Are You Playing the Fool?
Part 5 -- The ARM Fallacies, General
posted almost 14 years ago
Informal Logic
ARM: Broad Categories of Fallacies
Most informal fallacies fall under three broad categories: Ambiguity, Relevance, and Motive. This is a general discussion, so we won't go into specific fallacies here, though they may of course be mentioned in the comments. This is just to point out the more common flaws in reasoning that have to do with fallacies.
Ambiguity
The fallacy of equivocation is included in this category, but generally deals with formal logic. However, any time a word or phrase or proposition is unclear, it may lead to an unreliable conclusion. If it leads to a false conclusion, then the fallacy is one of ambiguity.
For example:
'It's good to be nice. It's not nice to be hurt others. Bad ideas can hurt others, and we should try to put a stop to that. We should help people who can't help themselves. Therefore, we should make it illegal to teach kids about the Bible until they reach the age of consent.'
The arguer uses extremely vague statements, and then arrives at an extreme conclusion that is not supported by the premises. The arguer clearly makes the [ill?]logical leap(s) that reading the Bible to children is harmful, and that the government should intervene to restrict the activities of parents ('bad people') who would do that. The argument could benefit from narrower definitions about the words 'nice,' 'good,' 'hurt,' 'bad,' 'ideas,' 'others,' 'we,' 'should,' 'stop,' 'people,' 'can't,' 'help,' and 'age of consent.'
Ambiguity is problematic when someone has convinced themselves of something but lacks the argumentative tactfulness to help others see their logic, for the purpose of determining whether it is sound or not. 'Weasel Words' are ambiguous statements that make a statement look impressive, but actually carries little meaning, since the words have not been defined, and can therefore mean something that actually undermines the argument if clarified.
If an argument is directed at an opponent's position and fails to actually address the position itself, then regardless of what is said, the position remains, unrefuted. You cannot refute something without addressing it.
Example:
Claimant:
1. The Bible gives us the only sound source for morality and absolute truth.
2. Without a source for these things, then there is no reason to be moral or to believe that absolute truth exists.
3. If the Bible were not true, then there would be no reason to be moral, and it would be impossible to acquire knowledge.
4. Everyone by nature assumes that there is morality and absolute truth; moreover, people consistently act in accordance with the belief that this is the case.
5. Therefore, the Bible must be true.
Refutant:
1. You weren't there to see the Bible being written.
2. If you can't observe something being written, you can't be sure that the person who says they wrote it actually wrote it.
3. Therefore, you can't be sure that the Bible was actually written by God.
The refutant's argument is irrelevant to the claimant's position. Surprisingly, though the belief that the Bible is written by God is a conclusion that can be drawn from the claimant's argument if it is sound, it is not a premise that goes into the argument, and therefore, the refutant is in fact not attacking the claimant's argument but only a truth that can be derived from the conclusion. He skipped over the entire argument and has therefore NOT refuted it.
Why is this problematic for the refutant? Well, if the claimant's propositions are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion that the Bible is written by God is true. The refutant's off-topic argument that it couldn't have been written by God turns out to be a contradictory claim, but FtSoA* if we've determined that the claimant's argument is sound, then the refutant's conclusion must be false, no matter what he thinks.
Do feel free to debate these parallel arguments in the comments; it will probably be an exciting exercise.
(you may also note that I changed how I referred to one of the claims, which affects the conclusion that can be drawn from my discourse)
Fallacies of relevance also may concern such things as Genetic Fallacies, Sweeping and Hasty Generalizations, among others.
Fallacies of motive deal with suggesting that one's opponent may have extraneous reasons for 'fudging' facts in order to mislead his audience.
Example:
'You can't trust anything Frank says! He's a creationist! He doesn't believe in science!'
The first statement is a blatant ad hominem attack, besides being an arbitrary bare assertion.
The second statement, if true, might have something to do with what Frank chooses to think about or argue, but the fact that he's a creationist has no necessary bearing on his ability to reason.
The third statement is a falsehood and does nothing to refute anything Frank may have said.
