What is a Logical Fallacy
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that occurs when invalid arguments or irrelevant points are introduced without any evidence to support them. However, every invalid argument is not a logical fallacy.
An invalid argument can be called a logical fallacy only if it can convince at least some people that the logic used in the argument is correct. Hence, a logical fallacy must appear correct even though it is not.
A logical fallacy is thus a type of argument recognised as bad. An argument is good if it offers its audience good reasons to believe in the conclusion. A bad argument is just the opposite of a good argument.
People often use logical fallacies to persuade others of their point of view. Most of the time, people use fallacious arguments because they cannot identify the logical fallacy and believe in the argument’s validity. However, sometimes logical fallacies are deliberately invented to fool and cheat people.
An argument is considered valid if it satisfies both truth and logic conditions. The truth conditions are satisfied when the premises are factually correct, while the logic condition is satisfied if the stated conclusion follows from the premises. Let us take some examples of invalid arguments.
Argument 1: TRUTH CONDITION NOT SATISFIED (False Premises, Valid Logic)
- P: All humans are machines.
- P: John is a human.
- C: John is a machine.
In this case, the logic is valid because if the premises are true, that conclusion has to follow as stated. However, the premises are false because all humans are not machines.
Argument 2: LOGIC CONDITION NOT SATISFIED (True Premises, Invalid Logic)
- P: All men are mammals
- P: A dog is a mammal
- C: All men are dogs.
Both premises are true in this case, but the logic is incorrect. Hence, the argument is invalid.
The two examples discussed above are examples of invalid logic. However, these invalid arguments can’t be said to be logical fallacies since these arguments can’t convince that ‘John is a machine’ or ‘All men are dogs’. To be called a logical fallacy, the argument must not only be logically invalid but also somehow believable so that it can convince at least some people about the validity of the logic.
However, if arguments are presented in a smart way, it can be believed by a large number of people. Let us consider the following argument in which the premises are false but widely believed, which leads to a false conclusion.
- P: All humans are divine.
- P: All divine entities are immortal.
- C: All humans are immortal.
The above logic is similar to Argument 1, which contains a false premise that all humans are divine. Hardly any person would accept that terrorists, rapists or murderers are divine human beings. As a result, the argument leads to the wrong conclusion that all humans are immortal because we know that all humans are mortal. However, the ancient saints of India have used this logic to convince people that the essence of humans is their soul, which is divine and, hence, immortal. This has given rise to the concept of the immortality of the soul, rebirth and the principle of Karma. Hence, the above logic can be considered to be a logical fallacy.
Likewise, we can also make fallacious arguments where the premises are true, but the conclusion is false due to faulty logic. Let us consider the following argument.
- P: All divorces are painful.
- P: All evil acts are painful.
- C: Therefore, all divorces are evil.
This argument is an example of the logical fallacy since this argument can convince at least some people even though the argument is invalid. However, this argument may not be valid as it does not follow the proper structure of the logic.
The two arguments discussed above are examples of formal fallacies associated with deductive logic. The deductive logic must produce absolutely correct conclusions. Hence, if we can find even one exception to the argument, the argument can be proven invalid and discarded. We shall discuss the fallacies in deductive logic in the next chapter of formal fallacies.
The type of fallacies arising due to the use of inductive argument are often called informal fallacies. Informal fallacies arise when we assume a strong connection between the premises and the conclusion, while the connection is either weak or does not exist. Informal fallacies are also called content fallacies because the argument is based on dubious or false premises.
People often use informal fallacies to justify their wrong acts. Often all the premises are not stated but assumed. For instance, it is common to hear the argument, “It is okay to evade taxes. Everyone does it.” Let us examine whether the argument is valid.
The argument can be expressed in the standard form as follows.
- P: Every taxpayer evades taxes
- P: I am a taxpayer
- C: I must evade taxes
The argument justifies evading taxes and successfully convinces at least some people not to pay their due taxes. Such arguments influence our emotions as we don’t wish to pay taxes on our hard-earned money. However, paying taxes is a statutory obligation, and we can be penalized for not paying our due taxes. However, most of us hate paying taxes on our income earned through our hard work. Hence, we feel good when we find an argument that justifies not paying taxes.
However, the argument for not paying taxes is fallacious because there are factual errors in the argument; the argument’s premise is incorrect because “every taxpayer does not evade taxes”. Moreover, even if everyone does a wrong thing, it does not become right. For instance, if every government officer becomes corrupt, it does not make corruption the right thing to do.
Informal fallacies are based on false premises, bad logic, emotional appeal, wrong examples, or any other method like metaphor, analogy, or stories used to persuade people to accept the idea. They appear to be correct and justifiable for some people because the informal fallacies use the same technique as used in the good argument. For instance, the tax avoidance argument is used by many taxpayers to justify tax evasion and avoid paying taxes. Likewise, many government officers justify corruption using arguments like ‘everyone is corrupt’, ‘you can’t survive in the government without corruption’, or ‘you will be killed if you fight corruption in government’. However, all these arguments are invalid since they are factually incorrect.
- Many government officials are not corrupt.
- Many government officers survive in government without corruption.
- Rarely is a government official killed if they fight corruption.
Hence, most people reject these arguments and don’t condone the taxpayers who don’t pay taxes or the government officers who engage in corruption.
It is not easy to identify the logical fallacies as they are dressed under the cover of the genuine argument, and most people fail to identify the logical fallacies and fall for the fallacious arguments. Let us understand the different types of fallacies in argument to guard ourselves from logical fallacies.
Arguments are the most effective tools to persuade people to know the truth and make other people believe in the truth. However, smart people can always twist the arguments, which can make a large number of people believe in the arguments, leading to false conclusions. Since we have to use words to express our argument, fallacies can arise due to the ambiguity if the terms, which are often called verbal fallacies. Likewise, most of the users believe that statistics don’t lie and that conclusions drawn on the basis of empirical evidence or data are the most reliable method of knowing the truth. However, smart people often use statistics to mislead people, which leads to statistical fallacies.
