Fallacies

A Fallaciesfallacy are errorsis generally considered to be an error in reasoning that make an argument invalid.reasoning. It refers both to the failure to apply logic to a line of thought, and to the use of problematic arguments. The term can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

See also:Related: Disagreement, Heuristics & Biases

Informal vs Formal Fallacy

An informal fallacy refers to a flawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. It can, however, have a valid logical format. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.

Material fallacies, concerned with the content of the argument, can be divivided following Aristotle's taxonomy from his work Organon. One such example is the famous Straw Man fallacy:

1. Person A has position X: We should focus our efforts on Friendly AI research.
2. Person B distorts position X to something close, but different, Y: So you think we should just give up on webdesign?!
3. Person B attacks position Y: That's stupid, websites are such a great way of spreading information!

Verbal fallacies, on the other hand, deal with the way the words are used. These include examples such as Equivocation - using words ambiguously or with double meanings - and Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with lots of material in an complicated way.

A formal fallacy, contrasting with informal fallacies, refers to a pattern of reasoning which is wrong due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument. As such, this deductive fallacy does not imply any information about the premises or the conclusion - its their connection that's wrongly stated. Both can be correct and the argument can be wrong because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises as it is said to.

False Fallacies & Awareness

Matters can be further complicated by arguing parties incorrectly claiming that an assertion is false due to a fallacy. For example, if one party was to declare “Albert Einstein has claimed that time and space are relative qualities of the Universe.”, another party might responded by saying that this is an ‘’’argument from authority’’’. However, Albert Einstein’s claims are based on detailed mathematical models that identify him as an expert in this field of inquiry, rather than a casual observer. We are thus facing a kind of meta-fallacy which is wrong by itself.

Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments can be difficult due to complicated patterns of communication that mask the logical connections between statements. At the same time, informal fallacies can also take advantage of the emotional or psychological weaknesses of the listener. It is thus important to develop the ability to recognize them in arguments, so as to reduce the likelihood of being tricked or cheated. This ability becomes even more important when dealing with today's mass media, where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs, from political campaigns to simple local newspapers.

Further Reading & References

• Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations
• Damer, T. Edward (2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 130. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4.
• John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-2663-8.
• Logical Fallacies A peer-reviewed academic resource.
• Infinite regression Wikipedia entry

See Also

• Aumann's agreement theorem
• Disagreement
• Information cascade

A fallacyFallacies is generally considered to beare errors in reasoning that make an error in reasoning. It refers both to the failure to apply logic to a line of thought, and to the use of problematic arguments. The term can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

Informal vs Formal Fallacy

An informal fallacy refers to a flawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. It can, however, have a valid logical format. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.argument invalid.

Material fallacies, concerned with the content of the argument, can be divivided following Aristotle's taxonomy from his work Organon. One such example is the famous Straw Man fallacy:

1. Person A has position X: We should focus our efforts on Friendly AI research.
2. Person B distorts position X to something close, but different, Y: So you think we should just give up on webdesign?!
3. Person B attacks position Y: That's stupid, websites are such a great way of spreading information!

Verbal fallacies, on the other hand, deal with the way the words are used. These include examples such as Equivocation - using words ambiguously or with double meanings - and Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with lots of material in an complicated way.

A formal fallacy, contrasting with informal fallacies, refers to a pattern of reasoning which is wrong due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument. As such, this deductive fallacy does not imply any information about the premises or the conclusion - its their connection that's wrongly stated. Both can be correct and the argument can be wrong because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises as it is said to.

False Fallacies & Awareness

Matters can be further complicated by arguing parties incorrectly claiming that an assertion is false due to a fallacy. For example, if one party was to declare “Albert Einstein has claimed that time and space are relative qualities of the Universe.”, another party might responded by saying that this is an ‘’’argument from authority’’’. However, Albert Einstein’s claims are based on detailed mathematical models that identify him as an expert in this field of inquiry, rather than a casual observer. We are thus facing a kind of meta-fallacy which is wrong by itself.

Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments can be difficult due to complicated patterns of communication that mask the logical connections between statements. At the same time, informal fallacies can also take advantage of the emotional or psychological weaknesses of the listener. It is thus important to develop the ability to recognize them in arguments, so as to reduce the likelihood of being tricked or cheated. This ability becomes even more important when dealing with today's mass media, where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs, from political campaigns to simple local newspapers.

Further Reading & References

• Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations
• Damer, T. Edward (2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 130. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4.
• John Woods (2004). The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-2663-8.
• Logical Fallacies A peer-reviewed academic resource.
• Infinite regression Wikipedia entry

See Also

• Aumann's agreement theorem
• also: Disagreement
• , Information cascadeHeuristics & Biases

A fallacy is generally considered to be an error in reasoning. It refers both to the failure to apply logic to a line of thoughtthought, and to the use of problematic arguments. The term can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

A fallacy is generally considered to be an error in reasoning,reasoning. It refers both to the failure to apply logic to a line of thought and to the use of problematic arguments. The term can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

An informal fallacy refers to a flawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. This error has to do with problems of inference in the language used to express the propositions. It can, however, have a valid logical format. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.

