What is a Fallacy?

A fallacy is a violation of a criterion of a good argument

    A fallacy is a violation of one of the criteria of a good argument. Any argument that fails to satisfy one or more of the four criteria is a fallacious one. Fallacies, then, stem from the irrelevance of a premise, from the unacceptability of a premise, from the insufficiency of the combined premises of an argument to establish its conclusion, or from the failure of an argument to give an effective rebuttal to the most serious challenges to its conclusion or to the argument itself.
    Fallacies are mistakes in reasoning that typically do not seem to be mistakes. Indeed, part of the etymology of the word "fallacy" comes from the notion of deception. Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments. That perhaps explains why we are so often misled by them. Such deceptiveness, of course, may be unintentional on the part of the arguer. But it really doesn't matter whether the mistake was intended or not, a mistake is a mistake, regardless of the arguer's intention.
    In most cases, fallacies are mistakes made by those who construct or present arguments for our consideration. However, those to whom such arguments are addressed may also be guilty of faulty reasoning if they accept the conclusion of a faulty argument. If they accept the bad argument as a good one, they are, in effect, making the same argument and thus bear the same responsibility for its problems. Similarly, a person who accepts the conclusion of a good argument is, in effect, making the same argument and should be recognized as a good thinker.

Named Versus Unnamed Fallacies

    To be able to identify a particular pattern of fallacious reasoning by name serves an important function. If a mistake in reasoning is so common that a name has been assigned to it, we should be considerably more confident about our assessment of its faulty character when we encounter it in an argument. It is intellectually reassuring to discover that particular kinds of reasoning have been specifically identified by experts in argumentation as fallacious, even to the point of having been assigned a name.
    To say of an argument that it is "illogical" or that "something seems wrong with it" is not very helpful in eliminating its problems. It is analogous to the situation of one who does not feel well, goes to a physician, and is told "You're sick!" If a medical problem is to be treated effectively, one must first diagnose the problem. If the physician is well acquainted with the symptoms of particular diseases, he or she is more likely to identify the patient's problem correctly and to respond to it appropriately.
    If a problem of reasoning is to be treated effectively, we must first diagnose the problem. This diagnosis entails specifying precisely what makes the argument fallacious. If we are well acquainted with the features of particular faulty patterns of reasoning, we are more likely to identify the mistake correctly and to respond to it effectively.
    It should be clear by now that a fallacy does not have to have a name in order to be a fallacy. In fact, most of the fallacies that one will encounter in real-life arguments will not be named fallacies. Neither is it necessary to know the name of fallacies in order to assess the merit of an argument. It has been demonstrated that it is not necessary to know or to remember the names of particular fallacies in order to evaluate the merit of an argument. It is entirely sufficient to be able to recognize features of the argument that may violate one or more of the four criteria of a good argument, although recognizing the mistakes by name or by identifiable pattern will often make the task easer. Nevertheless, even if you forget every named fallacy that will be addressed in the text, the theory of fallacy exhibited here is broad enough to give you a lifelong skill in evaluating arguments, simply by knowing the four criteria.

Rules of The Game

    Argumentation, like sports and many other activities, must be conducted in accordance with certain ground rules. In this case, however, the rules I have in mind are not the rules governing effective rational discussion. We have already provided 12 principles for that purpose. The ground rules I am referring to here are the rules of good sportsmanship. If you wish to maintain friendly relationships with your verbal opponents, and if you hope ultimately to win your point with the least amount of embarrassment and bitterness, I suggest you use the following guidelines.

    First, don't be a fallacy monger. Some people, with a little knowledge of fallacious reasoning, develop a kind of obsession with identifying fallacies in the utterances of others. They sniff suspiciously at every argument and point of debate. Such pouncing on others often creates alienation. Perhaps these difficulties stem from a kind of fallacy mongering, wherein one attempts to point out, in a pedantic fashion, all the fallacies in even the most casual comments of friends and acquaintances.

    Second, confront an opponent with fallacious reasoning only when you are convinced that an unwarranted conclusion has been reached as a result of violating one or more of the criteria of a good argument and/or in order to explain why you find the conclusion of the argument unacceptable. To point out questionable features of an argument that have no significant bearing on the basic thrust of the argument may only delay the progress of the debate and divert attention away from the point at issue.

    Third, be aware that sometimes a fallacy is not a fallacy. In other words, what might appear to be a fallacy may very well not be one at all in certain contexts. As we pointed out earlier in the text, the very reason that we are misled by fallacious reasoning is that it is so close to good reasoning. For that reason we need to make sure that what we are calling a fallacy really is a fallacy before registering an accusation.

    Forth, when you yourself are caught committing a fallacy, admit the mistake and make the appropriate adjustments in your thinking. Don't try to deny the charge or explain it away by making excuses or by claming you were misunderstood. Don't be a sore loser.

    Finally, avoid the word "fallacy" altogether, if possible. There are subtle ways of informing verbal opponents that they have committed an error in reasoning without having to shout, "Aha! That's a fallacy!" Because names assigned to fallacies very from list to list and because people are often "turned off" by technical jargon, the wisest course of action would be to find ways of focusing attention on the patterns of faulty reasoning itself. Be imaginative. Find ways of challenging the reasoning processes of others without alienating them or causing them unnecessary embarrassment. After all, our purpose is to assist people in thinking more clearly, not to catch them in a fallacy.

➥

["Attacking Faulty Reasoning", By T. Edward Damer]