Fallacy谬误.docx
《Fallacy谬误.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《Fallacy谬误.docx(53页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
![Fallacy谬误.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-3/31/835ca65c-6035-4cad-8f0c-7a7cf9a11ff0/835ca65c-6035-4cad-8f0c-7a7cf9a11ff01.gif)
Fallacy谬误
AdHominem
DescriptionofAdHominem
TranslatedfromLatintoEnglish,"AdHominem"means"againsttheman"or"againsttheperson."
AnAdHominemisageneralcategoryoffallaciesinwhichaclaimorargumentisrejectedonthebasisofsomeirrelevantfactabouttheauthoroforthepersonpresentingtheclaimorargument.Typically,thisfallacyinvolvestwosteps.First,anattackagainstthecharacterofpersonmakingtheclaim,hercircumstances,orheractionsismade(orthecharacter,circumstances,oractionsofthepersonreportingtheclaim).Second,thisattackistakentobeevidenceagainsttheclaimorargumentthepersoninquestionismaking(orpresenting).Thistypeof"argument"hasthefollowingform:
1PersonAmakesclaimX.
2PersonBmakesanattackonpersonA.
3ThereforeA'sclaimisfalse.
ThereasonwhyanAdHominem(ofanykind)isafallacyisthatthecharacter,circumstances,oractionsofapersondonot(inmostcases)haveabearingonthetruthorfalsityoftheclaimbeingmade(orthequalityoftheargumentbeingmade).
ExampleofAdHominem
4Bill:
"Ibelievethatabortionismorallywrong."
Dave:
"Ofcourseyouwouldsaythat,you'reapriest."
Bill:
"WhatabouttheargumentsIgavetosupportmyposition?
"
Dave:
"Thosedon'tcount.LikeIsaid,you'reapriest,soyouhavetosaythatabortioniswrong.Further,youarejustalackeytothePope,soIcan'tbelievewhatyousay."
AdHominemTuQuoque
AlsoKnownas:
"YouTooFallacy"
DescriptionofAdHominemTuQuoque
Thisfallacyiscommittedwhenitisconcludedthataperson'sclaimisfalsebecause1)itisinconsistentwithsomethingelseapersonhassaidor2)whatapersonsaysisinconsistentwithheractions.Thistypeof"argument"hasthefollowingform:
1PersonAmakesclaimX.
2PersonBassertsthatA'sactionsorpastclaimsareinconsistentwiththetruthofclaimX.
3ThereforeXisfalse.
Thefactthatapersonmakesinconsistentclaimsdoesnotmakeanyparticularclaimhemakesfalse(althoughofanypairofinconsistentclaimsonlyonecanbetrue-butbothcanbefalse).Also,thefactthataperson'sclaimsarenotconsistentwithhisactionsmightindicatethatthepersonisahypocritebutthisdoesnotprovehisclaimsarefalse.
ExamplesofAdHominemTuQuoque
4Bill:
"Smokingisveryunhealthyandleadstoallsortsofproblems.Sotakemyadviceandneverstart."
Jill:
"Well,Icertainlydon'twanttogetcancer."
Bill:
"I'mgoingtogetasmoke.WanttojoinmeDave?
"
Jill:
"Well,Iguesssmokingcan'tbethatbad.Afterall,Billsmokes."
5Jill:
"Ithinktheguncontrolbillshouldn'tbesupportedbecauseitwon'tbeeffectiveandwillwastemoney."
Bill:
"Well,justlastmonthyousupportedthebill.SoIguessyou'rewrongnow."
6Peter:
"BasedontheargumentsIhavepresented,itisevidentthatitismorallywrongtouseanimalsforfoodorclothing."
Bill:
"Butyouarewearingaleatherjacketandyouhavearoastbeefsandwichinyourhand!
Howcanyousaythatusinganimalsforfoodandclothingiswrong!
"
AppealtoAuthority
AlsoKnownas:
FallaciousAppealtoAuthority,MisuseofAuthority,IrrelevantAuthority,QuestionableAuthority,InappropriateAuthority,AdVerecundiam
DescriptionofAppealtoAuthority
AnAppealtoAuthorityisafallacywiththefollowingform:
1PersonAis(claimedtobe)anauthorityonsubjectS.
2PersonAmakesclaimCaboutsubjectS.
3Therefore,Cistrue.
Thisfallacyiscommittedwhenthepersoninquestionisnotalegitimateauthorityonthesubject.Moreformally,ifpersonAisnotqualifiedtomakereliableclaimsinsubjectS,thentheargumentwillbefallacious.
Thissortofreasoningisfallaciouswhenthepersoninquestionisnotanexpert.Insuchcasesthereasoningisflawedbecausethefactthatanunqualifiedpersonmakesaclaimdoesnotprovideanyjustificationfortheclaim.Theclaimcouldbetrue,butthefactthatanunqualifiedpersonmadetheclaimdoesnotprovideanyrationalreasontoaccepttheclaimastrue.
Whenapersonfallspreytothisfallacy,theyareacceptingaclaimastruewithouttherebeingadequateevidencetodoso.Morespecifically,thepersonisacceptingtheclaimbecausetheyerroneouslybelievethatthepersonmakingtheclaimisalegitimateexpertandhencethattheclaimisreasonabletoaccept.Sincepeoplehaveatendencytobelieveauthorities(andthereare,infact,goodreasonstoacceptsomeclaimsmadebyauthorities)thisfallacyisafairlycommonone.
