Fallacy

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)

Current revision

This page Fallacy is part of the reason series
Illustration: The Heart Has Its Reasons (c.1887) by Odilon Redon, a phrase from the Pensées by Blaise Pascal

"To argue that a thing is good _because_ it is ‘natural,’ or bad _because_ it is ‘unnatural,’ in these common senses of the term, is therefore certainly fallacious: and yet such arguments are very frequently used. But they do not commonly pretend to give a systematic theory of Ethics. Among attempts to _systematise_ an appeal to nature, that which is now most prevalent is to be found in the application to ethical questions of the term ‘Evolution’--in the ethical doctrines which have been called ‘Evolutionistic.’ These doctrines are those which maintain that the course of ‘evolution,’ while it shews us the direction in which we _are_ developing, thereby and for that reason shews us the direction in which we _ought_ to develop. Writers, who maintain such a doctrine, are at present very numerous and very popular; and I propose to take as my example the writer, who is perhaps the best known of them all--Mr Herbert Spencer. Mr Spencer’s doctrine, it must be owned, does not offer the _clearest_ example of the naturalistic fallacy as used in support of Evolutionistic Ethics. A clearer example might be found in the doctrine of Guyau[ Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction ], a writer who has lately had considerable vogue in France, but who is not so well known as Spencer." --Principia Ethica (1903) by G. E. Moore

Train wreck at Montparnasse (October 22, 1895) by Studio Lévy and Sons

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop

Featured:

Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.

Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A formal fallacy can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as propositional logic, while an informal fallacy originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form. Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious.

[edit]

Etymology

From Middle English, from Old French fallace, from Latin fallacia (“deception, deceit”), from fallax (“deceptive, deceitful”), from fallere (“to deceive”).

[edit]

