7. FALLACIES AND PARA-ARGUMENTS

1. 7. FALLACIES AND PARA-ARGUMENTS In discussing a thesis we might depart from rationality because we unwittingly make a mistake (though at times we are fully aware we are doing so). We may do that in two ways: - by appealing to fallacious arguments, or simply fallacies; - by appealing to rationally irrelevant arguments, that is, arguments that refer to the interlocutor’s emotional sphere: the so-called para-arguments. Appeal to either fallacies or para-arguments characterizes skillfull talkers rather than intellectually honest speakers, in politics, jurisprudence, advertising, etc.

2. As there is no systematic theory of arguments, so there is no systematic theory of fallacies or para-arguments. There is no standard for their classification, nor for their definition or terminology. FALLACIES Rational discussion requires respect of some rules. Some of these concern the very use of terms, that must be appropriate as to precisely delimit the concepts involved in a discussion. Whenever we force the meaning of a single term, we commit a fallacy of definition. By contrast, whenever terms are not employed correctly as a whole, in order to indicate what is to be explained, we commit a fallacy of explanation.

3. Furthermore, there are a number of fallacies that refer to the wrong use of the argumentative process: in connection with various arguments, we then have deductive, pseudo-deductive, a priori, a posteriori and structural fallacies. Fallacies corresponding to pragmatic arguments are grouped under the category of para-arguments. Finally, many correct arguments might easily turn into fallacies. It all depends on the context and purposes of those who advance them. After all, it is the audience’s task to assess the strength of arguments and understand whether he who appeals to them is “ethically driven” or a subtle and skillfull talker.

4. Too wide definition FALLACIES Too narrow definition Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Obscure definition Circular definition Self-contradictory definition Ambiguity Amphiboly Emphasis Prejudicial language Expression prevailing over content

5. FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Ad hoc explanans Lack of explanandum Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Undermined explanandum Uncheckable explanans

6. FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Syllogistic Affirmation of the consequent Deductive violating deductiverules of inference Negation of the antecedent Self-contradictoriness

7. FALLACIES False disjunction Ad ignorantiam Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Composite question Complex situation Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Irrelevant conclusion Composition 1 Deductive related to deductive arguments Composition 2 Distinction 1 Pseudo-deductive appealing to pseudo-deductive arguments Distinction 2 Straw man

8. A priori related to a priori arguments FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Transitus de generis ad genus By accident Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain False etymology Deductive related to deductive arguments Pseudo-deductive related to pseudo-deductive arguments

9. A priori related to a priori arguments FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term A posteriori related to a posteriori arguments Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Inductive Causal Deductive related to deductive arguments Pseudo-deductive related to pseudo-deductive arguments

10. A priori related to a priori arguments FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term A posteriori related to a posteriori arguments Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Structural related to structural arguments Deductive related to deductive arguments False analogy Pseudo-deductive related to pseudo-deductive arguments

11. 1. FALLACIES OF DEFINITION Fallacies of definition refer to the terms, either individual terms or whole statements, employed in a discussion. On the one hand, in order to make our words or our concept clear, we define them. However, it is not always the case that our definition is a good one. And this may happen because we incur in some fallacies. On the other, a whole statement may be variously interpreted, and this gives rise to confusions and fallacies.

12. Too wide definition FALLACIES Too narrow definition Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Obscure definition Circular definition Self-contradictory definition Ambiguity Amphiboly Emphasis Prejudicial language Expression prevailing over content

13. 1a. Too wide definition The definition includes examples that should be excluded. EXAMPLEA cherry is something that is round and red. A red soccer ball is not a cherry, but it is described – and therefore comprised – in the above definition. In order to neutralize this fallacy we need to show that the definition comprises several other objects that are quite different from the one the definition aimed at defining.

14. 1b. Too narrow definition The definition excludes examples that should be included. EXAMPLEAn apple is something that is round and red. Indeed, some apples are round and red, but some other are not. In order to neutralize this fallacy we need to compare the term that is being defined with the scope of the definition, showing that it should be widened.

15. 1c. Obscure definition The definition employed to clarify the meaning of a term is more obscure than the term itself. EXAMPLEA lascivious man is licentious. In order to explain the meaning of “lascivious” we appeal to “licentious”, whose meaning may be as obscure as that of “lascivious”, or even more obscure. To counteract this fallacy we relate the term that is being defined to the definition and show that such a definition does not clarify the meaning at all.