A Fallacyfallacy is generally considered to be an error in reasoning, the failure to apply logic to a line of thought and the use of problematic arguments. The term can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

A Fallacy is generally considered to be an error in reasoning, the failure to apply logic to a line of thought and the use of problematic arguments. The term however can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to the former.

An informal fallacy refers to a flawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. This error has to do with problems of inference in the language used to express the propositions – its justification structure.propositions. It can, however, have a valid logical format. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.

Verbal fallacies, on the other hand, deal with the way the words are used. These include examples such as Equivocation - using words ambiguously or with double meanings - and Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with and lots of material in an complicated way.

An informal fallacy refers to a flawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. This deviationerror has mainly to do with problems of inference in the language used to express the propositions – its justification structure. It can, however, have a valid logical format. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.

Material fallacies, concerned with the content of the argument, can be divivided following Aristotle's taxonomy stemming from his work Organon. One such example is the famous Straw Man fallacy:

1. Person A has position X: We should focus our efforts on Friendly AI research.
2. Person B distorts position X to a proximal positionsomething close, but different, Y: So you think we should just give up on webdesign?!
3. Person B attacks position Y: That's stupid, websites are such a great way of spreading information!

Verbal fallacies, on the other hand, deal with the way the words are used. These include examples such as Equivocation - using words in ambiguously or with double meanings - and Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with and insurmountable amountlots of material in an intrinsically tangledcomplicated way.

A formal fallacy, contrasting with informal fallacies, which may have a valid logical form, refers to a pattern of reasoning which is wrong due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument. As such, athis deductive fallacy does not imply any information about the premises or the conclusion - its their connection that's wrongly stated. Both can be correct and the argument can be wrong because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises as it is stated.said to.

Matters can be further complicated by arguing parties incorrectly claiming that an assertion is false due to a fallacy. For example, if one party was to declare “Albert Einstein has claimed that time and space are relative qualities of the Universe.”, another party might responded by saying that this is an ‘’’argument from authority’’’. However, Albert Einstein’s claims are based on highly detailed mathematical models that identify him as an expert in this field of inquiry, rather than a casual observer. We are thus facing a kind of meta-fallacy which is wrong by itself.

Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments can be obscured bydifficult due to complicated patterns of communicationscommunication that mask the logical connections between statements. At the same time, informal fallacies can also take advantage of the emotional or psychological weaknesses of the listener. It is thus important to develop the ability to recognize fallaciesthem in arguments, so as to reduce the likelihood of being tricked or cheated. This ability becomes even more important when dealing with today's mass media, where the intention is to influence behavior and change beliefs, from political campaigns to simple local newspapers.

A Fallacy is generally considered to be an error in reasoning, the failure to apply logic to a line of reasoning that renders an argument invalid.thought and the use of problematic arguments. The abilityterm however can be applied when dealing both with informal and formal logic, although it usual refers to recognizethe former.

Informal vs Formal Fallacy

An informal fallacy refers to a varietyflawed argument, where the premises do not support the conclusion. This deviation has mainly to do with problems of different formsinference in the language used to express the propositions – its justification structure. This type of fallacy is commonly divided in two main groups: material fallacies and verbal fallacies.

Material fallacies, concerned with the content of the argument, can be useful when analyzing arguments made by others and help avoid making logical errors when forming one’divivided following Aristotle's own beliefs.taxonomy stemming from his work Organon. One such example is the famous Straw Man fallacy:

The structure of a logical argument

1. Person A has position X: We should follow a certain basic structure. They begin with one or more premises, which act as the arguments starting point and then by applying principles of logic comefocus our efforts on Friendly AI research.
2. Person B distorts position X to a valid conclusion.proximal position Y: So you think we should just give up on webdesign?!
3. Person B attacks position Y: That's stupid, websites are such a great way of spreading information!

Verbal fallacies, on the other hand, deal with the way the words are used. These include examples such as Equivocation - using words in ambiguously or with double meanings - and Proof by Verbosity, where one overwhelms his listener with and insurmountable amount of material in an intrinsically tangled way.

If A = B and B = C then we can conclude A=C.

It is the failure to apply logic rigorously that leads to fallacious arguments.

Fallacies are divided into formal and informal groups. A formal fallacy has, contrasting with informal fallacies, which may have a valid logical form, refers to a pattern of reasoning which is wrong due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which rendersargument. As such, a deductive fallacy does not imply any information about the premises or the conclusion - its their connection that's wrongly stated. Both can be correct and the argument invalid, whilst an informal fallacy has a logical form, butcan be wrong because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises as it is false due to the characteristics of its premises, or its justification structure.

Examples

There are dozens of different forms of fallacy some of the most common include:-

Ad hominem - where the character of the individual making the opposing argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself. e.g “He’s old,...

Whilst it is possible to overcome these issues by clarifying onesone's point e.g "Einstein's equations demonstrate that time and space are relative qualities of the Universe" or "He's only 3 feet tall which will make it much harder for him to score" - the necessity to validate each and every aspect of every premise would ultimately mean every argument would have to infinitely regress into explaining all aspects of the entire Universe. So certain commonsense, shared assumptions do need to be made in order to communicate an idea.

Fallacies are divided into formal and informal groups. A formal fallacy has a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid, whilst an informal fallacy which may havehas a valid logical form, but beis false due to the characteristics of its premises, or its justification structure.