Evans (2012) asserted that fallacies are thoughts or statements that might sound superficially reasonable but in the real sense are flawed, skewed, or dishonest. They are a significant problem because they can depict a sign of unintelligence, deception, or lack of sufficient knowledge. Therefore, it is essential to avoid fallacious arguments and logic because they follow a line of false reasoning. It is also critical to note that there are specific types of fallacies that are committed intentionally to persuade or manipulate the intention while there are others which come out unintentionally due to ignorance or carelessness. Fallacies become a major problem when they are used in making an argument. They attempt to go against the tenets of truth through manipulative techniques where appearance tends to matter more than the reality. Some people make fallacy in reasoning or an argument as a way of boosting their egos by giving a perception that they have an idea of what they are saying without necessarily checking the validity of their statements. Paul and Elder in their analysis attempt to give basic intellectual standards that can be used to determine the quality of reasoning, As such, it is critical to assess fallacious reasoning as a deviation from these critical intellectual standards.
Types of Fallacies
Understanding fallacies' and their effects require their organization into different classes. “Appeal to force'' is a type of fallacy that uses force or the application of unpleasant consequences as a basis for coercing the audience to accept a given conclusion. It is normally used as the last line of the resort when the arguments can no longer appeal to others. An example of an appeal to force could be the use of violence as a consequence of not buying a given idea. The type of fallacy can also be used as an indirect threat using past happenings as the basis of argument. Other types of unpleasant backlash that could be used to pursue this agenda using appeal to force fallacy are the use of intimidation. Another common type of fallacy is a genetic fallacy. Evans (2012) illustrated that it involves claims or ideas that are made asserting that a person is untrustworthy because of their geographic, racial, and ethnic origin. It might also be used to discredit an individual because of their place of origin based on past occurrences. The personal attack is another common type of fallacy. It is sometimes referred to as the Argumentum Ad Hominem which can loosely be translated as arguments made towards a man. The type of argument involves praising or attacking an individual making an argument instead of challenging the merits or demerits of the assertions. It becomes a fallacy because attacking the character of the person is illogic and most fundamentally irrelevant to the validity of the arguments under questioning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Two subcategories of personal attack exist. One is abusive, and the other one is circumstantial. In an abusive argument, one might discredit the arguments made by an individual because of their inclination to a certain religious, social, or political movement or sect. in circumstantial argument; one might compel the other to accept their school of thought because of a certain situation in their life. For instance, a clergyman would be compelled to accept a given argument, failure to which they will be accused of going against the scriptures. Argumentum ad Pupulum is another common type of fallacious reasoning which means the argument to the people. It mainly relies on arousing the feeling of a majority of people rather than building any valid arguments. One of the common types of these fallacies is the bandwagon approach. Here, one tends to defend their argument because everyone else is doing it. The argument is regarded true because a majority of people have chosen the same particular course of action. Appeal to tradition is a line of thought which emphasizes that something is true because people have always done it in the past. An example of such reasoning is to believe that the earth is flat because previous generations have always held that. Appeal to an improper authority is another cause of fallacy in the society. People tend to draw their arguments from unreliable sources that could include famous people or other sources with questionable credentials.
Appeal to emotion is another vital type of fallacious reasoning. Johnson (2014) pointed out that some people use emotions to influence the reasoning of others and to get them to accept what is not necessarily true. An example would be to use a child's status of being an orphan as an argument that they have not engaged in a crime. Some arguments are also made from adverse consequences meaning that an argument is regarded false because if it is considered true, it will result in gross implications. An instance of this fallacy would deny that a patient has cancer because it would cause them a shock. Furthermore, arguments can also follow the personal incredulity fallacy which states that arguments must be regarded false because one does not understand them or follow in their technicalities. An example would be when a person refuses to believe that a plane actually flies because they don’t understand the technicalities from an engineer’s perspective.
