Fallacies of Relevance

Explanation Fallacies of relevance are attempts to prove a conclusion by offering considerations that simply dont bear on its truth. In order to prove that a conclusion is true, one must offer evidence that supports it. Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance dont do this; the considerations that they offer in support of their conclusion are irrelevant to determining whether that conclusion is true. The considerations offered by such are usually psychologically powerful, however, even if they dont have any evidential value. Examples Many of the familiar informal fallacies are fallacies of relevance, for example: Personal attacks (arguments ad hominem) attempt to discredit a point of view by discrediting the person that holds it. The character of the person that holds a view, though, entails nothing about the truth of that view. Such arguments therefore commit a fallacy of relevance. Appeals to consequences attempt to persuade someone to accept a position based either on the good consequences of their accepting it or on the bad consequences of their not accepting it. There is no guarantee, though, that the position that has the best consequences is true. Again, then, such arguments commit a fallacy of relevance. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) Explanation It is important to note that the label ad hominem is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer dont accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem. The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. Example William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life. Dembski would say that because hes religious. Therefore: Modern biology doesnt support intelligent design. This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem. Bandwagon Fallacy Explanation The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. They take the mere fact that an idea suddenly attracting adherents as a reason for us to join in with the trend and become adherents of the idea ourselves. This is a fallacy because there are many other features of ideas than truth that can lead to a rapid increase in popularity. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.

The bandwagon fallacy is closely related to the appeal to popularity; the difference between the two is that the bandwagon fallacy places an emphasis on current fads and trends, on the growing support for an idea, whereas the appeal to popularity does not. Example Increasingly, people are coming to believe that Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being.Therefore: Eastern religions help us to get in touch with our true inner being. This argument commits the bandwagon fallacy because it appeals to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. Mere trends in thought are not reliable guides to truth, though; the fact that Eastern religions are becoming more fashionable does not imply that they are true. Fallacist s Fallacy Explanation The fallacists fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence. It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: Simon Singh says that 2+2=4 . Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked! Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty. Example People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just cant accept that when we die thats it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore there is no life after death. Fallacy of Composition Explanation The fallacy of composition is the fallacy of inferring from the fact that every part of a whole has a given property that the whole also has that property. This pattern of argument is the reverse of that of the fallacy of division. It is not always fallacious, but we must be cautious in making inferences of this form. Examples A clear case of the fallacy of composition is this: Every song on the album lasts less than an hour. Therefore: The album lasts less than an hour. Obviously, an album consisting of many short tracks may itself be very long. Not all arguments of this form are fallacious, however. Whether or not they are depends on what property is involved. Some properties, such as lasting less than an hour, may be possessed by every part of something but not by the thing itself. Others, such as being bigger than a bus, must be possessed by the whole if possessed by each part. One case where it is difficult to decide whether the fallacy of composition is committed concerns the cosmological argument for the existence of God. This argument takes the contingency of the universe (i.e. the alleged fact that the universe might not have come into being) as implying the existence of a God who brought it into being. The simplest way to argue for the contingency of the universe is to argue from the contingency of each of its parts, as follows: Everything in the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist). Therefore:

The universe as a whole is contingent (i.e. could possibly have failed to exist. It is clear that this argument has the form of the fallacy of composition; what is less clear is whether it really is fallacious. Must something composed of contingent parts itself be contingent? Or might it be that the universe is necessarily existent even though each of its parts is not? Another controversial example concerns materialistic explanations of consciousness. Is consciousness just electrical activity in the brain, as mind-brain identity theory suggests, or something more? Opponents of mind-brain identity theory sometimes argue as follows: The brain is composed of unconscious neurons. Therefore: The brain itself is not conscious. It is certainly difficult to see how consciousness can emerge from purely material processes, but the mere fact that each part of the brain is unconscious does not entail that the whole brain is the same. Fallacy of Division Explanation The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed by inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition, this is only a fallacy for some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form of inference. Example An example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of division is this: Water is liquid. Therefore: H2O molecules are liquid. This argument, in attributing a macro-property of water, liquidity, to its constituent parts, commits the fallacy of division. Though water is liquid, individual molecules are not. Note, however, that an argument with the same logical form but inferring from the fact that a computer is smaller than a car that every part of the computer is smaller than a car would not be fallacious; arguments with this logical form need not be problematic. Gambler s Fallacy Explanation The gamblers fallacy is the fallacy of assuming that short-term deviations from probability will be corrected in the short-term. Faced with a series of events that are statistically unlikely, say, a serious of 9 coin tosses that have landed heads-up, it is very tempting to expect the next coin toss to land tails-up. The past series of results, though, has no effect on the probability of the various possible outcomes of the next coin toss. Example This coin has landed heads-up nine times in a row. Therefore: It will probably land tails-up next time it is tossed. This inference is an example of the gamblers fallacy. When a fair coin is tossed, the probability of it landing heads-up is 50%, and the probability of it landing tails-up is 50%. These probabilities are unaffected by the results of previous tosses. The gamblers fallacy appears to be a reasonable way of thinking because we know that a coin tossed ten times is very unlikely to land heads-up every time. If we observe a tossed coin landing heads-up nine times in a row we therefore infer that the unlikely sequence will not be continued, that next time the coin will land tails-up. In fact, though, the probability of the coin landing heads-up on the tenth toss is exactly the same as it was on the first toss. Past results dont bear on what will happen next.

