7. FALLACIES IN THOUGHT.

The fallacies in thought arise through a tendency to assume as true that which demands further proof. Any one who is more anxious to be right than to win will make sure that nothing has been taken for granted which should receive further investigation, or that no truth has been given a presumptuous twist in order to make it fit the particular case under discussion. Because these errors in thought may be attributed chiefly to undue assumptions, we may denominate them as the fallacies of assumption.

(1) Accident.

The fallacy of accident occurs when one reasons from a general truth to an accidental case. Doctrinaires and theoretic enthusiasts are partial to this fallacy. It is so easy to lay down a general formula or remedy and then attempt to apply it to every accidental circumstance. Grandmother with her catnip tea and mustard plaster, however we may cherish the memory of the dear old soul, was nevertheless guilty of the fallacy of accident. Applying maxims and proverbs to particular instances is still another way of committing the fallacy.

EXAMPLES OF FALLACIES OF ACCIDENT.

(a) “Honesty is the best policy,” thinks the physician as he reveals the cold, hard truth to his patient and thus shortens the patient’s life.

(b) Spirituous liquor in excess acts as a poison, and therefore should not be used to resuscitate an extreme case.

(d) “Early to bed and early to rise makes one healthy, wealthy and wise.” I shall practice this for ten years and by that time hope to be healthy, wealthy and wise.

(e) John has earned the enviable (?) reputation of being the “worst boy in school,” hence he is going to be the worst boy in “my grade.”

(f) Mary is an inveterate whisperer; and since I know that some one is whispering, I am sure that that some one is Mary.

(g) Being a convict, he is not to be trusted.

(2) Converse Accident.

As the title implies this is the fallacy of reasoning from an accidental case to a general truth. Illustrations:

(a) “John has been a bad boy to-day; and hence he is going to make trouble during the entire term.”

(b) “This food is good for hens; and hence it is good for all domestic fowls.”

(c) “I know of several men who have been phenomenally serviceable to mankind, and none of these men were college trained; hence I conclude that college education is not essential to the attainment of the highest state of efficiency.”

Relative to both accident and converse accident, it may be said that they obtain because all general truths, such as rules, principles, definitions, maxims, etc., have their exceptions; and it is through these exceptions that the two fallacies are made possible.

Accident and Converse Accident Distinguished from Division and Composition.

The fallacy of accident, we have learned, occurs when one reasons from a general truth to an accidental case; whereas the fallacy of division obtains when one reasons from a collective use of a term to a distributive use; in both cases the procedure is from a larger unit to a smaller unit. Moreover, with converse accident and composition, the movement is from the smaller unit to the larger. Because of this similarity there is danger of confusing the two kinds of fallacies. As a matter of distinction between the fallacies of accident, and composition and division the attending comparative résumé may be of value:

(1) Division is similar in movement to accident, while composition resembles converse accident.

(2) A valuable cue for remembering which way division and accident move, is to recall that division in arithmetic is a procedure from the larger unit to the smaller, and therefore that division in logic would have the same signification.

(3) Division and composition pertain to mathematicalwholes; while accident and converse accident relate to logical wholes.

(4) The aggregates of division and composition may be counted or enumerated easily; while the accident and converse accident aggregates (or generals) are not easily enumerated.

(5) Division and composition relate to logical terms, whereas accident and converse accident relate to general truths.

(6) Division and composition use a term in a collective sense and then in a separate or distributive sense, or vice versa; accident and converse accident use a thought in a general and then in an accidental sense, or vice versa.

Irrelevant Conclusion (Ignoratio Elenchi).

The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion results when the argument does not squarely meet the point at issue. It is the fallacy of arguing to the wrong point either purposely or through ignorance. One in defense, who has a weak case, may be tempted to divert attention from the point in hand, realizing that a close analysis of the matter in dispute will tend to his undoing. In such instances (1) the lawyer will abuse the plaintiff, (2) the demagogue will tell humorous stories, (3) the teacher will take advantage of the ignorance of the pupil, (4) the scholar will refer to authority and (5) the magnate will fall back upon the power of position and wealth. These forms of “rhetorical thinking” are as harmful as they are popular,and furnish one of the chief reasons for giving to the common people a better understanding of “how to think” as well as “how not to think.”

Definite names have been given to the various forms of irrelevant conclusion which may be summarized as follows:

Argumentum ad populum.

This is the fallacy of appealing to the feelings, passions and prejudices of an audience rather than to their good sense and powers of reason. It is probably the most common of the group. To excite sympathy, the lawyer for the defense may speak feelingly of the suffering that an unfavorable verdict will bring to the wife and children of the accused.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Here the character of the opponent is defamed with a view of discrediting him with the court or audience. “Mud throwing” in times of political agitation is a good example of this fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

This fallacy comes from taking advantage of the ignorance of the opponent; the fallacy assumes that the original supposition has been proved if one is unable to prove the contradictory of the original. Illustration: Mars is inhabited because no one is able to prove that Mars is not inhabited.

Argumentum ad baculum.

In this all argumentation is made to give way to the forces of personal opposition and to the power of money. Illustration: A political committee seating those delegatesonly, who will vote their way; and, doing this, not from the merits of the case, but because said committee happen to have a sufficient number of votes to “put the thing through.”

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

This fallacy comes from supposing that the whole thing may be settled by citing some noted authority who apparently substantiates the argument advanced.

Epitome of five forms of Irrelevant Conclusion:

(1) Appealing to the audience.

(2) Defaming the character of the opponent.

(3) Inability to prove the contradictory.

(4) Gaining the point by force.

(5) Citing authority.

Non Sequitur (False Consequent).

This is the fallacy of deriving a conclusion which does not follow from the premises. The fallacy obtains whenever material appears in the conclusion, which has no bearing on the case under discussion. “Irrelevant conclusion” pertains to the establishment of the premises while “non sequitur” is concerned with the conclusion only. We know that a logical thinker constructs the conclusion from material already presented by the premises; “Non sequitur” uses material in the conclusion which is found in neither premise.

“Non sequitur” differs from the fallacy of four terms in that the latter uses the fourth term in the premises while the former introduces the fourth term in the conclusion, and in a form so well obscured that it sometimes escapes notice. Illustration:

All men are thinking animals,

Socrates was a man,

∴ Socrates was a scholar.

It does not follow that because a man is a thinking animal that he will become scholarly.

False Cause.

This is the fallacy of assuming that because two happenings have occurred together several times, the one is the cause of the other. This very common fallacy is due to lack of discrimination, and to the exaggerations incident to fear and superstition. Illustrations:

(a) Planting vegetables which grow down, such as the beet, during the last two days of the waxing moon in order to have a larger yield. So far as we know the moon has no influence over growing vegetables.

(b) Thirteen seated at a table is an indication that one of the number will die during the year. This is one of the most absurd fallacies that has ever been visited upon an intelligent people.

It is seen that “False Cause” is closely related to “Non Sequitur.”

Complex Question (Double Question).

This fallacy obtains when an assumption is put in the form of a question.

ILLUSTRATIONS:

(a) A wise father who did not want to tempt beyond the yielding point his three-year-old son, asked, pointing to the scratches on the new mahogany piano, “Freddie, did you do that last night or this morning?”

(b) What caused you to desist from slandering your neighbors; New Year’s resolutions or the preaching of Dominie X?

“Charles Bradlaugh, the noted English free-thinker, once engaged in a discussion with a dissenting minister. He insisted that the minister should answer questions by a simple yes or no, asserting that every question should be replied to in that manner.” The reverend gentleman arose and said, “Mr. Bradlaugh, will you allow me to ask you a question on these terms?” “Certainly,” said Mr. Bradlaugh. “Then, may I ask, have you given up beating your wife?”

Begging the Question (Petitio Principii).

This is a fallacy of deriving a conclusion from notions which in themselves demand proof.

The fallacy is not committed when the assertion is self-evident. It is easy to claim that our opponent is begging the question as soon as we see that he is getting the better of us. One may himself beg the question by being too ready to charge others with begging the question. When the opponent adopts premises which are commonly accepted, he does not beg the question. One commits the fallacy when he seems to prove the conclusion more satisfactorily than he really does. This he may accomplish by covertly taking for granted the truth of notions which have not the stamp of universal approval. The fallacy of begging the question assumes three forms:

(1) The assumption of an unproved premise (assumptio non probata).

In this either the major or the minor premise, or both may demand more substantial proof. It must be borne in mind, however, that the disputant must not ask for further proof after he has once accepted the premises, or after the opponent has met his demands to the satisfaction of commonly accepted authority.

Examples of begging the question by assuming unproved premises:

(a) All patriotic citizens are honest at heart,

This man charged with graft is a patriotic citizen,

∴ This man charged with graft is honest at heart.

“All patriotic citizens are honest at heart,” is not an accepted truth and thus demands proof.

(b) A famous sophism of the Greek philosopher by which he proved that motion was impossible, is an excellent illustration of an assumed premise:

“If motion is possible, a body must move either in the place where it is, or in the place where it is not;

But a body cannot move in the place where it is; and of course it cannot move where it is not,

Therefore, motion is impossible.”

Referring to this, De Morgan claims “Movement is change, and so a body requires two places in order to move.” A body cannot move in the place where it is, but must be moved from place to place. The major premise being assumed, this sophism illustrates the fallacy of begging the question.

(c) The most subtle form of begging the question is an enthymeme where the suppressed premise is the oneassumed; e. g., “You, being a teacher, should not do as other people do.”

Completed and arranged the argument becomes:

No teacher should do as other people do,

You are a teacher,

∴ You should not do as other people do.

Surely the major premise demands proof.

(2) Reasoning in a Circle (Circulus in probando).

This form of begging the question occurs, “When a conclusion is based upon a premise which in an earlier stage of the argument was itself based upon this very conclusion.” To put it in another way: Reasoning in a circle involves proving the truth of a conclusion by using a particular premise, and then proving the truth of the particular premise by using the conclusion. From premise to conclusion and from conclusion to premise completes the circle.

Examples of begging the question by reasoning in a circle:

(a) It is wrong because my conscience pricks me, and my conscience pricks me because it is wrong.

(b) “The effeminate walk shows a lack of force; because no forceful man walks that way.”

(c) Says Hamilton, “Plato, in his Phoedo, demonstrates the immortality of the soul from its simplicity; and in the Republic, he demonstrates its simplicity from its immortality.”

(3) Question Begging Epithets and Appellations.

This is the fallacy of assuming the point at issue by means of a carefully selected epithet.

Scientists sometimes assume to clarify an inexplicable phenomenon by giving it a technical name. Politicians are exceedingly free with their epithets and appellations, and the records of religious disputes prove that the theologian often resorted to this device.

Examples of begging the question by using epithets and appellations:

(a) We must attribute the disease to heredity.

(b) The candidate for governor is an animated feather duster.

(d) It is the policy of the big stick.

(e) The muck-raker seldom makes an efficient servant of the people.

It is seen that the use of these epithets and appellations is simply a rhetorical device for the purpose of creating either a favorable or unfavorable impression.