FALLACIES

FALLACIES
A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning. The alphabetical list below contains 177 names of the most common fallacies, and it provides explanations and examples of each of them. Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term "fallacy" is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief. The list below includes some fallacies of these sorts, but most are fallacies that involve kinds of errors made while arguing informally in natural language.
Accent
The accent fallacy is a fallacy of ambiguity due to the different ways a word is emphasized or accented. Example:
A member of Congress is asked by a reporter if she is in favor of the President's new missile defense system, and she responds, "I'm in favor of a missile defense system that effectively defends America."
With an emphasis on the word "favor", this remark is likely to favor the President's missile defense system. With an emphasis, instead, on the words "effectively defends", this remark is likely to be against the President's missile defense system. Aristotle's fallacy of accent allowed only a shift in which syllable is accented within a word.
Accident
We often arrive at a generalization but don't or can't list all the exceptions. When we reason with the generalization as if it has no exceptions, we commit the fallacy of accident. This fallacy is sometimes called the fallacy of sweeping generalization.Example:
People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he'd return it. Now he is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbors' families. Dwayne isn't doing right by me.
People should keep their promises, but there are exceptions as in this case of the psychopath who wants Dwayne to keep his promise to return the knife.
Ad Hoc Rescue
Psychologically, it is understandable that you would try to rescue a cherished belief from trouble. When faced with conflicting data, you are likely to mention how the conflict will disappear if some new assumption is taken into account. However, if there is no good reason to accept this saving assumption other than that it works to save your cherished belief, your rescue is an ad hoc rescue. Example:
Yolanda: If you take four of these tablets of vitamin C every day, you will never get a cold. Juanita: I tried that last year for several months, and still got a cold. Yolanda: Did you take the tablets every day?
Juanita: Yes. Yolanda: Well, I'll bet you bought some bad tablets.
The burden of proof is definitely on Yolanda's shoulders to prove that Juanita's vitamin C tablets were probably "bad" -- that is, not really vitamin C. If Yolanda can't do so, her attempt to rescue her hypothesis (that vitamin C prevents colds) is simply a dogmatic refusal to face up to the possibility of being wrong.
Ad Hominem
You commit this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. It is a form of the Genetic FallacyExample:
What she says about Johannes Kepler's astronomy of the 1600's must be just so much garbage. Do you realize she's only fourteen years old?
This attack may undermine the arguer's credibility as a scientific authority, but it does not undermine her reasoning. That reasoning should stand or fall on the scientific evidence, not on the arguer's age or anything else about her personally.
The major difficulty with labeling a piece of reasoning as an ad hominem fallacy is deciding whether the personal attack is relevant. For example, attacks on a person for their actually immoral sexual conduct are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to arguments promoting the person for a leadership position in the church. Unfortunately, many attacks are not so easy to classify, such as an attack pointing out that the candidate for church leadership, while in the tenth grade, intentionally tripped a fellow student and broke his collar bone.
Appeal to Ignorance
The fallacy of appeal to ignorance comes in two forms: (1) Not knowing that a certain statement is true is taken to be a proof that it is false. (2) Not knowing that a statement is false is taken to be a proof that it is true. The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence. The fallacy uses an unjustified attempt to shift the burden of proof. The fallacy is also called "Argument from Ignorance."
Example: Nobody has ever proved to me there's a God, so I know there is no God.
This kind of reasoning is generally fallacious. It would be proper reasoning only if the proof attempts were quite thorough, and it were the case that if God did exist, then there would be a discoverable proof of this.
Appeal to the People
If you suggest too strongly that someone's claim or argument is correct simply because it's what most everyone believes, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to the people. Similarly, if you suggest too strongly that someone's claim or argument is mistaken simply because it's not what most everyone believes, then you've also committed the fallacy. Agreement with popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of truth, and deviation from popular opinion is not necessarily a reliable sign of error, but if you assume it is and do so with enthusiasm, then you're guilty of committing this fallacy. It is also called mob appeal, appeal to the gallery, argument from popularity, and argumentum ad populum. The 'too strongly' is important in the description of the fallacy because what most everyone believes is, for that reason, somewhat likely to be true, all things considered. However, the fallacy occurs when this degree of support is overestimated.
Example:
You should turn to channel 6. It's the most watched channel this year.
This is fallacious because of its implicitly accepting the questionable premise that the most watched channel this year is, for that reason alone, the best channel for you.
Appeal to Authority
You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious. However, it is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the word of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious. Example:
You can believe the moon is covered with dust because the president of our neighborhood association said so, and he should know.
This is a fallacious appeal to authority because, although the president is an authority on many neighborhood matters, he is no authority on the composition of the moon. It would be better to appeal to some astronomer or geologist. If you place too much trust in expert opinion and overlook any possibility that experts talking in their own field of expertise make mistakes, too, then you also commit the fallacy of appeal to authority. Example:
Of course she's guilty of the crime. The police arrested her, didn't they? And they're experts when it comes to crime.
Appeal to Consequence
Arguing that a belief is false because it implies something you'd rather not believe. Also called Argumentum Ad Consequentiam. Example:
That can't be Senator Smith there in the videotape going into her apartment. If it were, he'd be a liar about not knowing her. He's not the kind of man who would lie. He's a member of my congregation.
Smith may or may not be the person in that videotape, but this kind of arguing should not convince us that it's someone else in the videotape.
Appeal to Emotions
You commit the fallacy of appeal to emotions when someone's appeal to you to accept their claim is accepted merely because the appeal arouses your feelings of anger, fear, grief, love, outrage, pity, pride, sexuality, sympathy, relief, and so forth. Example of appeal to relief from grief:
[The speaker knows he is talking to an aggrieved person whose house is worth much more than $100,000.] You had a great job and didn't deserve to lose it. I wish I could help somehow. I do have one idea. Now your family needs financial security even more. You need cash. I can help you. Here is a check for $100,000. Just sign this standard sales agreement, and we can skip the realtors and all the headaches they would create at this critical time in your life.
There is nothing wrong with using emotions when you argue, but it's a mistake to use emotions as the key premises or as tools to downplay relevant information. Regarding the fallacy of appeal to pity, it is proper to pity people who have had misfortunes, but if as the person's history instructor you accept Max's claim that he earned an A on the history quiz because he broke his wrist while playing in your college's last basketball game, then you've committed the fallacy of appeal to pity. However, if you realize he didn't earn the A, but nevertheless you still give him an A, then you have not committed the fallacy, but you may have acted improperly.
Begging the Question
A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress. Example: "Women have rights," said the Bullfighters Association president. "But women shouldn't fight bulls because a bullfighter is and should be a man."
The president is saying basically that women shouldn't fight bulls because women shouldn't fight bulls. This reasoning isn't making an progress toward determining whether women should fight bulls.
Sources: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm
fac.hsu.edu/worth/libarts/notes/1a_explanation.htm