Significance of Fallacies
As earlier stated, the fallacies represent a deviation from logical reasoning and an attempt to move away from reality. As such, it has great implications for communication, relationship, and understanding one another. When using “appeal to force'' as a type of fallacy, one tends to use specified threats, intimidations, or violence as a means of forcing their way of thinking. Therefore, Walton (2013) asserted that one implication of fallacy in reasoning is that it might be accompanied by threats and intimidations which could cause unnecessary tension and pressure in doing things. One would, for example, make a statement as follows “you should initiate a pay cut on the employees immediately. I don't need to remind you that that is the reason previous HR managers have been fired.” Genetic fallacies have grave implications for social cohesion and could be a major reason for societal problems such as religious intolerance, racism, and ethnicity among others. It involves the rejection or the downplaying of certain arguments because they are made by people from particular geographical, ethnic, or racial backgrounds. As such, it breeds intolerance in the society and therefore a source of division.
According to Facione and Gittens (2015), arguments that follow the personal attack fashion have their own consequences because they can be a source of wrangles and even violence. It can also be a source of blackmail especially when it is circumstantial. A religious person, for instance, could be blackmailed to agree to a certain school of thought failure to which they will be harshly judged on their integrity and fidelity to the spiritual teachings. Argumentum ad Pupulum as stated earlier depends on the arousal of the feelings of people. It follows a bandwagon approach where the arguments are made based on what the majority of people are doing. However, the significance of this type of fallacy is that it can result in blind followership and sycophancy. People will fail to question the validity of statements made influential people because after all everybody is following them. People should understand that a popular acceptance or use of a person or a commodity is not a reason to believe that they are right. It is also of the essence to appreciate that indoctrinating people's thoughts with fallacies can hinder modernization. Through the “appeal to tradition'' believe that the only way to justify their actions is through referring to the traditional means of doing things. “Appeal to improper authority” can also cause sycophancy and rumor mongering. Hitchcock (2017) illustrated that i mproper authority can represent sources, including persons or scholarly materials that do not have moral authority in a given area of knowledge.
Fallacious reasoning is a major cause of lies in the society. It goes against the elements of reasoning and logic hence making it invalid. One of the critical elements of reasoning is that it must be based on data, information, and evidence. Also, it is imperative to appreciate that every piece of reasoning has implications and consequences and fallacious reasoning has one of the most pronounced impacts. Some of the critical elements that lack on fallacious reasoning include purpose, the point of view, evidences, and information among others. The fallacy is in most cases biased, full of emotion, and lacks a premise of the argument. As defects and weaknesses in the argument, fallacious arguments are common and in most instance persuasive. They are delivered with a certain degree of conviction that makes them believable as proven facts. Fallacies have also found their way into the mass media, and this has greatly influenced the quality of information that people read in various press outlets.
Relationship with the Intellectual Standards
Paul and Elder suggest a critical thinking framework which gives the thinker a premise of improving their quality of thinking by using a framework that consists of three important factors including elements of thought, intellectual standards, and intellectual traits ( Elder & Paul, 2012). The elements of thought promote the art of reasoning. Some of the characteristics of reasoning include that it must have a purpose, assumptions, point of view, and must appear to solve a problem. It should also be shaped with ideas and concepts, inferences, interpretations, and conclusions. Most importantly, all reasoning must be backed by information and evidence. Finally, Paul and Elder agree that all reasoning always has implications and consequences. Using the first framework of elements of thought, it is noteworthy to appreciate that fallacious reasoning deviates from the important tenets of critical thinking because, despite the fact that it has consequences, it lacks in certain key areas such as evidence, the point of view, and a valid purpose.
The second area that the duo of Paul and Elder emphasized as an important tenet in critical thinking is the application of the universal intellectual standards. Such standards are essential because they determine the quality of reasoning. Therefore, anyone who wants to apply good critical thinking models must show these standards in making their argument. Some of the standards fronted by Paul and Elder include clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, and breadth. They further added logic, significance, and fairness as part of their standards. Some of the main standards that lack in fallacious reasoning include accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, logic, and fairness. In accuracy, Elder and Paul (2012) illustrated that some of the important questions that need to be answered include how the statement could be verified or put to the test. Most fallacious reasoning, when put to the test, will appear skewed, exaggerated, and unverifiable especially that which originates from unreliable sources. Regarding precision, an argument must be specific, exact, and contains details. The fallacious reasoning arising from bandwagon approach is neither specific or contains details as it is mostly charged with emotional appeal.