Sincethissortofreasoningisfallaciousonlywhenthepersonisnotalegitimateauthorityinaparticularcontext,itisnecessarytoprovidesomeacceptablestandardsofassessment.Thefollowingstandardsarewidelyaccepted:
4Thepersonhassufficientexpertiseinthesubjectmatterinquestion.
Claimsmadebyapersonwholackstheneededdegreeofexpertisetomakeareliableclaimwill,obviously,notbewellsupported.Incontrast,claimsmadebyapersonwiththeneededdegreeofexpertisewillbesupportedbytheperson'sreliabilityinthearea.
Determiningwhetherornotapersonhastheneededdegreeofexpertisecanoftenbeverydifficult.Inacademicfields(suchasphilosophy,engineering,history,etc.),theperson'sformaleducation,academicperformance,publications,membershipinprofessionalsocieties,paperspresented,awardswonandsoforthcanallbereliableindicatorsofexpertise.Outsideofacademicfields,otherstandardswillapply.Forexample,havingsufficientexpertisetomakeareliableclaimabouthowtotieashoelaceonlyrequirestheabilitytotietheshoelaceandimpartthatinformationtoothers.Itshouldbenotedthatbeinganexpertdoesnotalwaysrequirehavingauniversitydegree.Manypeoplehavehighdegreesofexpertiseinsophisticatedsubjectswithouthavingeverattendedauniversity.Further,itshouldnotbesimplyassumedthatapersonwithadegreeisanexpert.
Ofcourse,whatisrequiredtobeanexpertisoftenamatterofgreatdebate.Forexample,somepeoplehave(anddo)claimexpertiseincertain(evenall)areasbecauseofadivineinspirationoraspecialgift.Thefollowersofsuchpeopleacceptsuchcredentialsasestablishingtheperson'sexpertisewhileothersoftenseetheseself-proclaimedexpertsasdeludedorevenascharlatans.Inothersituations,peopledebateoverwhatsortofeducationandexperienceisneededtobeanexpert.Thus,whatonepersonmaytaketobeafallaciousappealanotherpersonmighttaketobeawellsupportedlineofreasoning.Fortunately,manycasesdonotinvolvesuchdebate.
5Theclaimbeingmadebythepersoniswithinherarea(s)ofexpertise.
Ifapersonmakesaclaimaboutsomesubjectoutsideofhisarea(s)ofexpertise,thenthepersonisnotanexpertinthatcontext.Hence,theclaiminquestionisnotbackedbytherequireddegreeofexpertiseandisnotreliable.
Itisveryimportanttorememberthatbecauseofthevastscopeofhumanknowledgeandskillitissimplynotpossibleforonepersontobeanexpertoneverything.Hence,expertswillonlybetrueexpertsinrespecttocertainsubjectareas.Inmostotherareastheywillhavelittleornoexpertise.Thus,itisimportanttodeterminewhatsubjectareaaclaimfallsunder.
Itisalsoveryimportanttonotethatexpertiseinoneareadoesnotautomaticallyconferexpertiseinanother.Forexample,beinganexpertphysicistdoesnotautomaticallymakeapersonanexpertonmoralityorpolitics.Unfortunately,thisisoftenoverlookedorintentionallyignored.Infact,agreatdealofadvertisingrestsonaviolationofthiscondition.Asanyonewhowatchestelevisionknows,itisextremelycommontogetfamousactorsandsportsheroestoendorseproductsthattheyarenotqualifiedtoassess.Forexample,apersonmaybeagreatactor,butthatdoesnotautomaticallymakehimanexpertoncarsorshavingorunderwearordietsorpolitics.
6Thereisanadequatedegreeofagreementamongtheotherexpertsinthesubjectinquestion.
Ifthereisasignificantamountoflegitimatedisputeamongtheexpertswithinasubject,thenitwillfallacioustomakeanAppealtoAuthorityusingthedisputingexperts.Thisisbecauseforalmostanyclaimbeingmadeand"supported"byoneexperttherewillbeacounterclaimthatismadeand"supported"byanotherexpert.InsuchcasesanAppealtoAuthoritywouldtendtobefutile.Insuchcases,thedisputehastobesettledbyconsiderationoftheactualissuesunderdispute.Sinceeithersideinsuchadisputecaninvokeexperts,thedisputecannotberationallysettledbyAppealstoAuthority.
Therearemanyfieldsinwhichthereisasignificantamountoflegitimatedispute.Economicsisagoodexampleofsuchadisputedfield.Anyonewhoisfamiliarwitheconomicsknowsthattherearemanyplausibletheoriesthatareincompatiblewithoneanother.Becauseofthis,oneexperteconomistcouldsincerelyclaimthatthedeficitisthekeyfactorwhileanotherequallyqualifiedindividualcouldasserttheexactopposite.Anotherareawheredisputeisverycommon(andwellknown)isintheareaofpsychologyandpsychiatry.Ashasbeendemonstratedinvarioustrials,itispossibletofindoneexpertthatwillassertthatanindividualisinsaneandnotcompetenttostandtrialandtofindanotherequallyqualifiedexpertwhowilltestify,underoath,thatthesameindividualisbothsaneandcompetenttostandtrial.Obviously,onecannotrelyonanAppealtoAuthorityinsuchasituationwithoutmakingafallaciousargument.Suchanargumentwouldbefallacioussincetheevidencewouldnotwarrantacceptingtheconclusion.
Itisimportanttokeepinmindthatnofieldhascompleteagreement,sosomedegreeofdisputeisacceptab