3rd US Presidential Debate

The 3rd Presidential debate between Barrack Obama and John McCain was the most anticipated event by millions of people around the world for this would be their last chance to see the two presidential candidates side by side. The debate was very timely; especially, with the financial crisis we are facing right now I believe that US electorate is in a position to take a stand on issues that require serious and hardheaded response. Furthermore, its discussion was also profitable since they get to know the stand and views of each candidate on various issues. Through this way it offers a helpful reference to the voters in making a choice for those who are still pondering on whom to vote on Election Day.

Indeed, the Presidential debate meets the academic standards for the rules were properly laid down by the moderator, Mr. Bob Schieffer. The debate was focus on domestic issues. It will include two-minute answers and then five minutes of discussion. Basically, the Lincoln-Douglas debate type or two-man debate type has been followed in which there is only one speaker on each side. Both of them made a thorough preparation for the debate and ready for to respond to any questions to be thrown against each other.

The two presidential candidates have different strategies in responding to the other's claims and refuted those claims in a convincing manner by using gestures to convey their message to the audience. Personally, I like Obama’s style because there is spontaneity in his presentation and his tone is more conversational and lively which allows him to get connected with the audience. On the other hand, McCain is has a more aggressive tone and he did not try to stay focused on the issues. His answers were vague sometimes. The good thing about this debate was it put on display the different characters and temperaments of the two candidates.

At any rate, the debate touched on various issues such as abortion, climate change, economy, and health care as well as their personal lives when McCain questioned Obama’s relationship with Ayer and his connection with ACORN. The debate was intense, compelling, and should offer voters a clear choice between the candidates on the issues that matter the most to them. In its totality, I can say that this night was the shining moment of Obama for he appeared direct, engaged, vigorous, and yes, presidential.