Relevance also lacks in fallacious reasoning as the arguments in most cases fail to answer how it relates to the problem. In personal attack, an individual might focus on attacking the character of an individual instead of challenging the argument hence raising the question of relevance. Fallacious reasoning lacks breadth because it does not allow for the assessment of facts from another point of view or perspective. It is vital to note that appeal to tradition, a type of fallacy, only allows people to look at issues from a perspective that people have always done it in a particular way. Therefore, it denies people the chance of analyzing different perspectives and possibly coming up with new strategies for doing things. Logic is also deficient in fallacy because people rarely back their points with evidence. In genetic fallacy, a person can haphazardly castigate the opinions of others because of their origin instead of assessing the evidential strength of the argument. Finally, fallacious reasoning lacks fairness for various reasons. First, it is not justifiable, it does not take into account of the position of others, and most importantly, it involves the distortion of information to favor that of the person making the argument.
The third framework of critical thinking postulated by Paul and Elder are the intellectual traits. When the standards of thinking are well applied, it results in a certain set of behaviors in the thinking of an individual known as the intellectual traits ( Elder & Paul, 2012). Examples of the traits include intellectual humility, empathy, courage, integrity, and autonomy. It also includes intellectual perseverance, fair-mindedness, and confidence in reasoning. However, when a person constantly applies the intellectual traits, they develop into a complete critical thinker. However, fallacious reasoning affects some of the intellectual traits such as intellectual humility, integrity, perseverance, integrity, and fair-mindedness. The fallacious reasoning goes against the tenets of intellectual humility because it does not give people an opportunity to appreciate their flaws in reasoning. Bandwagon reasoning robs individuals an opportunity to have intellectual autonomy. It is vital to note that autonomy in reason advocates that people should have an innate source of ideas within themselves. However, bandwagon approach and appeal to tradition are two important fallacious reason types that deny an individual this opportunity.
Intellectual integrity comes into question when the credibility of the source of information is under doubt. Through “appeal to improper authority” type of fallacy, integrity is highly jeopardized thereby making it a flaw in reasoning. Finally, it also denies an individual the opportunity to practice fair-mindedness. A fair-minded person shows impartiality and fairness in judgment. They avoid prejudice and show a great degree of wisdom. On the contrary, a fallacious individual will show partiality, bias, prejudice, and ignorance in their reasoning. Therefore, in outlining their framework, Paul and Elder depict the roadmap towards critical thinking and avoiding flaws in reasoning as seen in fallacious reasoning.
In conclusion, fallacy or fallacious reasoning is a form of argument that lacks logic and goes against the tenets of reason and reality. It is a major problem in reasoning and has grown to affect the society immensely. Some of the implications include intellectual bias, discrimination, intimidation, and blackmailing among others. However, Paul and Elder present a framework of critical reasoning that explains why flaws in reasoning such as fallacy need to be resolved. The framework consists of intellectual standards, intellectual traits, and elements of thought or reasoning. All these characteristics define correct thinking behavior and guide an individual towards a culture of critical thinking.
References
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2012). Critical thinking: competency standards essential to the cultivation of intellectual skills, part 4. Journal of Developmental Education , 35 (3), 30.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2012). Dual process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning , 115-133.
Facione, P., & Gittens, C. A. (2015). Think critically . Pearson.
Hitchcock, D. (2017). Do the fallacies have a place in the teaching of reasoning skills or critical thinking? In On Reasoning and Argument (pp. 401-408). Springer, Cham.
Johnson, R. H. (2014). The rise of informal logic: Essays on argumentation, critical thinking, reasoning and politics (Vol. 2). The University of Windsor.
Walton, D. (2013). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning . Routledge.