Fallacy

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Current revision

Etymology

See also

Views

Personal tools

Search

Metas

Navigation

-[[Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg|thumb|right|200px|''[[Train wreck at Montparnasse]]'' ([[October 22]], [[1895]]) by Studio Lévy and Sons]]
 [[Image:The Heart Has Its Reasons by Odilon Redon.jpg |thumb|left|200px|
 This page '''{{PAGENAME}}''' is part of the ''[[reason]]'' series
-<br>Illustration: [[The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing|The Heart Has Its Reasons]] (c.[[1887]]) by [[Odilon Redon]], a phrase from the ''[[Pensées]]'' by [[Blaise Pascal]]]]
+<br>Illustration: [[The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing|The Heart Has Its Reasons]] (c.1887) by Odilon Redon, a phrase from the ''Pensées'' by Blaise Pascal]]
-{{Template}}
+{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
+| style="text-align: left;" |
-{{Short description|Argument that uses faulty reasoning}}
+"To argue that a thing is [[good]] _because_ it is ‘[[natural]],’ or [[bad]] _because_ it is ‘[[unnatural]],’ in these common senses of the term, is therefore certainly [[fallacy|fallacious]]: and yet such arguments are very frequently used. But they do not commonly pretend to give a systematic theory of [[Ethics]]. Among attempts to _systematise_ an [[appeal to nature]], that which is now most prevalent is to be found in the application to ethical questions of the term ‘[[Evolution]]’--in the ethical doctrines which have been called ‘Evolutionistic.’ These doctrines are those which maintain that the course of ‘evolution,’ while it shews us the direction in which we _[[to be|are]]_ developing, thereby and for that reason shews us the direction in which we _[[ought]]_ to develop. Writers, who maintain such a doctrine, are at present very numerous and very popular; and I propose to take as my example the writer, who is perhaps the best known of them all--Mr [[Herbert Spencer]]. Mr Spencer’s doctrine, it must be owned, does not offer the _clearest_ example of the [[naturalistic fallacy]] as used in support of [[Evolutionary ethics|Evolutionistic Ethics]]. A clearer example might be found in the doctrine of [[Guyau]][ [[Esquisse d’une Morale sans Obligation ni Sanction]] ], a writer who has lately had considerable vogue in France, but who is not so well known as Spencer." --''[[Principia Ethica]]'' (1903) by G. E. Moore
-A '''fallacy''' is the use of [[Validity (logic)|invalid]] or otherwise faulty [[reason]]ing, or "wrong moves"<ref>{{Cite book |title = Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonablene Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules |last = van Eemeren |first = Frans |last2 = Garssen |first2 = Bart |last3 = Meuffels |first3 = Bert |date = 2009 |publisher = Springer |isbn = 978-90-481-2613-2 |location = Dordrecht |doi = 10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9 }}</ref> in the construction of an [[argument]].<ref name="GenslerAZ">{{cite book |first=Harry J. |last=Gensler |title=The A to Z of Logic |date=2010 |page=74 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=9780810875968}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title = The Death of Argument |last = Woods |first = John |publisher =  |isbn = 9789048167005 |series = Applied Logic Series |volume = 32 |location =  |date = 2004 |pages = 3–23 |quote =  |author-link = John Woods (logician) |doi = 10.1007/978-1-4020-2712-3_1 |chapter = Who Cares About the Fallacies?}}</ref> A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to [[Psychological manipulation|manipulate]] or [[Persuasion|persuade]] by [[deception]], while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The [[soundness]] of [[legal argument]]s depends on the context in which the arguments are made.<ref>{{cite book |editor1-last = Bustamente |editor1-first = Thomas |editor2-last = Dahlman |editor2-first = Christian |title = Argument types and fallacies in legal argumentation |date = 2015 |publisher = Springer International Publishing |location = Heidelberg |isbn = 978-3-319-16147-1 |page = x }}</ref>
+|}
-Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A [[formal fallacy]] can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as [[Propositional calculus|propositional logic]],<ref name="GenslerAZ" /> while an [[informal fallacy]] originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form.<ref name=garns>{{cite web |url = http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt3_2.html |title = Informal Fallacies |publisher=Northern Kentucky University |first=Rudy |last=Garns |date =1997  |accessdate = 2013-09-10 }}</ref> Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally [[Validity (logic)|valid]], but still fallacious.<ref name="Downden">{{Cite web |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy |title=Fallacy |last=Dowden |first=Bradley |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=17 February 2016}}</ref>
+[[Image:Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg|thumb|right|200px|''[[Train wreck at Montparnasse]]'' ([[October 22]], [[1895]]) by Studio Lévy and Sons]]
-A special case is a [[mathematical fallacy]], an intentionally invalid [[mathematical]] [[mathematical proof|proof]], often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious [[contradiction]]s.
+{{Template}}
+A '''fallacy''' is the use of [[Validity (logic)|invalid]] or otherwise faulty [[reason]]ing, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an [[argument]]. A fallacious argument may be [[deceptive]] by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to [[Psychological manipulation|manipulate]] or [[Persuasion|persuade]] by [[deception]], while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The [[soundness]] of [[legal argument]]s depends on the context in which the arguments are made.
-==Overview==
-Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. Fallacious arguments are very common and can be persuasive in common use. They may be even "unsubstantiated assertions that are often delivered with a conviction that makes them sound as though they are proven facts".<ref>{{Cite book |title = The new handbook of cognitive therapy techniques |last = McMullin |first = Rian E. |date = 2000 |publisher = W. W. Norton |isbn = 978-0393703139 |edition = [Rev. ed.] |location = New York |oclc = 41580357 }}</ref> Informal fallacies in particular are found frequently in mass media such as television and newspapers.<ref name="McMurty1990">{{cite journal |last1 = McMurtry |first1 = John |title = The mass media: An analysis of their system of fallacy |journal = Interchange |date = December 1990 |volume = 21 |issue = 4 |pages = 49–66 |doi = 10.1007/BF01810092 }}</ref> It is important to understand what fallacies are so that one can recognize them in either one's own or others' writing. Avoiding fallacies will strengthen one's ability to produce strong arguments.
