Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 8 (Fallacies 2)(2)

7/28/2019 Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 8 (Fallacies 2)(2)

1/22

Fundamentals of

Argumentation TheoryFallacies (2)


2/22

Fallacies

This course will cover the following fallacies:

Falsely treating a starting point as agreed on, or denyinga commitment to something that was an agreed on

starting point (violation of starting point rule) Using an inappropriate argument scheme or using an

argument scheme incorrectly (violation of argumentscheme rule)

Using invalid reasoning (violation of validity rule)

Attaching unwarranted consequences to a successful ora failed defense (violation of closure rule)

Using unclear or ambiguous language (violation of usagerule)


3/22

Fallacies1. Violations of the Starting Point Rule

No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point,or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point

the defense of a standpoint rests on some set of statements that are acceptableto both parties in order to solve a DO, both parties must have in common someminimum of facts, beliefs, norms and values hierarchies: if they cannot agree on

any of these, they will never succeed in convincing each other of the acceptabilityof any standpoint

explicit agreements about common starting points are rare parties normallyoperate on the assumption that they share certain starting points (the better theyknow each other, the more likely it is that their assumption about common startingpoints are accurate in this case it might even be unnecessary to come to anexplicit agreement about starting points)

the parties do not necessarily have to believe that the propositions serving ascommon starting points are all true and acceptable, but they must conduct thediscussion as if they did

sometimes a proposition is temporarily accepted as true only in order to test itsacceptability or even to demonstrate that it is unacceptable because it has

untenable consequences


4/22

Fallacies

The rule is broken when:

A party falsely presents a premise asbelonging to the common starting points

A party denies a premise that does not

in fact belong to the starting points


5/22

Fallacies

Rule violations by the antagonist:

He may question a proposition that has already been agreedon as a common starting point

He may question a proposition that the protagonist (relying onverifiable backrond information) may rightly assume theantagonist to be committed to

e.g., in the middle of discussion, the antagonist suddenly startsquestioning a previously agreed-on proposition foropportunistic reasons: But did I ever say the Earth is round?

But what is wrong with crime anyway?

if all assumptions are open to question at the same time, there cannot be a

meaningful discussion and the difference of opinion will never be resolved.


6/22

Fallacies

Rule violations by theprotagonist:

the protagonist may act as though a certain proposition was acceptedas a starting point when that is not the case

e.g., a familiar trick for preventing a proposition from being attacked is

to formulate something controversial in such an inconspicuous waythat it is not noticed presenting the controversial proposition as a presuppositionof another statement:

saying Fred is addicted to gambling, instead of I cant understand why Fred doesntdo anything about that gambling addiction Freds addiction is presupposed, thusgiving the impression that the addiction is an established fact.

one can also make unfair use of presupposition in questions:

Who have you quarreled with today? (= the fallacy ofmany questions)

Have you quarreled with anyone today? + Who have you quarreled with

(the honest approach)


7/22

Fallacies

- the protagonist may wrongly assume that a propositionbelongs to the common starting point when in defendingtheir standpoints they use an argument that amounts tothe same thing as the standpoint the fallacy ofcircularreasoning (=begging the question, or petitio principii)

because the standpoint is precisely the statementwhich is being debated on, the protagonist knowsvery well that another statement which is identical orsynonymous with the standpoint cannot possiblybelong to the starting point

(1) Racial discrimination is a punishable offensebecause its against the law.


8/22

Fallacies

2. Violations of the Argument Scheme Rule

A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusivelydefended if the defense does not take place by

means of an appropriate argument scheme thatis correctly applied

even if all the statements making up theargumentation are accepted by both parties, the

defense cannot be successful if these statementsdo not actually support the standpoint (orwhatever part of the argumentation they wereintended to support)


9/22

Fallacies

Rule violations (by the protagonist):

by using an inappropriate argument scheme by applying a scheme in an incorrect way

thepopulist fallacy (argumentum ad populum): one employs the opinion

shared by a fairly great number of people in order to gain the acceptanceof the standing point by his antagonist a standpoint should be acceptedbecause so many people agree with it

The fallacy ofconfusing facts with value judgment (argumentum adconsequentiam): the inappropriate appeal to a causal relation insupport of a standpoint with a factual proposition, one advances anargument which is considered as normative because it points out the

undesirable effects of the standpoint:

e.g., It isnt true because I dont want it to be true.It cant be raining because that would mean wed have to cancel our

picnic.


