We explain what a fallacy is, differences between formal and informal and examples. Also, differences with sophistry.
What is a fallacy?
The word fallacy comes from the Latin word fallacywhich means “deception.” It is used in the field of logic and rhetoric to designate those arguments that seem valid at first glance, but are not .
That is, it is a form of erroneous reasoning, which can be committed innocently or with the intention of manipulating others, given that although its internal logic is erroneous it can still be emotionally or psychologically effective.
Now, if an argument is not valid (that is, it is fallacious) does not mean that its premises are necessarily false, nor that its conclusions are false either. It simply means that the reasoning connecting the premises and conclusions is incorrect, flawed. In this sense, the fallacies They are procedural errors, and not so much content .
Fallacies have been studied since classical antiquity, especially Greco-Roman. Philosophers such as Aristotle (384-322 BC) gave great importance to logic, and in their Sophistical refutations The topic is addressed exhaustively, managing to identify thirteen different fallacies, organized into two groups: those whose invalidity depends on language, and those in which it does not.
Since then, a significant number of fallacies have been added to the list, generally identified with a name that embodies their illogical reasoning mechanism. Below we will see some examples.
Examples of fallacies
Let's look at some examples of fallacies:
1. The straw man fallacy
Also known as the “scarecrow fallacy,” consists of the caricature, distortion and exaggeration of the adversary's arguments, in order to take them out of context and make them easier to refute, which would not happen if we faced them through true logical reasoning.
Its name comes from the fact that in the past, dolls made of straw were used to train soldiers in combat, since the former are immobile and easy to shoot down.
For example, let's imagine that someone advocates for the legalization of abortion, arguing that it is a fact that already occurs in society and that requires certain controls. Another person may try to refute that argument by accusing you of wanting to legalize robbery and then murder.
The problem is that the fallacy does not logically confront the arguments in favor of abortion that are put forward, but instead invents arguments that are easier to combat and attacks them, attributing them to its opponent.
2. The sniper fallacy
This fallacy gets its name from an anecdote, real or not, in which an alleged sniper fired several times at a barn in Texas, United States, and subsequently drew a target on its surface, in order to make it appear that each shot It had been perfectly planned and thus demonstrated his skill with the rifle.
Similarly, whoever uses this fallacy disguises, adapts or manipulates information to produce meaning after the fact and that it seems that everything is the product of a logical conclusion, finding patterns where there are none at convenience.
Suppose someone is walking at night and finds a bill on the ground. He takes it and looks up, and it seems to him that the stars form an arrow pointing towards the bill, so he decides that whoever follows that arrow will get free money. When someone questions whether this is true, he shows them the found bill as evidence.
Obviously, a single event does not serve to determine a pattern, and the existence of the money found does not automatically prove its causes, any more than the targets painted by the sniper prove that he has good aim.
3. The fallacy ad hominem
Its name in Latin means “against man” and means that, Instead of fighting the ideas of the argument, you fight the person who proposes them thus rendering them invalid through non-logical reasoning. It is an extremely common fallacy in different areas of debate, especially in politics, in which it is common to publicly distort an individual in order to also distort their ideas.
For example, suppose a politician proposes a new tax law, and instead of fighting what the law proposes using arguments that have to do with taxes, politics, or economics, his opponents respond by accusing him of beating his wife.
Whether this last accusation is true or not, by itself it says absolutely nothing about the tax law and therefore is of no use to oppose it, since the popularity or morality of the person proposing it is irrelevant.
4. Fallacy of hasty generalization
It consists, as its name indicates, of an extrapolation procedure or generalization that is not based on logical premises, but is given arbitrarily that is, without having sufficient evidence. Generally, these generalizations lead to bad inductions and erroneous conclusions, so we can consider it fallacious inductive reasoning.
Let's imagine, as an example, that someone adopts a cat, and that their pet shows a love for eating chocolate. Then, quickly generalizing, the person decides that cats like chocolate, without stopping to think that maybe it's just their cat that likes chocolate, or that maybe some cats like it and others don't.
Formal and informal fallacies
Over time, fallacies have been classified in very different ways, the first being the one we mentioned at the beginning, the work of Aristotle. However, more common today is the classification that distinguishes them between formal and informal fallacies.
- formal fallacies . They are those whose invalidity can be demonstrated by reviewing the forms, that is, the logical procedure itself, through validity tests.
- Informal fallacies . They are those whose invalidity does not lie so much in the formal, that is, in the method of reasoning, as in the content of the arguments or the intention with which they are formulated.
Fallacies and sophistry
The difference between fallacy and sophistry was common in ancient times, but today it is out of use. It was based on the intentions of the person carrying out the invalid reasoning. So, if this person has no intention of lying, but is simply wrong, we are in the presence of a fallacy.
On the contrary, A sophistry exists when a fallacy is issued with bad intention, that is, knowing the logical error. . However, it is not always possible to determine a person's intentions from what they say, so this differentiation may not be as useful as it at first appears.
References
- “Fallacy” on Wikipedia.
- “The fallacies” in Xunta de Galicia (Spain).
- “Fallacias” (video) in Entelekia Summaries.
- “The fallacies” (video) in Educatina.
- “Fallacias” at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
