Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 28

Logical Fallacies

Ocampo, O. & Villacruzes, I.

Deductive and Inductive: An


Overview
Philosophy makes a distinction between
two types of logic: deductive and
inductive, under each of which are
different qualifications for fallacy.
Deductive fallacies are relatively
straightforward and almost always proves
the argument is wrong.
Inductive fallacies are less rigid and tend
to take on a variety of forms, and do not
necessarily mean that the argument for
which the fallacy was made is wrong.

Deductive Fallacies
Water-tight Conclusions

Deduction: Water-tight
Conclusions
The definition for validity in
deductive reasoning is simply that it
is impossible to have an argument
whose premises are all true and yet
have a false conclusion.
IE. Truth of the premises entails
truth of the conclusion
Any argument that do not meet this
definition
is
immediately
committing a logical error and is
thus a fallacy.

However
Though deductive reasoning is a reliable
standard by which to establish the validity of
an argument, its stringent requirements are
usually not applicable to arguments regarding
human decision-making.
For example, it is not possible to use
deductive reasoning to prove that a product
of a certain brand is unquestionably the best
brand to purchase, since the premises for
consuming goods and services varies from
one consumer to the other in terms of
usefulness, quality, price, etc.

Inductive Fallacies
Educated Assumptions

Induction: Educated
Assumptions
Whereas deductive reasoning bases its
conclusion on concrete premises and formulaic
reasoning, inductive reasoning involves more
arbitrary reasoning (though this must not be
confused with ambiguity.)
In debates involving inductive reasoning, it is
crucial to establish definitions of the terms that
will be used to avoid subjectivity of language as
we will see later.
Inductive reasoning is less clean-cut, but this
only serves to match the human condition of
life, which is uncertain and fluid, but which
nonetheless requires critical observation and
action.

Induction: Educated
Assumptions
Some choose to group fallacies of
inductive reasoning, at times referred
to as informal fallacies, under three
categories: relevance, ambiguity, and
presumption. However, they maintain
that this categorization is artificial,
since some fallacies are difficult to
classify under any single group.

ALL THE FALLACIES!!!


Well, not all the fallacies

Its IRRELEPHANT!!!
Fallacies
of
relevance
are
predicated on premises that are not
relevant to the truth of the
conclusion.
Such fallacies
may attempt to
elicit emotional
responses,
increase shock
value, or attack
the credibility of
the source of the
argument.

Its IRRELEPHANT!!!

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)


Bandwagon Fallacy
Fallacists Fallacy
Fallacy of Composition
Fallacy of Division
Gamblers Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Irrelevant Appeals (+)
Moralistic Fallacy
Naturalistic Fallacy
Red Herring
Weak Analogy

Irrelevant Appeals

Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition


Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Consequences
Appeal to Force
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Poverty
Appeal to Wealth

Labo mo, Pre?!

Fallacies of ambiguity relies on the


nuances of language and the fact
that some words can have more
than one meaning to misdirect or
mislead the argument.

Labo mo, Pre?!

Accent Fallacies
Equivocation Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy

Masama mag-assume!
Fallacies of presumption use false
premises or premises with uncertain
truth values to defend their
argument. It involves jumping to an
unsupported conclusion and taking
that hasty conclusion as established
fact.

FA Masama mag-assume!
LS
E
DI
LE
M
M
A!
!!

Affirming the Consequent


Arguing from Ignorance/Personal Incredulity
Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
Complex Question/Loaded Question Fallacy
Cum Hoc Fallacy/False Causality
False Dilemma / Bifurcation Fallacy
Hasty Generalisation Fallacy
No True Scotsman Fallacy
Post Hoc Fallacy
Middle Ground Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Sweeping Generalisation Fallacy
Subjectivist Fallacy
Tu Quoque Fallacy

False Causality

Per capita consumption of sour cream (US)


Vs. Motorcycle riders killed in noncollision transport acci

False Causality

Number of people who died by becoming


entangled in their bedsheets
Vs. Total revenue generated by skiing facilities

False Causality

Age of Miss America


Vs Murders by steam, hot vapours and hot
objects

Exercises
Chance to win more food?
Disclaimer: The examples given may or may not align
with the personal opinion of the presenters. The purpose
of the given statements is merely to practice
identification of fallacies.

Exercises
1) Contraception is not a natural
process and therefore is wrong.
a) Appeal to hypocrisy
b) Appeal to nature
c) Strawman
d) No true Scotsman

B.

Exercises
2) Eat your food because thousands
of poor children are starving
a) Ambiguity
b) Appeal to nature
c) Black or white
d) Appeal to emotion

D.

Exercise
3) If we allow same-sex marriage, soon
everyone will be marrying their dogs.
a) Slippery slope
b) Special pleading
c) Appeal to authority
d) Ad hominem

A.
I kid you not, people actually make this argument. :/

Exercise every morning. Taba


mo.
4) The moment they met, the
detective asked the victims son
why he killed his father that night.
a) Slippery slope
b) Gamblers fallacy
c) Begging the question
d) Loaded question

D.

Exercise your right to partay!


5) Everyone is throwing their trash in
the street. Im sure it wont make
any difference if I tossed this
candy wrapper there.
a) Bandwagon
b) Middle ground
c) Appeal to hypocrisy
d) Appeal to emotion

A.

Conclusion
O ano, conclusion nanaman?

Conclusion, e di i-opinion!
Logic requires very critical evaluation
of the premises and the conclusion in
order to establish its coherency.
Fallacies can be found around us
everyday and can be used as sales
tools, false reassurance, and even
weapons to compel people to act. It is
our duty and privilege to use our
abilities to objectively weigh the
validity of a logical argument.

References
Richardson, J.; Smith, A.; Meadan, S. thou
shalt not commit logical fallacies, 2015.
Web. 25 February 2015.
Wilson, M. "Hilarious Graphs Prove That
Correlation Isnt Causation". Fast
Company, 2015. Web. 1 March 2015.
Logical Fallacies, 2009. Web. 20 Feb 2015.