16. 1d. Circular definition(circulus in definiendo, or diallelon) We incur in the fallacy of circular definition when, in order to define a term, we appeal to expressions in which that very term occurs. EXAMPLEA man is an animal with human parents. In order to counteract this fallacy we need to compare the term that is being defined with the scope of definition, and show that at least one of the defining terms is the very term that is being defined.

17. 1e. Self-contradictory definition A definition is inconsistent, or self-contradictory, if it affirms and denies the very same thing at the same time. EXAMPLEA society is free if all people are free and nobody can break the law. In order to counteract this fallacy we compare the defined term with the properties of the scope of the definition, by showing that two of these properties cannot be both true at the same time.

18. 1f. Ambiguity (equivocation) Within the same definition, we use the same word twice, but with two different meanings. EXAMPLESKilling children is inhuman, therefore no child killers are human. Really exciting novels are rare; rare books are expensive; therefore, really exciting novels are expensive. In order to counteract this fallacy we may show that a definition that might be proper for one meaning of a word, might be incorrect or misleading for another one.

19. 1g. Amphiboly (or amphibology = “ambiguous grammatical structure”) We incur in the fallacy of amphiboly when the grammatical expression of a statement allows for two different interpretations. In most cases, this is due to negligence of elocution, haste, bureaucratic language, titles of newspapers, stereotyped formulas. EXAMPLEYesterday morning, in Milan, along Corso Venezia, a hit-and-run driver ran over a non-EU citizen driving a van, and took to flight. Immediately assisted by two young men, the immigrant was taken in a spin to the local hospital, at the Accident & Emergency.

20. From a grammatical point of view, “driving a van” can be attributed both to the hit-and-run driver and the non-EU citizen. This is the source of ambiguity. At times, however, by amphiboly we mean an ambiguity of interpretation – broadly speaking, not only from the grammatical point of view: EXAMPLECroesus was undecided about whether making war on Cyrus, the king of Persians. Therefore, he appealed to the Oracle of Delphi, from which he received this response: “If Croesus makes war on Cyrus, he will destroy a great kingdom”.

21. Croesus understood this response as favourable to his own undertaking: he would have destroyed the great kingdom of Persians. However, he ended up destroying his own kingdom. The fallacy of amphiboly is contrasted by isolating the term that allows for an ambiguity of interpretation and clarifying its meaning within the context of the sentence.

22. 1h. Emphasis By highlighting a particular term within a statement, we suggest an interpretation of that statement that differs from the literal one. EXAMPLEIn order to take his vengeance on the captain, the first officer wrote this entry in the logbook: “Today the captain is sober”. By stressing that “today” the captain is sober, we suggest that he is usually drunk – which may be true, but may be untrue as well. To contrast this fallacy we need to show that by laying stress (or emphasis) on a given term or circumstance we allude, but do not state: therefore, what the stress alludes to can actually be false.

23. 1i. Prejudicial language We incur in the fallacy of prejudicial language when some terms of a statement are emotionally connoted, so as to suggest consensus or dissent. EXAMPLEThe proposal is very likely to be opposed by the bureaucrats of the Government. By calling “bureaucrats” the officers of the government, we suggest that a possible rejection of our proposal is to be regarded as a very high-handed (or biased) act on their part. To contrast this fallacy we need to state that the judgement, or decision, must not take into account what has been insinuated with the prejudicial term (“bureaucrats”).

24. 1j. Expression prevailing over content The argument – or he who argues – is presented so as to influence a judgement or decision. EXAMPLEWhy don’t you listen the advices of this wise and good-mannered man? But the content of the argument is not – and must not be – relevant for the truth or falsity of the conclusion: advices might be bad or wrong (in a given situation), the wisdom and manners of those who give them notwithstanding.

25. 2. FALLACIES OF EXPLANATION We incur in fallacies of explanation when we do not express clearly what is to be explained (explanandum) or what allows the speaker to explain it (explanans).

26. FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Ad hoc explanans Lack of explanandum Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Undermined explanandum Uncheckable explanans

27. 2a. Ad hoc explanans The explanans merely refers to the fact itself. EXAMPLEIn the 1960s older people were somehow hostile to hippies: the explanation is to be found in the grievance that parents feel towards their children. A real explanation, in fact, would refer the hostility to hippies to a wider context – the hostility to what is or looks different, for instance. This would explain this particular hostility. Generally speaking, to contrast this fallacy we need to isolate the explanans within the context of the proposed argument and show the actual scope of the explanation.

