The definition of fallacy comes from the Latin "fallaci" and whose translation is literally "deception", in itself it can be defined as an argument that apparently is valid, however it is not. It can be used intentionally, with the aim of manipulating someone, however there are other fallacies that are committed without any intention, and that can be presented either through ignorance or carelessness on the part of a person. It should be noted that on many occasions these arguments can be very persuasive as well as subtle, so it is very difficult to detect them.
What is a fallacy
Table of Contents
The meaning of fallacy that is most often used is a deception, error or falsehood that is intended to harm a third party, and thereby obtain some benefit. The argumentative fallacy as such is a property of a fallacious thing, which means that they have the ability and willingness to lie, with the purpose of causing a mistake to another person. Therefore it can be said that a synonym of this word is the lie
Within the scope of logic, it refers to those arguments that seek to defend something that has no validity. If the definition of fallacy is taken into account, it can be said that it is related to disloyalty, dishonesty, etc., In order to obtain benefits on another individual through deception. Therefore a valid synonym for this word is falsehood.
For its part in economics, there is the term "composition fallacy", a concept that indicates that it is an argument that seeks to infer that a whole is true, based on the variation of some of its elements, such as, " the pieces of a television will not break if they fall to the ground, for that reason if the television falls to the floor it will not break ", it can be said that this is a fallacy in composition, since there will always be the possibility that said pieces can be damage if they fell to the ground.
There are some definitions that focus on the different flaws in the logic of this, these contribute to having a better point of view regarding the meaning of fallacy, an example of this can be seen in the definition of fallacy seen as an invalid deductive element or that, failing that, it has little deductive support. However, this definition has a drawback and it is the fact that there are lies that are based on deductively acceptable arguments, and their fault lies in another element, such as a request for principles or a false dilemma.
This definition has as its advantage that it does not include false dilemmas, nor does it include requests for principles as fallacies, but it does have a negative point and it is the fact that it includes a large number of legitimate elements as fallacies.
Likewise, a term that should be taken into account when talking about this term is that of sophistry, two terms that despite being similar are not the same, since sophistry is the term used to describe a false reason that it looks real. An example of sophistry can be “yesterday I studied all day, therefore today I will have a good grade”.
Main types of fallacy
Since ancient times these have been divided into different types, however there is the possibility that many of them are still unknown to man, due to the existence of small cultures that have not been studied in their entirety. Aristotle for his part classified them as non-verbal and verbal. However, it should be noted that there are many ways to classify logical fallacies, but as there is no specific way as such, in this case it will be done according to their membership, which divides them into: formal and non-formal.
Formal fallacies
These types of logical fallacies are detected through critical analysis from logical reasoning. This means that there is no link between the premise and the conclusion, although the reasoning pattern is characterized by being logical, it is always incorrect.
To better understand the meaning of formal fallacy, the following example is proposed, which shows a clear pattern that this type follows:
- "Dogs have four paw. Tito is a dog and therefore Tito has four legs. "
This variety of fallacies can be detected if it is used to substitute elements that are part of the premises of the symbols, to later analyze if the reasoning is coupled with the logical rules. It should also be noted that the formal ones have subtypes:
Fallacies of bad reasons
Also known as Argumentum ad Logicam, the meaning of the fallacy of bad reasons is based on the idea that the conclusions are not good, since the arguments are not good either.
Appeal to probability: through previously acquired knowledge and probability, what seems logical is taken for granted, since it is highly probable.
Fallacy of the masked man
Also known under the term of intentional fallacy, this requires that one of the parties be substituted, that way when both things are exchanged, they are similar and it can then be assumed that the argument used is valid.
Undistributed middle term
This does not cover in its three principles the total of the members of the category or group.
Informal fallacies
It is the second type of logical fallacies and they are characterized by the fact that they depend directly on the content itself and perhaps also on the objective of the reasoning. These can be presented more easily than the formal ones, and it has a large number of subtypes:
Ad hominem fallacy
It is known as the ad hominem fallacy to those arguments that attack the interlocutor himself instead of attacking the statements and position of the same. The strategy of the ad hominem fallacy is the disqualification of the interlocutor's position, disqualifying his defender for it.
For example, if a person uses the argument "you say that stealing is bad, yet you practice it" he is using an ad hominem fallacy, since what he wants is to refute the fact that stealing is bad, attacking the proponent. If a bandit defends the idea that stealing is bad, it may be something hypocritical on his part, however it does not mean that the falseness or truth of that proposition will be affected.
Ad baculum fallacy
Its main characteristic is the use of force, abuse of position or threat, for example:
1. A: "Boys shouldn't go out at night due to insecurity"
2. B: "He's my son and I don't care about your opinion, that's why he can keep going out at night so that he can enjoy his youth"
In this example it can be seen how part B abuse his position as the boy's father.
Fallacy ad verecundiam
It is based on the defense of a true thing, since it is expressed by a person who has the necessary knowledge in the area.
Populum fallacy
In this case the premises are considered true, since they have the support of many individuals who have the same opinion about a particular thing. As for example, "a cell phone business is considered by a large number of people as the best cell phone sales chain."
Fallacy ad ignorantiam
Known in that way to the argument that defends the falsehood or reality of a proposition because I can not prove otherwise.
Post hoc fallacy
Based on the wrong idea of whether one thing happens after another, it means that the first act is a cause of the second, this type of reasoning is the cause of a large number of beliefs and superstitions.
Examples of fallacy
Petition of principle
This is characterized by containing conclusions regarding an argument that must be tested explicitly or implicitly within the parameters available for such action. Therefore it is considered a circular way of reasoning, where the conclusion focuses on the premise. Example, "I'm your older brother and I'm right, because older brothers always have it."
Affirmation of the consequent
This ensures the reality of a premise by means of a conclusion, opposing the so-called linear logic, example "whenever it rains it is cold, then if it is cold it is because it is raining".
Hasty generalization
This affirms a conclusion based on few premises, and extends the reasoning to the largest number of cases. Example, “my mom likes tomato, my brother likes tomato. The whole family loves the tomato ”, which can be a lie or defamation, that is to say, a synonym for fallacy.
