Fallacy Series 2 - The Likely Lads

OK, so, we're on to the second of the fallacy series: The Likely Lads. If you haven't worked it out, I enjoy British comedies. Because I am British. And I like comedies.



OK, so fallacy number one, an Ad Hominem. Translated from Latin, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." This means when you insult the opposition, instead of their arguments. It seems quite obviously a flaw, but it is something that is done a lot, and occasionally for good reason. But usually, it isn't.



Mathematically, the argument has this form :

1. Person A makes claim X.


2. Person B makes an attack on person A.


3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Notice the lack of the attack on the claim, and attack on A, not X. When written like this, the flaw becomes obvious. However, it is still common use, especially when the opposition says something that is utter lunacy, and they won't take it back (for example, in a discussion I was having, someone defined evolution as an ideology that is to disprove God and prove the Big Bang. He did not know what speciation was, yet alone what natural selection, artificial selection or genetic mutations. I may have resorted to calling him a fool. And a few other things.)

Let's go for some examples.

"YOU'RE an ad hominem!" (Response from NephilimFree (A youtube evangelist) when he insulted people (while drunk) by calling people bad americans. After someone said it was an ad hominem, he responded. Riots ensued.)

"I don't think Hitler's military was strong. He killed all the jews!" (It is also another fallacy, a reductio ad Hitlerum, or Godwin's Law)

"I can't take what you say as truth. You're a priest, you're argument is obviously bias." (An argument I've heard with even a pro against a priest. Of course, it was more cleverly hidden).

OK, moving on to the next one...

credits to www.cooltext.com for their website of making text

An ad Populum argument is when you specifically attempt to appeal to the public, instead of your opposition's arguments. It is also known as an argument to popularity. For example :

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

This is whenthe fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. The more common uses of the argument is used with a Slippery Slope Fallacy, etc.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. The Asch Conformity Experiment is an experiment which shows that people are more likely to conform to a view if others agree to what had been said.

Mathematically,

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).


2. Therefore X is true.

Simple!

Some more examples include :

"My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."

OK, now, a false dichotomy. (No, it is not as dramatic as the "Ad Populum")

A false dichotomy is a very simple fallacy to use, abuse, and understand. Noticing one is hard though, because the key word isn't dichotomy, it's false.

For example, a false dichotomy would be : "In the current economic climate, we need to either cut costs or raise taxes". This is false because we can do both. (Or neither, but then we'd be screwed).

A normal dichotomy would be: "Either we accept that the Ark on Mt. Ararat was fake, or we disregard the testimony of the archeologists, the NAMI (Noah's Ark Ministries International), the head historian of the Judean Archeology institute, and the people who said, and provided images, that they did the scam to get money from the NAMI." This is not a false dichotomy, although it is an attack on the credibility of the opposition, and reveals bias in a less-than-civil manner. (Or the person could be mistaken, however, in this scenario, they're not.)

The mathematical format of a dichotomy would be :

You have either claims X or Y to be true.

Claim X is false.

Therefore Claim Y is true.

It is easier to point out a true dichotomy when X is the negative of Y. E.g. Either Justin Beiber has a face you want to punch or he doesn't. If you disagree with X, you agree with Y.

A false dichotomy is harder to notice : An obvious one would be you either want to punch or kick Justin Beiber. You may want to do neither (for some reason unknown to me).

Another example :

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive. <-- This is the only other option (if we assume there is someone called Bill.Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
   Senator Bill: "Why?"
   Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit." FALSE!

I hope this clears some things up for you. Next time I will talk about the Fallacy laws : Poe's Law, Godwin's Law, and others.