28. 2b. Lack of explanandum The explanation is fallacious if the explanandum is not stated correctly, or if it is not true for all cases. EXAMPLEThe reason why most bachelors are shy is that their mothers tyrannize them. Whereas this argument aims at explaining why “most bachelors are shy” (this is the explanandum), it takes for granted that things are so, as a matter of fact. The fallacy is exposed by isolating the explanandum in the proposed statement and by showing that there is no reason why it must be true (either in this, in most or in all instances).

29. 2c. Undermined explanandum The explanation is fallacious if we incorrectly employ a correctly stated explanandum – by unduly extending the scope of its definition, for instance: EXAMPLEAccording to John, the reason why most bachelors are shy is that their mothers tyrannize them. This may be true for John, who only knows two bachelors (both shy), but his is an unduly generalization, because it is based upon a very restricted sample. The fallacy is contrasted by identifying what is being explained and by showing that its evidence has been somewhat manipulated, or that it is not sufficient to allow for a generalization.

30. 2d. Uncheckable explanans The explanans by which we explain the reason why some phenomena take place cannot be checked, or independently tested. EXAMPLEA plane disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle (also known as the Devil’s Triangle) due to the attractive force present there. In order to neutralize this fallacy we need to identify the explanans and show that it cannot be checked.

31. 3. DEDUCTIVE FALLACIES Generally speaking, this category comprises all fallacies due to breaking the rules of inference that are valid for a given logical calculus.

32. FALLACIES Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Syllogistic Affirmation of the consequent Deductive violating deductiverules of inference Negation of the antecedent Self-contradictoriness

33. 3a. Syllogistic fallacies A syllogism is fallacious when one of the rules assuring its validity and cogency is broken. • There can be only three terms (major, minor and middle) Introducing a fourth term introduces the fallacy of quaternio terminorum: “All chimneys smoke”“Some grandparents smoke”therefore, “Some grandparents are chimneys” Here the term “smoke” has two different meanings, therefore – in fact – we have four, rather than three, terms.

34. The middle term cannot be present in the conclusion. If the middle term is included in the conclusion, we incur in the fallacy of the included middle: “All Athenians are Greek”“Some Athenians are philosophers”therefore, “Some philosophers are Athenians” The correct conclusion would be: “Some philosophers are Greek” The conclusion is true, the fallacious argument notwithstanding: indeed, it is perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion by a wrong argument.

35. From two negative premises no conclusion follows. The fact that two things are different from a third one does not necessarily entail that they are somehow correlated. Breaking this rule would incur in the fallacy of negative premises. “No bird is a mammal”“No reptile is a mammal”therefore, “No bird is a reptile” Once again, the conclusion is true, the fallacious argument notwithstanding: indeed, it is perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion by a wrong argument.

36. From two affirmative premises an affirmative conclusion follows. If two things are linked affirmatively to the same middle term, they must be affirmatively linked to each other as well, in the conclusion. He who does not abide by this rule incurs in the fallacy of affirmative premises: “All animals have a soul”“All men are animals”therefore, “No animal has a soul” Once again, the conclusion is true, the fallacious argument notwithstanding: indeed, it is perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion by a wrong argument.

37. From two particular premises no conclusion can follow. He who does not abide by this rule incurs in the fallacy of particular premises: “Some mammals live in the water”“Some birds are mammals”therefore, “Some birds live in the water”

38. The conclusion always contains the pejorative part of the premises. That is to say: if a premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative as well; if a premise is particular, the conclusion must be particular as well. He who does not abide by this rule incurs in the fallacy of the pejorative: “All dogs bark”“Some dogs are pets”therefore, “All pets bark”

39. 3b. Affirmation of the consequent This is a wrong application of the modus ponens. Correctly stated, the modus ponens is:[(pq) Λ p]  q “If I am in Lucca, then I am in Tuscany”“I am in Lucca”therefore, “I am in Tuscany” By contrast, the fallacy of the affirmation of the consequent is:[(pq) Λ q]  p “If I am in Lucca, then I am in Tuscany”“I am in Tuscany”therefore, “I am in Lucca”

40. 3c. Negation of the antecedent This is a wrong application of the modus tollens. Correctly stated, the modus tollens is:[(pq) Λ ¬q]  ¬p “If I am in Lucca, then I am in Tuscany”“I am not in Tuscany”therefore, “I am not in Lucca” By contrast, the fallacy of the negation of the antecedent is:[(pq) Λ ¬p]  ¬q “If I am in Lucca, then I am in Tuscany”“I am not in Lucca”therefore, “I am not in Tuscany”

41. 3d. Self-contradictoriness The premises of an argument cannot affirm and deny the same thing at the same time. EXAMPLEMen are social animals, and since they do not like to socialize with fellow men, they tend to isolate themselves and fight with others. We contrast this fallacy by showing that the two premises contradict one another.