-It can be difficult to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious, as arguments exist along a continuum of [[soundness]] and an argument that has several stages or parts might have some sound sections and some fallacious ones.<ref name="DeLancey_Handout">{{cite web |last1 = DeLancey |first1 = Craig, Ph.D. |title = Evaluating Arguments—Distinguishing between reasonable and fallacious tactics |url = https://writingcenter.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/evaluatingarguments.pdf |website = oswego.edu |publisher = self-published |access-date = 7 March 2018 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130903171329/http://writingcenter.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/evaluatingarguments.pdf |archive-date = 2013-09-03 |url-status = dead }}</ref>
-"Fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments."<ref name="Damer 2009">{{citation |first = T. Edward |last = Damer |authorlink = T. Edward Damer | title = [[Attacking Faulty Reasoning]]: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments |edition = 6th |publisher = Wadsworth |place = Belmont, California |isbn = 978-0-495-09506-4  |year = 2009 |page=52}}</ref> Recognizing fallacies in everyday arguments may be difficult since arguments are often embedded in [[rhetoric]]al patterns that obscure the logical connections between statements. Informal fallacies may also exploit the [[emotion]]al, intellectual, or [[psychology|psychological]] weaknesses of the audience. Recognizing fallacies can develop reasoning skills to expose the weaker links between premises and conclusions to better discern between what appears to be true and what is true.
-[[Argumentation theory]] provides a different approach to understanding and classifying fallacies. In this approach, an argument is regarded as an interactive protocol between individuals that attempts to resolve their disagreements. The protocol is regulated by certain rules of interaction, so violations of these rules are fallacies.
-Fallacies are used in place of valid reasoning to communicate a point with the intention to persuade. Examples in the [[mass media]] today include but are not limited to [[propaganda]], [[advertisement]]s, [[politics]], newspaper editorials and opinion-based “news” shows.
-==<span id="Material fallacy"></span>Systems of classification==
-Because of their variety of structure and application, fallacies are challenging to classify so as to satisfy all practitioners. Fallacies can be classified strictly by either their structure or their content, such as classifying them as [[Formal fallacy|formal fallacies]] or [[Informal fallacy|informal fallacies]], respectively. The classification of informal fallacies may be subdivided into categories such as linguistic, relevance through omission, relevance through intrusion, and relevance through presumption.<ref name="Pirie2006">{{cite book |last = Pirie |first = Madsen |authorlink = Madsen Pirie |title = How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&pg=PA46 |accessdate = 10 September 2015 |year = 2006 |publisher = A&C Black |isbn = 978-0-8264-9006-3 |page = 46 }}</ref> On the other hand, fallacies may be classified by the process by which they occur, such as [[Material fallacy|material fallacies]] (content), [[Verbal fallacy|verbal fallacies]] (linguistic), and again formal fallacies (error in inference). In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies. Yet, verbal fallacies may be placed in either formal or informal classifications; compare [[equivocation]] which is a word or phrase based [[ambiguity]], e. g. "he is mad", which may refer to either him being angry or clinically insane, to the [[fallacy of composition]] which is premise and inference based ambiguity, e. g. "this must be a good basketball team because each of its members is an outstanding player".<ref>{{cite web |title = fallacy |url = https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallacy#toc280530 |website = Encyclopedia Britannica |publisher = Encyclopedia Britannica |accessdate = 13 June 2017 }}</ref>
-Even the definitions of the classes may not be unique. For example, [[#Whately's grouping|Whately]] treats material fallacies as a complement to logical fallacies, which makes them synonymous to informal fallacies, while others consider them to be a subclass of informal fallacies, like mentioned above.
-===<span id="Verbal fallacy"></span>Aristotle===
-[[Aristotle]] was the first to systematize logical errors into a list, as being able to refute an opponent's thesis is one way of winning an argument.<ref name="eem">{{cite book |first1 = Frans |last1 = van Eemeren |first2 = Bart |last2 = Garssen |first3 = Bert |last3 = Meuffels |title = Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules |date = 2009 |publisher = Springer Science+Business Media B.V. |location = Dordrecht |isbn = 978-90-481-2613-2 |language = English |chapter = 1 }}</ref>{{rp|2}} Aristotle's "[[Sophistical Refutations]]" (''De Sophisticis Elenchis'') identifies thirteen fallacies. He divided them up into two major types, linguistic fallacies and non-linguistic fallacies, some depending on language and others that do not depend on language.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://thenonsequitur.com/?page_id=621 |title=Aristotle's original 13 fallacies |date=March 13, 2008 |publisher=The Non Sequitur |access-date=28 May 2013}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url = http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/Straker3.html |title = Aristotle's 13 fallacies |website = www.logiclaw.co.uk |access-date = 2017-12-12 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180718072028/http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/Straker3.html |archive-date = 2018-07-18 |url-status = dead }}</ref> These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. A [[material fallacy]] is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a [[verbal fallacy]] is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/PhilosophicalWriting/08a/fallacies.html |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080905215503/http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/PhilosophicalWriting/08a/fallacies.html |url-status = dead |archive-date = 2008-09-05 |title = PHIL 495: Philosophical Writing (Spring 2008), Texas A&M University |date =  |access-date = 2013-09-10 }}</ref>