In the end, fallacies of motive fail to address the argument, and act to mislead one's audience by attempting to undermine the character of the opponent, barring one's ability to refute their opponent's position.
It may be helpful to recognize that positions should be scrutinized on the basis of the arguments in support of them, and not the credentials of the person(s) proposing the arguments.
*For the Sake of Argument
Part 4: http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/477?page=1&page_size=25
Part 6: http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/486
The arguer uses extremely vague statements, and then arrives at an extreme conclusion that is not supported by the premises. The arguer clearly makes the [ill?]logical leap(s) that reading the Bible to children is harmful, and that the government should intervene to restrict the activities of parents ('bad people') who would do that. The argument could benefit from narrower definitions about the words 'nice,' 'good,' 'hurt,' 'bad,' 'ideas,' 'others,' 'we,' 'should,' 'stop,' 'people,' 'can't,' 'help,' and 'age of consent.'
Ambiguity is problematic when someone has convinced themselves of something but lacks the argumentative tactfulness to help others see their logic, for the purpose of determining whether it is sound or not. 'Weasel Words' are ambiguous statements that make a statement look impressive, but actually carries little meaning, since the words have not been defined, and can therefore mean something that actually undermines the argument if clarified.
Relevance
If an argument is directed at an opponent's position and fails to actually address the position itself, then regardless of what is said, the position remains, unrefuted. You cannot refute something without addressing it.
Example:
Claimant:
1. The Bible gives us the only sound source for morality and absolute truth.
2. Without a source for these things, then there is no reason to be moral or to believe that absolute truth exists.
3. If the Bible were not true, then there would be no reason to be moral, and it would be impossible to acquire knowledge.
4. Everyone by nature assumes that there is morality and absolute truth; moreover, people consistently act in accordance with the belief that this is the case.
5. Therefore, the Bible must be true.
Refutant:
1. You weren't there to see the Bible being written.
2. If you can't observe something being written, you can't be sure that the person who says they wrote it actually wrote it.
3. Therefore, you can't be sure that the Bible was actually written by God.
The refutant's argument is irrelevant to the claimant's position. Surprisingly, though the belief that the Bible is written by God is a conclusion that can be drawn from the claimant's argument if it is sound, it is not a premise that goes into the argument, and therefore, the refutant is in fact not attacking the claimant's argument but only a truth that can be derived from the conclusion. He skipped over the entire argument and has therefore NOT refuted it.
Why is this problematic for the refutant? Well, if the claimant's propositions are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion that the Bible is written by God is true. The refutant's off-topic argument that it couldn't have been written by God turns out to be a contradictory claim, but FtSoA* if we've determined that the claimant's argument is sound, then the refutant's conclusion must be false, no matter what he thinks.
Do feel free to debate these parallel arguments in the comments; it will probably be an exciting exercise.
(you may also note that I changed how I referred to one of the claims, which affects the conclusion that can be drawn from my discourse)
Fallacies of relevance also may concern such things as Genetic Fallacies, Sweeping and Hasty Generalizations, among others.
Motive
Fallacies of motive deal with suggesting that one's opponent may have extraneous reasons for 'fudging' facts in order to mislead his audience.
Example:
'You can't trust anything Frank says! He's a creationist! He doesn't believe in science!'
The first statement is a blatant ad hominem attack, besides being an arbitrary bare assertion.
The second statement, if true, might have something to do with what Frank chooses to think about or argue, but the fact that he's a creationist has no necessary bearing on his ability to reason.
The third statement is a falsehood and does nothing to refute anything Frank may have said.
In the end, fallacies of motive fail to address the argument, and act to mislead one's audience by attempting to undermine the character of the opponent, barring one's ability to refute their opponent's position.
It may be helpful to recognize that positions should be scrutinized on the basis of the arguments in support of them, and not the credentials of the person(s) proposing the arguments.
*For the Sake of Argument
Part 4: http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/477?page=1&page_size=25
Part 6: http://my.umbc.edu/discussions/486
(edited almost 14 years ago)
