Informal fallacies : fallacies of language fallacies not of language

1. Informal fallacies: fallacies of languagefallacies not of language

2. Fallacies of Language • 1. Equivocation: consists in using a word that has the same spelling and sound but with different meanings (when used in a syllogism, the "three-term rule" is violated) • e.g., "What is natural is good (nature itself) but to commit mistakes is natural (the limitation of nature). Hence is to commit mistakes is “good”. • "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. But John lives afar and is not my neighbor. Hence I could bear false witness against him."

3. Equivocation • E.g. • Practice makes perfect. (The gracefulness of an act: dancing, praying the rosary, etc.) • But nobody is perfect. (perfection, strictly) • Therefore, let us not practice.

4. Fallacies of Language • 2. Amphiboly: consists in using a phrase whose individual words are univocal but whose meaning is ambiguous because the grammatical construction can be interpreted in various ways. • e.g., "Seven times five plus four" [7x5]+4 or 7x[5+4]? • e.g. Babababa? Bababa. • I shot an elephant in my pajamas • He can walk even when he is sitting

5. Fallacies of Language • 3. Fallacy of Composition: consists in taking words or phrases as a unit when they should be taken separately • e.g., • "Every feather is light • Therefore, a ton of feathers is also light • "Murderers and thieves cannot enter heaven. • But I am only a murderer and not a thief • Therefore, I can enter heaven.”

6. Fallacies of Language • 4. Fallacy of Division: opposite of the fallacy of composition; consists in taking separately what should be taken together as a unit • e.g., • All students in this room weigh 2 tons • Angelica is a student in this room • Therefore, she weighs two tons

7. Fallacies of Language • 4. Fallacy of Division: opposite of the fallacy of composition; consists in taking separately what should be taken together as a unit • My family owns this house • Therefore, I own a part of this house (e.g. the stairs) • Salt is not poisonous • Therefore, its elements, sodium and chlorine are neither poisonous.

8. Fallacies of Not of Language • 1. Accident: consists in affirming or denying of a thing what has been affirmed or denied only of some accidental modification • e.g., • You say that you eat whatever food you buy • But you have bought raw meat • Therefore, you have eaten raw meat.

9. Fallacies of Not of Language • 2. Confusion of Qualified and Absolute Statement: consists in using a principle that is restricted in its applicability as though it were absolutely universal. • e.g., "Ilocanos are stingy, he is an Ilocano, therefore he is stingy." "Water boils at 100 C, hence water on top of Baguio also boils at 100 C."

10. Fallacies of Not of Language • 3. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi): consists in proving a conclusion other than the one that should be proved. There are various types of this fallacy.

11. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi) • a. Argumentum ad hominem: ignores the issue and attacks the person of the opponent instead. • e.g., "Don't believe your teacher, she is ugly" or "Why will you vote for him, he is a trapo (traditional politician).” • “You are a hypocrite, why would I believe you?”

12. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi) • b. Argumentum ad misericordiam: ignores the point at issue and appeals instead to mercy. • e.g., "Don't fail me for cheating, there was an emergency last night and I failed to study;“ • "Why forbid euthanasia if this is really an act of mercy to a person who is suffering for so long?"

13. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi) • c. Argumentum ad verecundiam: consists in an appeal to misplaced authority. • e.g., "Emperador brandy must be good for you because Vice Ganda drinks it“ • "How can evolution be true if the Bible says that the world was created in seven days?" (The Bible is right in saying that God created everything but "seven days" is simply a figure of speech and not intended to be scientific).

14. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi) • d. Argumentum ad Populum: is an appeal to popular prejudices than to reason. • e.g., "Cebuanos, don't let the Tagalogs dominate us, never use 'Filipino' in our classrooms."

15. Irrelevant Conclusion (IgnoratioElenchi) • e. Argumentum ad baculum: is an appeal to physical force or moral pressure; its power to persuade lies in the arousal of fear in the listener • e.g., "If you don't stop making stupid questions, I will fail you.”

16. Fallacies of Not of Language • 4. Begging the question: consists in assuming under some form the conclusion that should be proved and then using it as a premise to prove the very same conclusion • e.g., "He murdered his family because he is a murderer.” • "A man is responsible for his action because he has free will. And he has free will because he is precisely responsible for his actions."

17. Fallacies of Not of Language • 5. False Cause: what is not the cause for something is assumed to be its cause. • e.g., "The Church is causing massive poverty by refusing to accept artificial birth control;" or "Artificial contraception prevents massive poverty." (Which is the main cause of poverty, absence of birth control or graft and corruption in government?)

18. Fallacies of Not of Language • 6. Many Questions: consists in asking either multiple questions as though they were a single question – or a question involving suppositions as though it involved no supposition – and then demands a simple yes or no for an answer thus tricking someone to make admissions he does not intend to make.

19. Fallacies of Not of Language • 6. Many Questions: • e.g., “Did you stop beating your brother?" (The question presupposes that you are really beating your brother. Hence if you say “yes” it means that you were beating your brother before but you have stopped already; if you say "no "it means that you are still beating your brother), or “Are you a Normalista with excellent grades?” (There are actually 2 questions: (1) Are you a Normalista? And (2) Do you have excellent grades?)