Attacking Faulty Reasoning
Encyclopedia
Attacking Faulty Reasoning is a textbook on logical fallacies by T. Edward Damer
that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic
, critical thinking
, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed logical fallacies. Each of the fallacies is concisely defined and illustrated with several relevant examples. For each fallacy
, the text gives suggestions about how to address or to "attack" the fallacy when it is encountered. The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of the five criteria of a good argument
: the argument must be structurally well-formed; the premises must be relevant; the premises must be acceptable; the premises must be sufficient in number, weight, and kind; there must be an effective rebuttal
of challenges to the argument. Each fallacy falls into at least one of Damer's five fallacy categories, which derive from the above criteria.
The text also sets forth 13 principles that constitute a "Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion." This code incorporates Damer’s fallacy theory and provides a procedural and ethical standard for the development of an effective intellectual style to be used when engaging in a rational discussion of important issues.
T. Edward Damer
Biography=Dr. Damer is a professor of philosophy and chair of the Division Visual and Performing Arts at Emory and Henry College in Emory, Virginia. He has been on the Emory faculty since 1967. In 1991, he won the James A...
that has been used for many years in a number of college courses on logic
Logic
In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science...
, critical thinking
Critical thinking
Critical thinking is the process or method of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic...
, argumentation, and philosophy. It explains 60 of the most commonly committed logical fallacies. Each of the fallacies is concisely defined and illustrated with several relevant examples. For each fallacy
Fallacy
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor , or take advantage of social relationships between people...
, the text gives suggestions about how to address or to "attack" the fallacy when it is encountered. The organization of the fallacies comes from the author’s own fallacy theory, which defines a fallacy as a violation of one of the five criteria of a good argument
Argument
In philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, or give evidence or reasons for accepting a particular conclusion.Argument may also refer to:-Mathematics and computer science:...
: the argument must be structurally well-formed; the premises must be relevant; the premises must be acceptable; the premises must be sufficient in number, weight, and kind; there must be an effective rebuttal
Rebuttal
In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used in politics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific...
of challenges to the argument. Each fallacy falls into at least one of Damer's five fallacy categories, which derive from the above criteria.
The five fallacy categories
- Fallacies that violate the structural criterion. The structural criterion requires that one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument, using premises that are compatible with one another, that do not contradict the conclusion, that do not assume the truth of the conclusion, and that are not involved in any faulty deductive inference. Fallacies such as begging the questionBegging the questionBegging the question is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise....
, denying the antecedentDenying the antecedentDenying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise....
, or undistributed middle violate this criterion.
- Fallacies that violate the relevance criterion. The relevance criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue. Fallacies such as appeal to traditionAppeal to traditionAppeal to tradition is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition...
, appeal to force, or genetic fallacyGenetic fallacyThe genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from...
fail to meet the argumentative demands of relevance.
- Fallacies that violate the acceptability criterion. The acceptability criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are likely to be accepted by a rationally mature person and that meet the standard criteria of acceptability. Fallacies such as equivocationEquivocationEquivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense...
, fallacy of divisionFallacy of divisionA fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts.An example:# A Boeing 747 can fly unaided across the ocean.# A Boeing 747 has jet engines....
, and wishful thinking are unacceptable because they are based on linguistic confusion or involve unacceptable assumptions.
- Fallacies that violate the sufficiency criterion. The sufficiency criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion. Fallacies such as argument from ignoranceArgument from ignoranceArgument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" , is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted"...
, special pleadingSpecial pleadingSpecial pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone...
, and the post hoc fallacy violate this criterion because they are arguments that are missing importance evidence or make causal assumptions based on insufficient evidence.
- Fallacies that violate the rebuttal criterion. The rebuttal criterion requires that one who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions. Fallacies such as red herringIgnoratio elenchiIgnoratio elenchi is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question...
, straw manStraw manA straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions...
, and poisoning the wellPoisoning the wellPoisoning the well is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say...
fail to meet this criterion because they attack the arguer rather than the argument or use argumentative devices that divert attention away from the issue at stake.
The text also sets forth 13 principles that constitute a "Code of Conduct for Effective Discussion." This code incorporates Damer’s fallacy theory and provides a procedural and ethical standard for the development of an effective intellectual style to be used when engaging in a rational discussion of important issues.
See also
- ArgumentArgumentIn philosophy and logic, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, or give evidence or reasons for accepting a particular conclusion.Argument may also refer to:-Mathematics and computer science:...
- Argumentation
- Critical thinkingCritical thinkingCritical thinking is the process or method of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false, or sometimes true and sometimes false, or partly true and partly false. The origins of critical thinking can be traced in Western thought to the Socratic...
- Logical argument
- FallacyFallacyIn logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor , or take advantage of social relationships between people...
- Logical fallacy
- Logical reasoningLogical reasoningIn logic, three kinds of logical reasoning can be distinguished: deduction, induction and abduction. Given a precondition, a conclusion, and a rule that the precondition implies the conclusion, they can be explained in the following way:...