Logical Fallacies: Component Fallacies
Component fallacies are considered formal fallacies because they have to do with the form of the argument. You may be correct in what you say but it is out of order and therefore sounds like nonsense. This group of fallacies have to do with errors in reasoning. This may be inductive or deductive reasoning. This part two in a series of episode on logical fallacies. A few weeks ago we discussed Fallacies of Relevance. There are a lot of logical fallacies out there, enough to have entire college classes on them. These episodes will only cover a few of the more common ones in each category. You are going to run into logical fallacies all the time, especially in informal conversations with friends or on social media. It’s important to understand that fallacies are faults in the logic of an argument. Because what someone says contains fallacies, that does not mean they are not correct, it just means their particular argument didn’t prove them correct. Keep that in mind and be lenient on those who may commit the fallacies. Use the knowledge here to better your own use of logic when arguing your point. Episode Breakdown Petitio Principii The Fallacy of Presumption or Begging the Question is also known as assuming the conclusion. This happens when the conclusion to the argument is used as part of the premise for that same argument. Sometimes the term “begging the question” is used in ways other than in relation to the Fallacy of Presumption such as when someone means “raising the question”. Circular Reasoning is a form of Begging the Question where the argument repeats what has already been assumed instead of arriving at a conclusion. These are really not arguments but instead restatements of the same thing to look like a logical argument. Ignorantio Elenchi Also known as the Irrelevant Conclusion Fallacy, this happens when the argument leads to one conclusion but that is used to prove a different unrelated conclusion. The insidious nature of this fallacy appears when the irrelevant conclusion is tangentially related to the topic of the argument but not directly related to the argument at hand. The most well known type of irrelevant conclusion fallacy is the Red Herring. This is a distraction technique that appears to be relevant but is not on-topic. You may see this when considering Javascript frameworks, the argument may be made that you need a solid user experience. That however does not address the issue of which is best for your purposes and if the ones being considered will provide it. This may be tricky to decipher as topics may appear irrelevant but then tie back into the main conversation. If confused ask for clarification as to how this side topic relates to the discussion at hand. Dicto Simpliciter Hasty Generalization are also known as “Jumping to Conclusions” and “Converse Accident”. This is a failure of inductive reasoning where there are not enough samples to prove a point. It’s normal and natural to generalize, the problem comes when there is an insignificant amount of evidence for the generalization or it is take beyond the constraints of the evidence. Many times you’ll see this in the “we tried that a few years ago and it didn’t work” argument. This can be a difficult one to overcome because what is considered sufficient varies depending on the circumstances. Non Causa Pro Causa Literally translated meaning “not the cause, for a cause”, the False Cause Fallacy occurs when the conclusion comes before there is enough evidence for the conclusion. This tends to happen when the person making this fallacy wants the conclusion to come from a particular cause because it fits into their own narrative or argument. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc (Post Hoc for short) means “after this,