Even though logic and reasoning can be relied on for clarity and truth, sometimes there are cases when they can be used in vein or to the advantage of someone’s interests. It is important to consider all possibilities, conditions and outcomes in order to reach a correct conclusion and recognize fallacies.
One of the examples of the limitations that people are presented with is false dilemma. It arises in a situation where two statements or concepts are supposed and one of them is thought to be false which leads to a logical conclusion that the second one is true.
For example, if it is said that a person does not like birds, then they must hate them. This is in no way true because a person might be indifferent or dislike only some types of birds. Another fallacy comes to life when begging the question—the argument has and supposes the answer in itself.
For example, it is certain that people did not create Earth and all the stars, which means that it must have been God or other intelligent beings. Straw man argument is meant to create a false argument in order to blame someone for something non-existent.
It is often used in politics, for example, if someone says that the current government should focus more on international relations, the opponent will accuse the speaker that they are criticizing the present government, in saying that it is unable to make things better in its own country.
Logical inconsistency can be seen when someone makes several statements that are connected but make no sense. This might be because they have lost their own logical thinking and are confused or they are trying to confuse others by making unrelated and even opposing statements.
For example, someone might say that all people are created equal, politicians are free men, they can do whatever they want because there is a constitution and the laws do not mean anything, which describes people’s lives as centered on anarchy.
None of these statements prove anything or each other; it is just a mix of phrases and ideas that do not follow any logical path. One of the powerful ways to make a point for unsuspecting people is to use fallacious appeal to authority.
This is used in relation to a person who is known for something famous, a celebrity, philosopher or even a politician (“Thinking Straight”).
If the president of the United States appears on TV and says that McDonalds is the healthiest choice people can make, this would create false belief, as people trust the president and know that he will not want any harm for the citizens and so, this must be true.
A misleading direction is taken when tokenism is used. This means that someone resorts to a practice where some idea or usually, a person, is included only so that they could be an example for mostly opposite views.
For example, an extremely conservative party consists of all white, high class people who are known to be racist and discriminatory in many other ways. To avoid accusations and appear fair to the society, they include a person from a lower class and from a minority group.
This person is used as a token because they are there simply for an excuse and not because they deserve to be included. This is an unjust and egoistic practice. The manipulation of information or omission is also a wrong practice. When using a questionable premise, the whole argument is based on faulty logic.
A fact is produced, for example, a person says they were driving 5 miles an hour and so, there is no way they could have done that much damage to another car, this means someone else did it.
The same can be said when there is suppressed evidence which means a person consciously hides or accidentally forgets some facts. This is often the case in court or politics, when some important evidence is not mentioned.
Slippery slope argument supposes that one negative thing will lead to another and even with good intentions something will eventually become bad.
For example, if a politician makes a minor, honest mistake, it can be said that this is just the beginning and they will continue to do negative things but in reality, this will not necessarily happen. Appeal to ignorance is arguing a something that cannot be proved or disproved.
There is no evidence to say that it is false and that does not make it true and vice versa (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”). For example, it could be said that people have originated on another planet and arrived to Earth. Ad hominem is an argument that is used against individual’s personal characteristics.
It is often used in politics, when someone says that their opponent is not married and this means they do not like women and thus, are gender biased. It has no logical strength and is offensive (“Stalking the Wild Fallacy”). An extension of this is use of guilt by association.
When someone is being judged by whom they are seen with, they are given the same qualities. If someone is seen with rebels, they are also labeled as fighting against government. When it is said that two wrongs make a right, it referrers to using a wrong argument to provide excuse for own actions.
It is constantly used in politics when a certain party does something negative for the people and then is judged for it, they bring an example of another party from the past that did the same thing. Just because someone else did it, does not make it right. Common practice is a fallacy that bases itself on the majority of people.
Simply because many people are doing it, it must be the right thing to do. For example, if the majority of soldiers use their power and authority to steal from the villagers, then it is acceptable for an individual soldier to do the same.
Traditional wisdom refers to the fact that if something was done or accepted before, it must be correct presently also. For example, human sacrifices were a part of ancient societies; this means it can be done today.
Equivocation is the shift in the meaning of the word or phrase from the beginning of the argument, relative to its meaning in the end. The same word “dog” can mean a psychical animal and a personal quality.
To say that someone is a dog for acting bad, and mean that a person has long tail and shaggy fur—would be a wrongful implication (“Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”).
Irrelevant reasoning is made when a premise does not lead to a conclusion. It also might be unrelated to the previous statements (“Thinking Straight”).
For example, Ferrari is one of the fastest and most expensive cars, therefore everyone would like to have it. It is false, as people have different tastes and some might prefer SUV’s or vans.
Works Cited
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. Web. <https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#TraditionalWisdom>
Stalking the Wild Fallacy. 2012. Web.
Thinking Straight. 2007. Web.