42. 4. PSEUDO-DEDUCTIVE FALLACIES Generally speaking, these fallacies appeal to pseudo-deductive arguments, that is, arguments that look deductive and therefore valid, but turn out to be the opposite.

43. FALLACIES False disjunction Ad ignorantiam Of definition forcing the meaningof a term Composite question Complex situation Of explanation when terms are not employed correctly as a whole, failing to explain Irrelevant conclusion Composition 1 Deductive related to deductive arguments Composition 2 Distinction 1 Pseudo-deductive appealing to pseudo-deductive arguments Distinction 2 Straw man

44. 4a. False disjunction We have a false disjunction when one of the premises of the argument presents a limited number of options (usually two), whereas the available options are actually more numerous. In other words, we have a false disjunction when we improperly use the connective “or” understanding it as aut rather than vel. EXAMPLESEither you are with me, or you are against me. Italy: either you love it, or you hate it. In order to contrast this fallacy we need to show that the alternatives offered are not all the possible alternatives, for there is at least a third one. Otherwise, we check the exclusive/inclusive nature of the disjunction.

45. 4b. Ad ignorantiam Arguments of this kind assume that as long as something has not been shown to be false (true), it is true (false). But lack of an argument that refutes the statement A does not prove that A is true, just as lack of an argument that confirms A does not prove A wrong. EXAMPLEWilliam says that he is cleverer than John; but he cannot prove it, therefore he is a liar. The fallacy is exposed by analyzing the statement that is allegedly refuted ad ignorantiam, showing that it can be true (false) even if we do not know how to show that it is false (true).

46. 4c. Composite question (plurium interrogatio) We ask a question that hides a second question nested within it, but we demand a single answer. EXAMPLEHave you given up your bad conduct? In fact, here the questions are actually two: 1. Was your conduct bad? 2. If it was bad, have you given it up? In order to contrast this fallacy we need to highlight both queries implicit in the single question, and show that they have independent truth-values.

47. 4d. Complex situation The complex situation fallacy is similar to the previous one. We appeal to this fallacious argument to persuade the audience to accept or reject two unduly combined statements at the same time, whereas it may very well be that one is acceptable and the other is not. EXAMPLEAre you in favour of personal freedom and of the right to carry weapons? When contrasting this fallacy we need to identify the independent statements that have been combined, and show that consenting to one of them does not imply accepting the other as well.

48. 4e. Irrelevant conclusion (ignoratio elenchi) We incur in this fallacy when we argue for a different conclusion from the one we should have reached. EXAMPLEWe should support positive actions against the discrimination of women. Men occupy important positions in the government of the country, particularly those related to politics and economy. But this discrimination is unbearable. The argument aimed at showing that progressive choices would have enhanced the position of women, but it ended up by merely stating that women have not yet achieved the target of equal opportunities. To contrast this fallacy we need to show that the conclusion is irrelevant with respect to the main thesis.

49. 4f. Composition 1 The whole is attributed some feature of its parts. EXAMPLEToday, some components of cars, that used to be made of metal twenty years ago, are made of polyester: that’s why cars are much lighter, nowadays. To contrast this fallacy we need to show that the properties of the parts cannot be unduly extended to the whole made by those very parts.

50. 4g. Composition 2 In this fallacious argument, what can be predicated in a distributive sense (when I say “All men are mortal” I mean to say “All individual men”) is predicated in a collective sense (just as in “Men are numerous”, where I refer to the total amount of men on Earth). EXAMPLEAtomic bombs cause more damages than standard bombs. This is true in a distributive sense (individually considered, atomic bombs cause more damages than standard ones), but not in the collective one (that is, if we refer to the damages caused by the total amount of standard bombs ever exploded). To contrast this fallacy we need to highlight the difference between the distributive and the collective use.