10/22

Fallacies

The fallacy ofabuse of authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): aproposition is presented as acceptable because some person or writtensource that is inappropriately presented as an authority says that it is so(= a wrong application of a particular kind of argumentation based on asymptomatic relation)

The fallacy ofhasty generalization (secundum quid)(=also based on a

symptomatic relation):

(2) After having spent our 1991 vacation in Cuba, we went there again in1992, which shows that its a general place for tourists.

The fallacy of false analogy: when one compares two comparable thingsand there are special circumstances which invalidate the comparison

The fallacy ofpost hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore, because ofthis): when a cause-and-effect relation is based on nothing else but thefact that one thing is preceded by the other

(3) I like Milan team. I like the way they play, their courage, their drive towin. Since I came we have gone from 40 to 71 thousand season ticketholders. There must be a reason for that.


11/22

Fallacies

The fallacy of the slippery slope: to wrongly suggest thatadopting a certain course of action will inevitably be goingfrom bad to worse, when in fact there is no evidence thatsuch an effect will occur (= has to do with pragmaticargumentation)

(4) Those who find sexual violence important only when itis aimed at a limited and arbitrary group like girls andwomen, will end up, if their reasoning is carried to itslogical conclusion, finding any form of violence acceptableas long as it is aimed at an enemy specially marked out forthat purpose.


12/22

Fallacies

3. Violations of the Validity Rule

The reasoning in the argumentation must belogically valid or must be capable of being made

valid by making explicit one or more unexpressedpremises

This rule is broken only when the reasoning

remains invalid after having made expliciteverything that one has left unexpressed

Violations of this rule have to do with the logicalform of the reasoning underlying the argument


13/22

Fallacies

Types of violations of the validity rule:

Affirming the consequent (= the invalid countepart ofmodus ponens)

(5) If you eat spoiled fish (antecedent) you get sick (consequent).Anne is sick. (affirmation of the consequent)

Therefore: Anne has eaten spoiled fish.

Denying the antecedent(the invalid counterpart ofmodus tolens)

(6) If you eat spoiled fish (antecedent) you get sick(consequent)

Anne hasnt eaten any of the spoiled fish (denial of antecedent)Therefore: Anne is not sick.

The mistake made in both types of reasoning: a sufficient condition is

treated as a necessary one

invalid reasoning: Anne could have got sick due to the causes otherthan eating spoiled fish


14/22

Fallacies

The fallacy of division: incorrectly attributing a a property of the wholeto the component parts

(7) The Cabinet is indecisive.Therefore: The Ministers are indecisive.

The fallacy of composition: incorrectly attributing a property of thecomponent parts to the whole

(8) We use real butter, real cream, and fresh lettuce so our meals arealways delicious (the fact that the dish is made up of ingredients eachof which is delicious does guarantee that the dish itself is alsodelicious)

(9) The Catholic church is a church for poor people.Therefore: The Catholic Church is poor.

These fallacies involve treating the whole as a simple sum of the separate parts andassuming that every property of the whole also applies to each of the component parts


15/22

Fallacies

4. Violations of the Closure Rule

A failed defense of a standpoint must result in theprotagonist retracting the standpoint and a successfuldefense of a standpoint must result in the antagonistretracting his doubts

The concluding stage of the discussion must establishwhether the DO has been resolved and in whose favour: ifthe parties do not succeed in coming to an agreement onthis, the DO persists

If both the protagonist and the antagonist agree on theoutcome, then they must also accept the consequences


16/22

Fallacies

Types of fallacies: The protagonist may commit the fallacy ofrefusing to retract a

standpoint that has not been successfully defended: he doesnot give up his standpoint even if he has not managed tosuccessfully defend it.

