"Argument from fallacy" describes what is also called Argument to Logic (Argumentum ad Logicam) or fallacy fallacy, is a logical fallacy which assumes that if an argument is fallacious its conclusion must be false.[1]
Contents |
Form
It has the general argument form:
- If P, then Q.
- P is a fallacious argument.
- Therefore, Q is false.[2]
Thus, it is a special case of denying the antecedent where the antecedent, rather than being a proposition that is false, is an entire argument that is fallacious. A fallacious argument, just as with a false antecedent, can still have a consequent that happens to be true. The fallacy is in concluding the consequent of a fallacious argument has to be false. That the argument is fallacious only means that the argument cannot succeed in proving its consequent.[3]
Examples
Examples:
- Tom: "All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger is a cat.".
- Bill: "Ah you just committed the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. Sorry, you are wrong, which means that Ginger is not a cat".
- Tom: "OK — I'll prove I'm English — I speak English so that proves it".
- Bill: "But Americans and Canadians, among others, speak English too. You have committed the package-deal fallacy, assuming that speaking English and being English always go together. That means you are not English".
Both Bill's rebuttals are arguments from fallacy. Of course, the mere fact that one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not automatically "prove" one's own position either, as this would itself be yet another argument from fallacy. An example of this false reasoning follows:
- Joe: Bill's assumption that Ginger is not a cat uses the argument from fallacy. Therefore, Ginger absolutely must be a cat.
Further
One can regard the argumentum ad logicam as similar to the ad hominem fallacy, because, in relying on the opposing speaker's seeming lack of credibility, it depends upon a factor usually irrelevant to the actual truth of a given conclusion (although it can help bolster the evidence in deciding whether to spend any more time on it).
References
- ^ K. S. Pope (2003) "Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 21 Types" Fallacies & Pitfalls in Psychology
- ^ Compare http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:e-ColbDVni0J:scholar.google.com/+"argumentum+ad+logicam"&hl=en page 20, which also offers examples for argumentum ad logicam. Retrieved 2009-10-29
- ^ John Woods, The death of argument: fallacies in agent based reasoning, Springer 2004, pp.XXIII-XXV
Further reading
- Fallacy Fallacy The Fallacy Files
- David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought Harper & Row, 1970, pp. 305-306.
See also
- Argument from ignorance (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
- Logical fallacies
- Straw Man
|
|||||||||||||||||
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
