Material Fallacies

Argumentum ad Verecundiam: Appeal to Illegitimate Authority

by Leave a Comment

There are times in the pursuit of any knowledge--science, history, philosophy, etc.--when we have to rely on the testimony of others. What makes someone a reliable authority? In this video, I discuss the difference between legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority.

NOTES

  • Appeal to authority- accepting the testimony of others as a grounds for belief or possibly knowledge
    • Types:
      • Eye-witness testimony
      • Opinions informed by experience
      • Expert research
  • What makes an authority legitimate?
    • Expertise
      • Conversant with all views on the topic
      • Vote of confidence from colleagues
      • Corroboration
    • Trustworthiness
      • Honest
      • Objective/unbiased
      • Sober-minded
      • Thorough
  • Argumentum ad Verecundiam- Appeal to an illegitimate authority
    • Types:
      • Not an expert in the subject
      • Not reliable
      • The person citing the authority is not reliable
    • Non-experts
      • Experts in other fields
      • Expertise too specified/general for the nature of the question
      • Not an expert at all
        • Internet sources
        • Celebrity appeal
      • Personal experience for general conclusions
    • Not trustworthy/reliable
      • Unreliably biased
      • Liars
    • Unreliable reporting
      • Misunderstanding the expert
      • Misquotation
      • Reporting bias
      • Unnamed experts

Further Reading

Argumentum ad Populam (Popular Appeal)

by Leave a Comment

The 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy assumes that probability of a belief is increased by the number of people that believe it. This video explores interesting examples of this, especially in democracy.

NOTES

  • argumentum ad populam- assuming that a lot of people believing something is a good reason to think it is more probably true
    • Arguments that this is fallacious reasoning
      • A1: psychological similarity
      • A2: gaslighting
      • A3: groupthink
      • A4: Mandela effect
  • argumentum contra populum- assuming that a lot of people believing something is a good reason to think it is less probably true

Further Reading

A pretty nice list of notes can be found here, though as you might be able to tell from the video I don't really agree with a lot of what is said there.

I also really liked this blog post, especially the discussion on Zeno and calculus (it was a little off topic--but, I mean, I made an entire career by being off topic)

My favorite logic book that deals with material fallacies is Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic, and I like his discussion of the ad populum, though it's unfortunately short.

Ad hominem

by Leave a Comment

An ad hominem fallacy is an attack on a person rather than their position or argument. Why is this fallacious? How can we identify this fallacy? How do we respond?

NOTES

  • ad hominem- attacking the person giving the argument rather than the argument itself
  • Three kinds:
    • circumstantial- attacking a person's circumstances
      • If they stand to gain from winning the argument, that's a reason to evaluate it, not reject it
    • abusive- attacking the person directly
      • Name calling
      • We can evaluate a person's character to see if they are trustworthy as an authority but not to evaluate their argument
    • tu quoque- attacking a person's hypocrisy
      • Hypocrisy doesn't automatically invalidate a person's position/argument, but a person can be a counterexample to their own position if they are living it out but not getting the predicted effect
  • Tips
    • How to identify: Would the response to the argument/position still make sense if we didn't know whose argument/position it was?
    • How to avoid it: Argue to understand others, not to win
    • How to respond to it:
      • Listen first
      • Ask the person to look past you and address the argument

Further Reading

Intellectuals, by Paul Johnson

Equivocation

by Leave a Comment

An equivocation is a shift in meaning of a word. It can lead to invalid arguments and miscommunication. In this video, I discuss exactly how equivocation happens as a fallacy of reasoning and communication. I also give tips on how to spot an equivocation and how to respond to it.

NOTES

Further Reading

Aristotle identifies this fallacy in Sophistical Refutations

Begging the Question

by Leave a Comment

'Begging the question' (also 'petitio principii') is an informal fallacy of reasoning. In this video, I'll explain what it is, how it relates to circular reasoning, tips on avoiding it, and some common mistakes about it.

NOTES

Here's an example of "begs the question" used incorrectly in a DC Justice League comic by The Flash

Further Reading

Aristotle talks about this in Sophistical Refutations and in Prior Analytics book II.

Whatley's Elements of Logic is interesting for historical reasons, but there are much better logic books now. Read it for free online here. Don't buy it unless you like artifacts.

René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy for free here, or get a more recent translation here