Genetic Fallacy Explanation The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do. Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious. Examples My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real. Therefore: (2) The tooth fairy is real. Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war. Therefore: (2) Eugenics is a bad thing. Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy, because each judges an idea by the goodness or badness of its source, rather than on its own merits. Irrelevant Appeals Explanation Irrelevant appeals attempt to sway the listener with information that, though persuasive, is irrelevant to the matter at hand. There are many different types of irrelevant appeal, many different ways of influencing what people think without using evidence. Each is a different type of fallacy of relevance. Examples For example, an appeal to authority seeks to persuade by citing what someone else, a perceived authority, thinks on the subject, as if that resolves the question. The degree of support that such an appeal lends to a claim varies depending on the particular authority in question, the relevance of their expertise to the claim, and other factors, but in all cases is limited. An appeal to consequences seeks to persuade by getting the listener to consider either the attractiveness of a belief, or the unattractiveness of the alternatives. We should form beliefs, however, not on the basis of what we would like to be true, but on the basis of what the evidence supports. An appeal to pity, which can be very effective, persuades using emotionspecifically, sympathy rather than reason. These are just some of the common irrelevant appeals. Appeal to Antiquity / Tradition Explanation An appeal to antiquity is the opposite of an appeal to novelty. Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore cant learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is. Example Religion dates back many thousands of years (whereas atheism is a relatively recent development). Therefore: (2) Some form of religion is true. This argument is an appeal to antiquity because the only evidence that it offers in favour of religion is its age. There are many old ideas, of course, that are known to be false: e.g. that the Earth is flat, or that it is the still centre of the solar system. It therefore could be the case that the premise of this argument is true (that religion is older than atheism) but that its conclusion is nevertheless false (that

no religion is true). We need a lot more evidence about religion (or any other theory) than how old it is before we can be justified in accepting it as true. Appeals to antiquity are therefore fallacious. Appeal to Authority Explanation An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true. However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony. Example Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil. Therefore: (2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil. This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then theres a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldnt know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument. Appeal to Consequences Explanation An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true. Examples Appeal to Good Consequences: If believe in God then youll find a kind of fulfilment in life that youve never felt before. Therefore: (2) God exists. Appeal to Bad Consequences: (1) If you dont believe in God then youll be miserable, thinking that life doesnt have any meaning. Therefore: (2) God exists. Both of these arguments are fallacious because they provide no evidence for their conclusions; all they do is appeal to the consequences of belief in God. In the case of the first argument, the positive consequences of belief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. In the case of the second argument, the negative consequences of disbelief in God are cited as evidence that God exists. Neither argument, though, provides any evidence for Santas existence. The consequences of a belief are rarely a good guide to its truth. Both arguments are therefore fallacious. Real-World Examples Each of the arguments above features in real-world discussions of Gods existence. In fact, they have been developed into an argument called Pascals Wager, which openly advocates belief in God based on its good consequences, rather than on evidence that it is true.

Another example occurs in the film The Matrix. There Neo is asked whether he believes in fate; he says that he doesnt. He is then asked why, and replies, I dont like the thought that Im not in control. This is not an appeal to evidence, but to the unpleasantness of believing in fate: Fate would imply that the world is a way that I dont want it to be, therefore there is no such thing. Appeal to Force Explanation An appeal to force is an attempt to persuade using threats. Its Latin name, argumentum ad baculum, literally means argument with a cudgel. Disbelief, such arguments go, will be met with sanctions, perhaps physical abuse; therefore, youd better believe. Appeals to force are thus a particularly cynical type of appeal to consequences, where the unpleasant consequences of disbelief are deliberately inflicted by the arguer. Of course, the mere fact that disbelief will be met with sanctions is only a pragmatic justification of belief; it is not evidence that the resultant belief will be true. Appeals to force are therefore fallacious. Example If you dont accept that the Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around, then youll be excommunicated from the Church. Therefore: (2) The Sun orbits the Earth, rather than the other way around. This argument, if it can properly be called an argument, makes no attempt to provide evidence for its conclusion; whether or not youll be excommunicated for disbelieving the geocentric model has no bearing on whether the geocentric model is true. The argument therefore commits the appeal to force fallacy. Appeal to Novelty Explanation An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus also related to the bandwagon fallacy. That an idea is new certainly doesnt entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely go the same way. Examples String theory is the most recent development in physics. Therefore: (2) String theory is true. Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development. Therefore: (2) Atheism is true. Each of these arguments commits the appeal to novelty fallacy. The former takes the newness of string theory to be evidence that string theory is true; the latter takes the newness of atheism to be evidence that atheism is true. Merely being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. The newness of string theory and atheism alone, then, should not be taken to be evidence of the truth of these two positions. Appeal to Pity Explanation An appeal to pity attempts to persuade using emotionspecifically, sympathyrather than evidence. Playing on the pity that someone feels for an individual or group can certainly affect what that person thinks about the group; this is a highly effective, and so quite common, fallacy.

