Fallacy谬误.docx

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

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