Argument from fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.^[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), the fallacy fallacy,^[2] the fallacist's fallacy,^[3] and the bad reasons fallacy.^[4]

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5
Views:
479 540
950
824 076
1 487 211
4 338 431

Transcription

Form

It has the general argument form:

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.^[5]

Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false.

That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.^[6] But showing how one argument in a complex thesis is fallaciously reasoned does not necessarily invalidate its conclusion if that conclusion is not dependent on the fallacy.

Examples

Alice: All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. Therefore, Ginger is a cat.
Bob: You have just fallaciously affirmed the consequent. You are incorrect. Therefore, Ginger is not a cat.

Alice: I speak English. Therefore, I am English.
Bob: Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. By assuming that speaking English and being English always go together, you have just committed the package-deal fallacy. You are incorrect. Therefore, you are not English.

Both of Bob's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy. Ginger may or may not be a cat, and Alice may or may not be English. The fact that Alice's argument was fallacious is not, in itself, proof that her conclusion is false.

Charlie: Bob's argument that Ginger is not a cat is fallacious. Therefore, Ginger absolutely must be a cat.

That one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not prove one's own position either, as this would also be an argument from fallacy, as is the case in Charlie's argument.

Further

Argumentum ad logicam can be used as an ad hominem appeal: by impugning the opponent's credibility or good faith, it can be used to sway the audience by undermining the speaker rather than by addressing the speaker's argument.^[3]

William Lycan identifies the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present. Thus in some contexts it may be a form of begging the question,^[7] and it is also a special case of ad lapidem.

References

^ K. S. Pope (2003). "Common Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 26 Types & Examples". Fallacies & Pitfalls in Psychology.
^ Burkle-Young, F. A.; Maley, S. (1997). The research guide for the digital age. p. 324. ISBN 978-0-7618-0779-7.
^ ^a ^b Fischer, D. H. (June 1970). "Fallacies of substantive distraction". Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought. Harper torchbooks (first ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 305. ISBN 978-0-06-131545-9. OCLC 185446787. The fallacist's fallacy consists in any of the following false propositions... 3. The appearance of a fallacy in an argument is an external sign of its author's depravity.
^ Warburton, Nigel (2007). Thinking from A to Z. Routledge. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-4154-3371-6. Retrieved 10 August 2013.
^ Morge, M. (2008). "The Argument Clinic: A Baloney Detection Kit" (PhD Lunchtime Seminar). Dipartemento di Informatica, Pisa: 20. Retrieved 2010-06-09. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

c since A
A is fallacious
¬c
^ John Woods, The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning, Springer 2004, pp. XXIII–XXV
^ Lycan, William G. (1996). "Qualia Strictly So Called". Consciousness and experience (first ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 69. ISBN 0-262-12197-2.

In propositional logic	Affirming a disjunct Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent Argument from fallacy Masked man Mathematical fallacy
In quantificational logic	Existential Illicit conversion Proof by example Quantifier shift
Syllogistic fallacy	Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise Negative conclusion from affirmative premises Exclusive premises Existential Necessity Four terms Illicit major Illicit minor Undistributed middle

Informal

Equivocation

Question-begging

Correlative-based

Illicit transference

Secundum quid

Faulty generalization

Ambiguity

Questionable cause

Animistic
- Furtive
Correlation implies causation
- Cum hoc
- Post hoc
Gambler's
- Inverse
Regression
Single cause
Slippery slope
Texas sharpshooter

Appeals

Consequences	Argumentum ad baculum Wishful thinking
Emotion	Children Fear Flattery Novelty Pity Ridicule In-group favoritism Invented here / Not invented here Island mentality Loyalty Parade of horribles Spite Stirring symbols Wisdom of repugnance

Genetic fallacy

Ad hominem	Appeal to motive Association Reductio ad Hitlerum Godwin's law Reductio ad Stalinum Bulverism Poisoning the well Tone Tu quoque Whataboutism
Authority Accomplishment Ipse dixit Poverty / Wealth Etymology Nature Tradition / Novelty Chronological snobbery

Other fallacies
of relevance

Arguments	Ad nauseam Sealioning Argument from anecdote Argument from silence Argument to moderation Argumentum ad populum
Cliché I'm entitled to my opinion Ignoratio elenchi Invincible ignorance Moralistic / Naturalistic Motte-and-bailey fallacy Rationalization Red herring Two wrongs make a right Special pleading Straw man

Category

This page was last edited on 22 December 2023, at 12:40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia