Fallacies – Part 1
THIS WEEK, we will look at the practical application of what we have covered in our research lessons, in relation to internal assessment, and begin our two- part journey into the world of fallacies.
You will recall that for your portfolio, you will be required to conduct some actual research on the topic you have chosen. It is highly recommended that you use a mixture of primary and secondary sources for your research. We have looked at what these are. You should choose sources that will be able to provide you with reliable, trustworthy information. Try to identify and avoid biases where possible. Fallacies, which we will look at over two weeks, should also be avoided in your reasoning, and in your presentations, whether they are written or oral. You may be burning to ask ‘What are fallacies?’
FALLACIES
A fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning. It is an argument which seems to be correct, but contains at least one error, which is sometimes difficult to find and, as a result, produces an incorrect result or conclusion. Fallacies most often occur in persuasive reasoning where inductive reasoning is being used. Inductive reasoning is a conclusion which is often based on observations and specific experiences. In the absence of mathematical or scientific evidence, there are several errors which may occur in the reasoning.
You will recall from a previous lesson on types of discourse, that there are three appeals that generally guide persuasion. They are the appeal to logic (logos), the appeal to the emotions (pathos) and the appeal based on the credibility/authority of the speaker (ethos). Each appeal runs the risk of containing a fallacy. This week, we will look at a few fallacies which affect content and logic, as presented by McDermott (2008) in CAPE Communication Studies.
FALLACIES AFFECTING CONTENT AND LOGIC (LOGOS)
1. Non sequitur (‘It does not follow’) The writer’s/speaker’s conclusion does not logically follow, based on the facts presented. This usually occurs because one step in the argument has been omitted or is implied. Example: Sanjay is from a famous cricketing family, so he will be a world-class cricketer in the future.
2. BEGGING THE QUESTION
The writer/speaker restates a claim, giving the impression that by simply doing so it proves the argument presented. Example: Because violent movies are not fit for public viewing, the violent movie Kill Them All should be banned in this city.
3. RED HERRING
The writer/speaker introduces an irrelevant point to divert the readers’/listeners’ attention from the main/relevant issue.
Example: Before you can talk about greater productivity in this country, Mr Prime Minister, you need to deal with the boatloads of Haitian refugees that have landed on our shores.
4. POST HOC (‘AFTER THIS/THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF THIS’)
This is based on the erroneous assumption that a causal (cause and effect) relationship exists between two things simply because one event follows another in time. The second event is thought to be caused by the first which preceded it.
Example: Since the track team got new outfits, there has been a transformation. They got the new gear in September and for the whole term, they have never lost a single track meet.
5. EITHER/OR SYNDROME
An attempt to convince the reader/listener that there are only two ways of viewing or understanding an issue – one right and one wrong – when there are, in fact, other possibilities.
Example: Yes, daddy, I admit that this is the most expensive dress in the store, but you didn’t expect me to go to the ball looking like a nobody?
6. STRAW MAN
The writer/speaker selects the opposition’s weakest or most insignificant point to argue against, in order to divert attention from the real issues.
Example: I won’t even waste time talking about the jobs my opponent claims he has created in this city. I don’t accept his apology for being late for this meeting and you should not. A good leader is never late.
As you read the newspaper this week, listen to the news and review the information collected from your sources for your internal assessment, try to identify whether there are fallacies presented in the content and logic presented.