallacies
or fallacies of relevance. In philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of
reasoning which is rendered invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure.
An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered to be
wrong.
These are therefore, fallacies that have to do with the logical aspects of
the arguments. They occur when we make conclusions that do not follow
the formal structures and rules of logical validity, that is, we arrive at
conclusions that do not follow from the premises.
When an argument relies upon premises that are not relevant to its
conclusion and that therefore, cannot possibly establish its truth, the fallacy
committed is one of relevance (Copi, I. 1990). This means that, fallacies of
relevance have premises which are logically irrelevant to their conclusion.
They are therefore, unable to establish the truth of their conclusion.
Formal fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
Traditionally, many fallacies have been given Latin names but we will give
an English translation for ease of understanding. Let us now turn our
attention to some of these fallacies of relevance.
When you argue that a proposition is true simply because it has not been
proved to be false or it is false simply because it has not been proved to be
true, you are committing the fallacy of ad ignorantiam. For instance, many
of us are opposed to great change on the grounds that it has not yet been
proved workable or safe. However, such proof is often impossible to
provide in advance. For example, when the technology for cutting and
recombining DNA (genetic engineering) was first started, most of its critics
were opposed to it on grounds of their ignorance of its long term
consequences, as shown in this letter to Science;
Example 1
Example 3
There is no life after death because no one has
ever died and come back to tell us.
Note that there is one special context in which the appeal to ignorance is
common and appropriate, namely, in a criminal court of law where an
accused person is ‘innocent until proved guilty’.
Example 1
Example 2
Coartem is the best treatment for malaria
because Raila Odinga says so.
This is one of the most commonly committed fallacies. It occurs when you
ask a question in such a way that presupposes that a definite answer has
already been given to a prior question which was not even asked! It is
called a complex question because it contains more than one question.
Example 1:
You should note that complex questions are unfair questions because
whichever way you answer them they will tend to fix you. Take the
example above. If you answer no, it means that you have been beating
your wife but you have now stopped. If you answer yes, it means that
you are still beating your wife.
Example 2:
Example 3
[Reporter's question] Mr. President: Are you going
to continue your policy of wasting taxpayer's money
on missile defense?
This question unfairly presumes the controversial claim
that the policy really is a waste of money.
The phrase “ad Hominen” when translated into English means, “against the
man”. This is a fallacy where the criticism is not directed at the conclusion
one wishes to deny, but at the person who has put the argument forward
(Ad Hominen, Abusive) or the circumstances of the person (Ad
Hominen, Circumstantial). This means that you attack the person or the
circumstances and not the argument.
a) Ad Hominen, Abusive
As noted above, this is a fallacy that we commit when we attack the person
and not the argument that we wish to discredit.
Example1
Example 2
The Argument ad Hominen, Circumstantial
Examples:-
Example 3
vi. Fallacy of Converse Accident
Examples
Kamau is a Kikuyu,
Kamau is a thief,
Therefore, all Kikuyu’s are thieves.
Wafula is a Luhya
Wafula is a cook and a watchman
Therefore, Luhya’s are cooks and watchmen
This fallacy is committed when we appeal to pity for the sake of getting a
conclusion accepted. This is a common fallacy especially in courts of law.
Example 1
Example 2
You should note that if you suggest that someone's claim is correct simply
because it is what almost everyone is coming to believe, you are using
the bandwagon fallacy. It is like saying, ‘Get up here with us on the
wagon where the band is playing, and go where we go, and do not think
too much about the reasons’.
Example 1
Example 2
The speeches of Adolph Hitler which brought his German
listeners to a state of patriotic frenzy are a classic example.
It should be noted that love for one’s country is honorable but
not when it is used to manipulate one’s audience as in the case
of Hitler’s speeches which led to the killing of about six million
Jews.
Example 1
Note that, in the Petitio Principii Fallacy, the premise is not irrelevant to
the conclusion but it is logically irrelevant to the purpose of proving the
conclusion. The conclusion asserts only what was asserted in the premises.
Example 2
Summary
In this topic, we have defined logic and discussed its value in the life of an
individual. We have also defined a fallacy, looked at the classification of
fallacies and sampled some of the fallacies of relevance. As noted earlier,
there are many more different fallacies of relevance but what I have done
in this topic is to give you an overview of these fallacies so that you can
have a general idea of what they entail. For more information on the
other fallacies of relevance you can go to the links provided below.
www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Petitio Principii - Philosophy Home Page
philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html
Self-Assessment
1). Define Logic
2). Explain the value of studying logic
3). Define an argument and discuss the different types arguments
4). Define a fallacy and explain the different classifications of fallacies.
5). By the use of relevant examples, discuss five fallacies of relevance.
6). Explain the difference between the Ad populum fallacy and the ad
misericordiam fallacy.
7). Explain how you can avoid fallacies.
8). By the use of examples, discuss the different uses of language
Activity
Reflect on the fallacies we have studied and consider whether you have
fallen into any of their pitfalls. Explain how you committed them.