Fallacies

The term fallacy is derived from the Latin infinitive fallere, which means "to deceive or to appear false or
deceptive." This etymological definition makes logicians provide a delineating line between sophism and
fallacy.

(Delineating - to describe or portray something precisely)

Sophism & Fallacy

The general position maintained by logicians relative to the distinction between sophism and fallacy is
that if the mistake in reasoning is deliberate or intentional, it is sophism; if the mistake in reasoning is
unintentional, it is deemed a fallacy.

SOPHISM intentional
FALLACY unintentional

Example of Sophism:

A lawyer doing a cross-examination of the witness of his opponent:

Lawyer: “So, you went to a restaurant to eat. What did you order then?”

Witness: “I ordered softdrink your Honor.”

Lawyer: “So, you ate the softdrink you ordered?”

Witness: “No, your Honor, hindi naman po kinakain ang softdrink, iniinom.”

Lawyer: “Ah, ganun ba?”

The lawyer deliberately leads the witness to commit a fallacy, i.e., that softdrink is meant for eating and
not for drinking. The lawyer intentionally does this in order to tacitly tell the judge that this witness is
crazy, and that his testimonies are not meritorious.

Formal and Informal Fallacy

A formal fallacy is that which has a defect or error in terms of its form or structure. It applies to invalid
arguments that appear as valid.

For example:

Some mammals are bipeds.

All people are mammals.
Therefore, all people are bipeds.
The above argument is true; all of its premises truthfully correspond to reality. However, it is not valid. Its
defect lies in its formal construction. A closer look at the argument will reveal that it violates Rule 3 of
categorical syllogism. This means that the middle term of the aforementioned argument is not distributed.

Informal fallacy refers to a fallacy of content. It is the content of an argument that makes it invalid. Then
again, some authors are convinced that to classify fallacies as formal or informal is defective. Their clamor
is based on the observation that formal and informal fallacies can hardly appear in technical writing, more
so in day-to-day life.

Kinds of Fallacies

Fallacies From the Standpoint of Language (Linguistic Fallacies)

Some textbooks of logic call fallacies of language as fallacies of clarity or fallacies of ambiguity. These
fallacies occur un arguments formulated with words whose meanings shift and change in the course of
the argument. In a larger scope, the use of words whose meanings are not maintained in the whole
course of the argument will lead to ambiguity of the meaning of the argument, which leads to further
ambiguity, i.e., the misuse of language. This is the reason why these fallacies are called linguistic fallacies.

1. Equivocation
- This is a fallacy that employs vague terms, or those used in an equivocal manner, in the
course of the argument or syllogism. What makes equivocation ambiguous is that it violates
Rule 2 of categorical syllogism, which states that there must be only three terms in the
argument and that these terms must be used in the same sense and context throughout
the argument. Analyze this syllogism:

All atheists are separated from God.

All sinners are separated from God.
Therefore, all sinners are atheists.
This argument uses the phrase "separated from God" in two different senses. The meaning of the
words "separated from God" is clear, i.e., that one is dissociated from the bliss, graces, and
blessings of God. The major premise of the argument contends that "all atheists are separated
from God," while the minor premise contends that "all sinners are (likewise) separated from God."
The meanings of these premises are plausible. However, it is not clear that if one is an atheist,
one is separated from God; although it is somehow acceptable that all sinners are separated from
God. Another problem of the argument is its conclusion: "Therefore all sinners are atheists." This
is not acceptable because it does not necessarily follow that if one is a sinner, one is an atheist.

2. Amphiboly
- This kind of fallacy arises from defect in grammatical construction. Take this example: "While
standing on his hind legs, the Physical Education instructor played with his dog.” This
 argument is fallacious because of the defect in its grammatical construction, or its faulty
syntax. As a result, its meaning is vague. It is not clear who is “standing on his hind legs.” Is it
the Physical Education instructor or the dog? But, do human beings have hind legs?

3. Accent
- This fallacy arises due to a difference in interpretation brought about by misplaced emphasis
on a phrase, word, or syllable in a proposition. Analyze the following propositions whose
meanings change in accordance with which words are stressed, as indicated by an underline:
You may laugh as you like.
(Meaning: Others may not laugh).
You may laugh as you like.
(Meaning: You are not prohibited from laughing).
You may laugh as you like.
(Meaning: It is permissible that you laugh or do not laugh).

In the fallacy of accent, the misplaced emphasis takes a phrase, word, or syllable out of
context or of proper relation with the rest of the proposition.

4. Division
- This fallacy arises when an argument takes what is true of the whole to be also true of its
parts, or when an argument takes the attributes of a collection of elements as the attributes
of the elements themselves. For example:

X University is vital to Christian education.

Mr. Y is a professor of X University.
Therefore, Mr. Y is vital to Christian education.

In this argument, it is plausible that X University is, indeed, vital to Christian education. But it
does not necessarily follow that Mr. Y, being a professor of X University, is also vital to
Christian education. Here is another example:

Filipinos are industrious and religious.

The argument takes the attributes of Filipinos as industrious and religious. There is nothing
objectionable about this. But it becomes fallacious if the conclusion drawn is: "Each or any
Filipino, therefore, is industrious and religious." It does not necessarily follow that because
one is a Filipino, one is industrious and religious. Thus, the following argument is fallacious:

Filipinos are industrious and religious.