The antagonist may commit the fallacy ofrefusing to retract

criticism of a standpoint that has been successfully defended:he does not retract his criticism of a standpoint that theprotagonist has succeeded in defending.

(10) Well, if thats the case, then I cant think of any moreobjections. But I still dont agree with it.

The fallacy ofconcluding that a standpoint is true because ithas been defended successfully: when such a defense issuccessful, the only thing that the protagonist has shown isthat their standpoint, based as it is on the agreed-on startingpoints, can be successfully defended. This does not imply thatthe standpoint is necessarily true or acceptable in any broadersense i.e., outside the context of discussion


17/22

Fallacies

The fallacy ofconcluding that a standpoint istrue because the opposite has not beensuccessfully defended (argumentum adignorantiam):

> the failure of a defense does not warrant theconclusion that the standpoint has been shownto be false or that the opposite standpoint istrue

(11) Mother: You must never hit children,because then they lose trust in society and tenyears later theyll be hitting everybody.

Father: It has not in any way been provedthat hitting children leads to violence later. Soa slap once in a while for a good reason cant

do any harm.


18/22

Fallacies

5 Violations of the Usage Rule

Parties must not use any formulations that areinsufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and

they must interpret the formulations of the otherparty as carefully and accurately as possible

Unclear or ambiguous language can have direct

negative consequences for the resolution of aDO.

Ambiguity and lack of clarity in violation of thisrule can occur during any stage of the discussion


19/22

Fallacies

Types of fallacies: The fallacy ofunclarity

The fallacy ofambiguity

they may occur either by themselves or in combinationwith other fallacies:

An argumentum ad baculum or an argumentum ad hominemis often more effective if the threat or the accusation is madeindirectly

Sometimes lack of clarity is inherent to a fallacy: e.g., thefallacy of magnifying an unexpressed premise: the antagonistmay magnify an unexpressed premise precisely because itwas not explicitly stated.

Some kinds of clarity have to do with the structure of largepieces of text=structural unclarity at the textual level (i.e., itresults in illogical order, lack of coherence, obscure structure

etc)


20/22

Fallacies

Types of unclarity at sentence level: Unclarity resulting from:

Implicitness Indefiniteness Unfamiliarity Vagueness

(12) Charles is a kleptomaniac.

1. Are you warning me or just informing me?

indicates that the unclarity was due to implicitness: the listener is not sure what the

communicative function of the speech act is because the context and the situation allow

for more than one interpretation

2. Charles? Charles who?

indicates that the unclarity was due to indefiniteness: it seeks clarification of the propositional content.

The listener cannot determine who the speaker is referring to, the reference is unclear.


21/22

Fallacies

1. A kleptomaniac? Whats that?

indicates unclarity in the propositional content, but this time it is thepredication that is problematic: the listener does not understandexactly what the speaker is trying to say about Charles because he

does not know the meaning of the word kleptomaniac. Unclarity isdue to unfamiliarity with the word or with the illness it refers to.

2. What do you mean, he a kleptomaniac? Do youmean once upon a time he stole something, or doyou mean he makes a habit of stealing things?

this consists in the listeners attempt to obtain a clearer idea of whatthe speaker means by kleptomaniac, thereby reducing thevagueness of this term. Although the listener knows the meaning ofthe word, he does not yet know what criteria the speaker is using.


22/22

Fallacies

Ambiguity: has to do with the fact that words and phrases can have more than onemeaning

(13) Thats Hermans portrait.a. the portrait was painted by Herman.

b. the portrait is owned by Hermanc. Herman is the subject of the portrait.

Questions may also be ambiguous:

(14) Who is Tony?a. Which of you three is Tony?b. Who in this picture is Tony?c. Who is the actor that plays Tony?d. What can you tell me about Tony?

e. Why the hell should we listen to Tony?

Ambiguity of reference:

(15) Carla gave Sandra the mail; it was her last day here.

Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 8 (Fallacies 2)(2)

Documents