This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. We should base our beliefs upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want our beliefs to be true. Examples Pro-life campaigners have recently adopted a strategy that capitalises on the strength of appeals to pity. By showing images of aborted foetuses, anti-abortion materials seek to disgust people, and so turn them against the practice of abortion. A BBC News article, Jurors shown graphic 9/11 images, gives another clear example of an appeal to pity: A US jury has been shown graphic images of people burned to death in the 11 September 2001 attack on the Pentagon. The jurors will decide whether al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui should be executed or jailed for life Prosecutors hope such emotional evidence will persuade the jury to opt for the death penalty. Appeal to Popularity Explanation Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. This is a fallacy because popular opinion can be, and quite often is, mistaken. Hindsight makes this clear: there were times when the majority of the population believed that the Earth is the still centre of the universe, and that diseases are caused by evil spirits; neither of these ideas was true, despite its popularity. Example Most people believe in a god or higher power. Therefore: (2) God, or at least a higher power, must exist. This argument is an appeal to popularity because it suggests that God must exist based solely on the popularity of belief in God. An atheist could, however, accept the premise of this argument (the claim that belief in God is widespread) but reject its conclusion without inconsistency. Appeal to Poverty Explanation The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position is correct because it is held by the poor. The opposite of the appeal to poverty is the appeal to wealth. There is sometimes a temptation to contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality of the rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of the poor. This can give rise to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy. The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that the view is true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs. Example The working classes respect family and community ties. Therefore: (2) Respect for family and community ties is virtuous. This argument is an appeal to poverty because it takes the association between a position and poverty as evidence of the goodness of that position. There is, however, no necessary connection between a position being associated with poverty and its being true, and so the argument is fallacious.

Appeal to Wealth Explanation The appeal to wealth fallacy is committed by any argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is the opposite of the appeal to poverty. In a society in which we often aspire to wealth, where wealth is held up as that to which we all aspire, it is easy to slip into thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price. This is a fallacy. Wealth need not be associated with all that is good, and all that is good need not be associated with wealth. Examples My computer cost more than yours. Therefore: (2) My computer is better than yours. Warren is richer than Wayne. Therefore: (2) Warren will make a better dinner-guest than Wayne. Each of these arguments takes an association with money to be a sign of superiority. They therefore both commit the appeal to wealth fallacy. Moralistic Fallacy Explanation The moralistic fallacy is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy moves from descriptions of how things are to statements of how things ought to be, the moralistic fallacy does the reverse. The moralistic fallacy moves from statements about how things ought to be to statements about how things are; it assumes that the world is as it should be. This, sadly, is a fallacy; sometimes things arent as they ought to be. Examples Have you ever crossed a one-way street without looking in both directions? If you have, reasoning that people shouldnt be driving the wrong way up a one way street so theres no risk of being run over from that direction, then youve committed the moralistic fallacy. Sometimes things arent as they ought to be. Sometimes people drive in directions that they shouldnt. The rules of the road dont necessarily describe actual driving practices. Naturalistic Fallacy Explanation There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The naturalistic fallacy is the alleged fallacy of inferring a statement of the latter kind from a statement of the former kind. Arguments cannot introduce completely new terms in their conclusions. The argument, (1) All men are mortal, (2) Socrates is a man, therefore (3) Socrates is a philosopher is clearly invalid; the conclusion obviously doesnt follow from the premises. This is because the conclusion contains an ideathat of being a philosopherthat isnt contained in the premises; the premises say nothing about being a philosopher, and so cannot establish a conclusion about being a philosopher. Arguments that commit the naturalistic fallacy are arguably flawed in exactly the same way. An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be, introduce a new term in the conclusion in just the same way as the above example. If the premises merely describe the way that the world is then they say nothing about

the way that the world ought to be. Such factual premises cannot establish any value judgement; you cant get an ought from an is. Examples Feeling envy is only natural. Therefore: (2) Theres nothing wrong with feeling envy. This argument moves from a statement of fact to a value judgement, and therefore commits the naturalistic fallacy. The arguments premise simply describes the way that the world is, asserting that it is natural to feel envious. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be. The arguments conclusion, then, which is value judgement, cannot be supported by its premises. It is important to note that much respectable moral argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Whether arguments of the form described here are fallacious is controversial. If they are, then the vast majority of moral philosophy commits a basic logical error. Red Herring Explanation The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe. The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry. Just as a hound may be prevented from catching a fox by distracting it with a red herring, so an arguer may be prevented from proving his point by distracting him with a tangential issue. Example Many of the fallacies of relevance can take red herring form. An appeal to pity, for example, can be used to distract from the issue at hand: You may think that he cheated on the test, but look at the poor little thing! How would he feel if you made him sit it again? Weak Analogy Explanation Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this: A and B are similar. (2) A has a certain characteristic. Therefore: (3) B must have that characteristic too. For example, William Paleys argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too. An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or false analogy, or questionable analogy) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough. Example The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind and degree of order exhibited by watches and the universe sufficient to support an inference to a similarity in their origins?