Do You Commit These Fallacies? Part 2
Begging the Question (Petitio principii)
This is the generic name for four types of fallacies that use “proof” which already assumes as true the very idea one is trying to prove.
Vicious Circle (Circulus vitiosus)
One tries to prove an idea by giving reasons whose validity depends on the very idea one is trying to prove. “A” is true because “B” is true, and “B” is true because “C” is true. And “C”? “C” is true because “A” is true, thereby completing the circle. The circularity of the argument is never this obvious because one interlards the line of argumentation with language calculated to conceal what one is doing — arguing in a circle. I met a Martian the other night. How do I know he was from Mars? He told me so. How do I know he was telling me the truth? He ought to know where he comes from!
Question-Begging Epithet
One seeks to have an audience prejudge an idea by continually referring to it in disparaging terms. One name-calls an idea by labeling it “false,” “unsound,” “naïve,” “uninformed,” “groundless,” “radical,” “reactionary,” “fascist,” “unrealistic,” “socialist,” “communist,” “fake news,” etc., without offering proof that the idea is any of these things. An impressionable audience may be persuaded that the idea is whatever these adjectives or epithets are alleging simply because it is described in this way, whereas it may be none of these things at all, but merely a deliberate attempt to deceive an audience into thinking it is. On the other hand, one uses positive epithets to describe one’s own idea or proposal.
“Self-Evident” Truth
One denies that one’s idea even needs proof since it is so “self-evident.” One uses phrases like, “it’s evident that,” “it’s a fact that,” “everyone knows that,” “only a fool would deny that,” “no intelligent person doubts that,” etc. One is lulled or intimidated into believing that something is, indeed, “self-evident” since one doesn’t want to appear “foolish” or “unintelligent” by asking why the idea is any of the things the speaker claims it is, whereas if one did ask, one would call his bluff.
The speaker’s tactic is to create a climate so negatively charged toward the idea in question that he won’t have to prove why it is any of these things, when that should be the very reason for his addressing the audience. What appears to be “self-evident” may not be self-evident at all but an attempt to deceive an audience. (Europe, 1491) Everybody knows the Earth is flat!
This is what happens at a political rally when one is addressing an audience of zealots who will blindly believe whatever the speaker will say. One attends such a rally not to exercise one’s critical-thinking skills, but rather to be swept away by rapturous Groupthink since this is the reason one has come to the rally — perhaps one is bored and wants to be transported beyond oneself
Tautology
Tautos in Greek means “same” and logos means “word,” “reason,” or “meaning.” A tautology is a fallacy that offers as proof a mere repetition of the same idea in different words as in, “This idea is absurd because it doesn’t make any sense.” Upon closer inspection, however, what appears to be an “absurd” idea may actually be an idea that challenges the speaker’s prejudices.
Irrelevant Conclusion (Non sequitur)
One seeks to demonstrate the truth of one’s conclusion that does not follow from the “proof” one has offered. (Hence, the phrase “non sequitur” or “it does not follow.”) Such a conclusion may be drawn after one has gone to elaborate lengths to analyze what seems to be evidence. Such a long procedure is calculated to convince one’s audience that the conclusion, not yet mentioned, is based on hard evidence, when the conclusion doesn’t follow from the “evidence” at all.
One proceeds amidst a dazzling display of rhetorical pyrotechnics to draw a conclusion completely at odds with the “reasons” presented. A skilled speaker can distract an audience from what is happening by a series of diversions so that people leave the hall with “logical proof” to a conclusion that doesn’t follow from that “proof” provided.
Or one can first present the conclusion one seeks to prove. One waxes eloquent, describing the conclusion in eulogistic terms and lauding its merits. One then claims to offer proof when all one is offering is the semblance of proof whose oratorical glitter and surface plausibility disguise the fact that one’s proof is irrelevant and doesn’t prove one’s conclusion at all. Amidst thunderous applause, one triumphantly repairs to the wings — the Lord of Deception. This idea is true because it makes me feel good or brings me comfort, so, therefore, it’s true. What does feeling good or comfortable have to do with truth?
False Cause (post hoc, ergo propter hoc)
One argues in a way that confuses temporal sequence with causal relation. Event A occurs, then event B. A rooster crows and the sun comes up. The rooster mistakenly concludes that he caused the sunrise. Since B occurred after A, it is mistakenly argued that B occurred because of A. Since the sun came up after the rooster crowed, it came up because he crowed. Therefore, the phrase “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” or “after this, therefore because of this.”
One forgets that the fact of B’s occurring after A doesn’t necessarily mean that it occurred because of A. It might have occurred because of coincidence or some other factor or in spite of A. One cannot automatically infer that a causal connection exists between two events, when only temporal sequence is present.
Ever since I went to the doctor, I feel so much better. He really helped me. (The doctor could very well have helped you, or you could have improved even had you not gone to the doctor.) Gott heilt und der Doktor bekommt das Geld. (God, or nature, or the passage of time heals you and the doctor gets the money.) He must be a good leader. Look at all the progress the country made while he was in office. (Maybe, or the improvement was already in the works because of what the previous president had done and one falsely wants to take credit for it.) Or it rains after a rain dance.
False Generalization
One seeks to prove a generalization on the basis of insufficient evidence. From a limited sampling of isolated cases, one unjustifiably draws a generalization which these cases are said to support. In effect, one collects only evidence which lends support to one’s conclusion and ignores whatever does not. After speaking to three people, I think the entire town must think that way. John has just read a book on a particular subject. It’s the only book on the subject he’s read. John tells his friend, “That really was a factual and unbiased account!”