Visayans are Filipinos.
Therefore, Visayans are industrious and religious.
 5. Composition
- This kind of fallacy arises when an argument proceeds to take the attributes of the parts of
the whole to be that same attributes of the whole itself. Simply put, this fallacious argument
holds that what is true of the parts is necessarily true of the whole. For example:

Those who topped the 1999 Bar Exams are from the various law schools in Manila.
Jose of USC-Cebu is a 1999 Bar Exams top notcher.
Therefore, Jose of USC-Cebu is from the various law schools in Manila.

DIVISION > WHAT IS TRUE OF THE WHOLE IS TRUE TO ITS PARTS

COMPOSITION > WHAT IS TRUE OF THE PARTS OF THE WHOLE IS TRUE TO THE WHOLE ITSELF

Fallacies From the Standpoint of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance occur in arguments whose premises are logically irrelevant so that their
conclusions cannot be established. Such fallacies are also called fallacies of unwarranted assumption
and fallacies of insufficient evidence, among others.

1. Circular argument (begging the question)

- In Latin, circular argument or the fallacy of arguing in a circle is called petitio principii. This
fallacious argument arises when a proposition is argued as true because it is true. In other
words, in petitio principi, the premises assume the truth of the conclusion without providing
evidence to the truth or validity of the conclusion. For example:
"Juan is insane. Therefore, Juan is crazy."
"He who knows that he knows is one who knows that he knows.”
“He who does not understand his problem is one who does not understand his problem.”

2. Complex question
- This fallacy is called phurium interrogationum in Latin. It arises when the question raised
presupposes an answer to another question which is not raised.
Consider these examples:

“Have you not given up the habit of cheating in my class?”

“Are the policemen, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges not doing well in their job to prosecute
criminal offenses?”

3. Repeated Assertion
- This is a kind of fallacy that arises when one believes that if one tells a big lie and this lie is
told often enough, people will come to believe that such lie is the truth. In the Visayas, the
argument that espouses the truth of the existence of the sigbin (an animal likened to a
kangaroo_ is taken by the Visayans as true. Until now, the Visayans believe that there is such
an animal as the sigbin although no one from among them has proven it.
4. Accident
- General rules are applied to particular cases when particular cases have circumstances
which may not allow general rules to be applicable. This fallacy, therefore, leads to a
sweeping generalization. For example:

“Thou shall not kill; therefore, you should not try to control termites in your home or fight
for your country."

5. Converse Accident
- This fallacy is the reverse of the fallacy of accident. Here, special or particular cases or
circumstances are applied to general rules. It is fallacious because what is true of one is not
necessarily true of all.
- Destroying exception. For example:

“Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white.”

6. Tu quoque
- This fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an
effective red herring because it takes the heat off someone having to defend their
argument, and instead shifts the focus back on to the person making the criticism.
- Claiming that someone's argument must be false because it is not consistent with their
past actions or words. For example:

"You don't actually believe that smoking is bad since you smoke too."

7. False Cause
- The fallacy of false cause arises when one assigns as the cause those facts that merely
preceded or accompanied the effect.
- Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B. For example:

“Rodolfo Lozada, Jr. killed a black cat. The following day, he was kidnapped by armed men.
Therefore, it is the killing of the black cat that caused his kidnapped.”

8. Non Sequitor
- This is commonly called as the fallacy of “it does not follow.” It arises in an argument where
the conclusion categorically or completely lacks connection to the proposition. For
example:

“As a student of a Catholic university, I will become an al Qaeda member.”

“Angel Locsin is a philosophy student. Therefore, I am convinced that she will become an
astronaut.”
9. Argumentum ad hominem
- The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence,
morals, education, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a
corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;" or "He's so evil that
you can't believe anything he says."
- PERSONAL ATTACK

10. Argumentum ad ignorantiam

- Arguing that something is true because no one has proved it to be false, or arguing that
something is false because no one has proved it to be true. For example:

“Spirits exist since no one has as yet proved that there are not any.”
“Spirits do not exist since no one has as yet proved their existence.”
- Also called the appeal to ignorance: the lack of evidence (proof) for something is used to
support its truth.

11. Argumentum ad verecundiam

- argument to authority or to veneration
- appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain
acceptance of a point at issue and/or appealing to the feelings of reverence or respect we
have of those in authority, or who are famous. Example:

"I believe that the statement ‘You cannot legislate morality' is true, because President
Eisenhower said it."

12. Argumentum ad populum

- Fallacy of appeal to the people
- Also the appeal to the gallery, appeal to the majority, appeal to what is popular, appeal to
popular prejudice, appeal to the multitude, appeal to the mob instinct. Arguing in order to
arouse an emotional, popular acceptance of an idea without resorting to logical
justification of the idea. An appeal is made to such things as biases, prejudices, feelings,
enthusiasms, attitudes of the multitude in order to evoke assent rather than to rationally
support the idea. Example:

“If you were a true Filipino, you would support whoever the majority if the Philippines voted
for.”

13. Argumentum ad misericordiam

- Argument to pity
- Arguing by appeal to pity in order to have some point accepted.

Example:

"I've got to have at least a B in this course, Professor Angeles. If I don’t, I won't stand a chance
for medical school, and this is my last semester at the university."
14. Argumentum ad baculum
- argument from power or force.
- "Argument using force."
- Arguing to support the acceptance of an argument by a threat, or use of force. Reasoning
is replaced by force, which results in the termination of logical argumentation, and elicits
other kinds of behavior (such as fear, anger, reciprocal use of force, etc.).

Example:

"Professor, when considering my grade in your class, please keep in mind that my father is
your boss."