Are we ready for charter change?

Nowadays, with the economic and political turmoil in the country there has been a clamor from various political parties to amend the 1987 Constitution, specifically, the move to shift from presidential bicameral form of government to parliamentary form. In fact, much has been said and debated on whether it is now the right time to dance the beat of CHA-CHA or not. The big question that lingers in the mind of many people is whether under the Philippine system will the parliamentary form of government work better than the present presidential system?

Basically, the move to parliamentary form of government is based on the premise that we are experiencing political and economic crisis; hence, our present political system need structural reforms to address the ailing situation of our economy which makes many poor Filipino people become poorer. The proponents of Charter Change really believe that such moves are necessary for the nation to move forward. Also, given the situation of many Filipino, the pro cha-cha believe that amending the 1987 Constitution will bring mutual benefits and stimulate solidarity which can contribute to building the foundations for peace, stability and prosperity in the country. On the other hand, many people contested charter change because they believe that it is one of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s strategies in her game plan to extend her term of office. Moreover, they are skeptical and reluctant for traditional politicians might use it as a means for their own personal interests and motives. Civil society groups from left to right have voiced similar calls for the public to condemn the actions of the House.

At any rate, parliamentary form of government has its pros and cons. The following are the advantages of the system: First, it reduces the high cost of electing a head of the government. Second, the fusion of the executive and legislative branches can immediately address the gridlock in government. Third, the Prime Minister, cabinet and members of the parliament are directly accountable to the people. However, this system has also its downsides for the fusion of executive and legislative branches means there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the two branches. Unlike the presidential form of government, wherein the government functions on the theory of check and balance and the tripartite concept which enables every branch of the government to function independently from each other. With regards to accountability to the people, parliamentary form of government lacks the ability to have a separate and vigilant legislature to investigate and control the abuse of power by a corrupt executive.

Personally, I think that whatever forms of government we are going to adopt does not matter at all because a government can only be effective if those in position will truly represent the interest of all the people and not their personal interests. Definitely, I do not see the benefit of a change in political system if it will be the same people in power whose attention were not focus on what might work best for our country and people. There is nothing wrong with our system; it’s the people who run the system who must change for the betterment of our nation. I certainly believe that our unified strength is the weapon at hand, our destiny does not rest on the kind of system we are going to espouse but it depends on ourselves.

Argumentation

Argumentation is the art of influencing others through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act. It is also a process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings.

There are two methods of approach in the work of argumentation. First, conviction or appeal to reason whose purpose is to create belief or intellectual agreement. In this phase the arguer directs his words to the reasoning faculty of man in order to drive the him to accept the truth. Second, method of approach is called persuasion or appeal to emotions. In this phase the disputants direct his words to the emotions. The purpose is to stir those desires to influence to act in the way one wishes the to act.

Furthermore, Toulmin method is important in argumentation for it will certainly help us understand how effective or ineffective an argument is. It is a type of textual "dissection" that allows us to break an argument into its different parts (such as claim, reasons, and evidence) so that we can make judgments on how well the different parts work together.

Basically, the five parts of argument are the following:

1. Claim - Being the main point you should ensure that your claim is clear and concise. Readers should be able to tell what is at stake and what principles you intend to use to argue your point.

2. Reasons - If a reason is effective (or "good"), it invokes a value we can believe in and agree with. Value judgments, because they are by necessity somewhat subjective, are often the most difficult to make in arguments. It is, therefore, always a good idea to restate the value being invoked as clearly as possible in your own terms. Then you'll be able to evaluate whether or not the value is good in itself or worth pursuing.

3. Evidence - is also important to convince the audience since it offers tangible support. Hence, to be believable and convincing, evidence should satisfy three conditions. It should be sufficient, credible , and accurate.

4. Anticipated Objections and Rebuttal -included to ensure that you are prepared for potential objections to the argument's reasons, objections which the writer expects his or her opponents to make. Usually, these are included in arguments as opportunities for the writer to present her or his own reasons as refutations/rebuttals.

5. Drawing Conclusions - Once you have completed a Toulmin analysis of an argument, your task is to collect your "results" into an overall, coherent statement about the effectiveness of that argument. In other words, if you are attempting to respond to that argumen.