Insufficient Options (Black-or-White Fallacy)
One tries to create the impression that only two choices exist about a question, when, in fact, a third may exist. One subverts objective consideration of the problem by structuring the answer in either/or, black-or-white terms. The fact that an intermediate position may exist between the two extremes, or a third possibility, is suppressed.
It is for this reason that disproving an opponent’s idea does not necessarily imply the truth of one’s own since this, too, might be false. “Love it or leave it,” an expression that arose during the Vietnam War, meant that one should either love America by supporting its war in Vietnam or, if one didn’t, one was unpatriotic or a traitor, who should leave the country. This was a Black-or-White Fallacy because it assumed that there were only two possible choices: supporting the war or leaving the country.
The protesters, on the other hand, also saw themselves as patriotic and loving America. They loved it too much to see it do what they believed was immoral like prosecuting an unjust war, and so they tried to awaken the country from its jingo patriotism. These protesters also distinguished between the country and the particular administration that happened to be in office at that time and waging what they saw as an immoral war. One could love one’s country, yet at the same time think that the administration in office was misguided and should abandon that war.
He’s either a Democrat or a Republican. No, he could also be non-political who says a plague upon both your houses, or a libertarian, an independent, a Tea Partier, a socialist, a communist, or an anarchist.
Complex Question
One seeks to force an answer to what appears to be a single question which, in fact, is really two questions, the second question being a hidden assumption. A question so formulated is designed to trick someone into admitting to something that isn’t true. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” may seem like one question (whether one has stopped beating her), whereas it also contains the hidden assumption that one had been beating her.
No matter how the man answers, he admits to something he hasn’t done, for if he says “yes,” he is admitting having beaten her in the past, which he hasn’t. If he says “no,” he’s saying that he’s still beating her, which he also isn’t doing. But the lawyer insists on a yes-or-no answer. To avoid being impaled on the horns of such a deceptively-framed question, one has only to refuse to accept the question as formulated until it is broken down into its two parts.
“Why” questions are less obvious examples of this same fallacy. “Why is such-and-such the case?” The question is ostensibly why such-and–such is the case, whereas the hidden assumption is that it is the case when it may not be the case at all! Someone falling prey to this fallacy might proceed to think of reasons to explain why something is the case, when in fact what one should be doing is challenging the assumption that it is the case at all.
However, everything depends on the context in which this why-question is asked. If a class were studying an event that happened in American history, it would not be a complex question were the teacher to ask, “Why did this episode happen?” because it already had been established the day before that it did happen when the teacher had merely discussed the event in general.
Anytime you hear a question that begins with “why,” ask yourself if you’re dealing with a complex question that assumes that something is the case, when it may not be the case at all.
A Final Word about Fallacies
If you’re analyzing an argument or theory and find that the reasons given are fallacious, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the theory itself is false, although it may be. All it means is that the reasons given don’t support the theory. The theory itself could still be true, but you would have to find arguments that would support it, since your opponent obviously hasn’t. Until that time, you must keep an open mind. A fallacy doesn’t disprove a theory, but only the faulty reasons or arguments used to prove it.
Examples of Fallacies
This idea is true because:
Freud said it was true. Appeal to Authority
It’s been around for centuries. Appeal to Antiquity Everybody knows it’s true. “Self-Evident” Truth
Get Frank Breslin’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
It reflects the latest thinking. Appeal to Novelty
Without it, life would have no meaning. Appeal to Fear
No intelligent person would doubt it. “Self-Evident” Truth
It brings me comfort. Irrelevant Conclusion
An intelligent group of people like you can see that it’s true. Appeal to Crowd
Look at all the famous people who have believed it. Appeal to Authority
It is supported by the latest research. Appeal to Novelty
It cannot be proven to be false. Appeal to Ignorance
He has a Ph.D. Appeal to Authority
The New York Times said it’s true. Appeal to Authority
Only a fool would deny it. “Self-Evident” Truth
Statistics incontestably prove that it’s true. Appeal to Authority
This idea is false because:
His upbringing makes him think that way. Appeal to the Man
It’s not true. Tautology
He didn’t do anything wrong. You did it too. You, too Fallacy
It arose out of fear and insecurity thousands of years ago. Fallacy of Origins
He didn’t even finish grade. Appeal to the Man
It’s a lunatic idea Question-begging Epithet
I couldn’t face life if it were true. Appeal to Fear
Everybody knows it’s false. “Self-Evident” Truth
If it were true, I wouldn’t be strong enough to accept it. Appeal to Fear
Don’t lock him up. He’s had nothing but trouble all his life. Appeal to Pity
Believe this, or you will suffer the consequences. Appeal to Fear
He’s either a liberal or conservative. Insufficient Options
Have you stopped beating your wife? Complex Question
He thinks that way because he’s a WASP. Appeal to the Man Rather than disprove an idea, one attacks the person who holds it. Appeal to Man
One disproves an idea by citing conditions that gave rise to it. Fallacy of Origins
One seeks to prove an idea by citing its age. Appeal to Antiquity
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. After this, therefor, because of this
You don’t take seriously what he’s saying, do you? She’s a kid. Appeal to Man
I’ve proved your idea false. Therefore, my idea must be true. Insufficient Options The rooster crows, and the sun comes up. He made it come up. False Cause
Love it or leave it! Insufficient Options
I had an accident because a black cat crossed my path. False Cause
You’re a very perceptive audience. Appeal to Crowd
One name-calls a person. Appeal to the Man
One name-calls an idea. Question-begging Epithet
This idea is true because it makes me feel good. Irrelevant Conclusion
(Europe, 1491) Everyone knows the Earth is flat.” Self-Evident Truth
This idea is true because I want it to be true. Irrelevant Conclusion
Frank Breslin is a retired high-school teacher in the New Jersey public school system.