-An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who amongst humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant.{{r|eem|page1=3}} A language-independent fallacy is for example:
-# "[[Coriscus of Scepsis|Coriscus]] is different from [[Socrates]]."
-# "Socrates is a man."
-# "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man."{{r|eem|page1=4}}
-===Whately's grouping===
-[[Richard Whately]] defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not".{{r|eem|page1=8}}
-Whately divided fallacies into two groups: ''logical'' and ''material''. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion does follow from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's [[sophisms]] except:''[[ignoratio elenchi]]'', ''[[petitio principii]]'', and ''[[non causa pro causa]]'', which are in the material group.<ref name="Coffey1912">{{cite book |first = P. |last = Coffey |year = 1912 |title = The Science of Logic |publisher = Longmans, Green, and Company |lccn = 12018756 |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=j8BCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA302 |page = 302 |accessdate = 2016-02-22 }}</ref>
-===Other systems of classification===
-Of other classifications of fallacies in general the most famous are those of [[Francis Bacon (philosopher)|Francis Bacon]] and [[John Stuart Mill|J. S. Mill]]. Bacon (''[[Novum Organum]]'', Aph. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. With these should be compared the Offendicula of Roger Bacon, contained in the Opus maius, pt. i. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book v. of his Logic, and [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s Book of Fallacies (1824) contains valuable remarks. See Rd. Whateley's Logic, bk. v.; A. de Morgan, Formal Logic (1847); A. Sidgwick, Fallacies (1883) and other textbooks.
-==Formal fallacy==
-{{Main|Formal fallacy}}
-A formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or ''non sequitur'' ([[Latin]] for "it does not follow") is a flaw in the structure of a [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] [[logical argument|argument]] which renders the argument [[Validity (logic)|invalid]]. The flaw can neatly be expressed in standard system of logic.<ref name="GenslerAZ" /> Such an argument is always considered to be wrong.
-The presence of the formal fallacy does not imply anything about the argument's [[premise]]s or its conclusion. Both may actually be true, or may even be more probable as a result of the argument; but the deductive argument is still invalid because the conclusion does not follow from the premises in the manner described.
-{{Dubious span|text=By extension, an argument can contain a formal fallacy even if the argument is not a deductive one: for instance, an [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] argument that incorrectly applies principles of probability or [[causality]] can be said to commit a formal fallacy.|date=May 2018}} "Since deductive arguments depend on formal properties and inductive arguments don't, formal fallacies apply only to deductive arguments."<ref name=garns />
-A [[logical form]] such as "''A'' and ''B''" is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false; the conclusion can be either true or false. Any formal error or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. Both the argument and all its premises must be true for a statement to be true.
-The term ''logical fallacy'' is in a sense self-contradictory, because ''logic'' refers to valid reasoning, whereas a ''fallacy'' is the use of poor reasoning. Therefore, the term ''formal fallacy'' is preferred. In informal discourse however, ''logical fallacy'' is used to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason.
-The term ''non sequitur'' denotes a general formal fallacy, often meaning one which does not belong to any named subclass of formal fallacies like [[affirming the consequent]].
-===Common examples===
-{{main|List of fallacies#Formal fallacies}}
-==== Ecological fallacy ====
-An [[ecological fallacy]] is committed when one draws an inference from data based on the premise that qualities observed for groups necessarily hold for individuals; for example, "if countries with more Protestants tend to have higher suicide rates, then Protestants must be more likely to commit suicide."<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last = Freedman |first = David A. |encyclopedia= Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods |year = 2004 |publisher = Sage |location = Thousand Oaks, CA |isbn = 978-0761923633 |pages = 293–295 |title = Ecological Fallacy |editor1-first=Michael S. |editor1-last=Lewis-Beck |editor2-first=Alan |editor2-last=Bryman |editor3-first=Tim Futing |editor3-last=Liao }}</ref>
-===Fallacy fork===
-[[Maarten Boudry]] argues that formal, deductive fallacies rarely occur in real life and that arguments that would be fallacious in formally deductive terms are not necessarily so when context and prior probabilities are taken into account, thus making the argument defeasible and inductive. For a given fallacy, one must either characterize it by means of a deductive argumentation schema, which rarely applies (the first prong of the fork) or one must relax definitions and add nuance to take the actual intent and context of the argument into account (the other prong of the fork).  To argue, for example, that one became nauseated after eating a mushroom because the mushroom was poisonous could be an example of the ''post hoc ergo propter hoc'' fallacy unless one were actually arguing inductively and probabilistically that it is likely that the mushroom caused the illness since some mushrooms are poisonous, it is possible to misidentify a mushroom as edible, one doesn't usually feel nauseated, etc.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boudry |first1=Maarten |authorlink1=Maarten Boudry |title=The Fallacy Fork: Why It's Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=46–51}}</ref>
-==Informal fallacy==
-{{see also|Informal logic}}
-In contrast to a formal fallacy, an informal fallacy originates in a reasoning error other than a flaw in the logical form of the argument.<ref name=garns /> A [[deductive argument]] containing an informal fallacy may be formally [[Validity (logic)|valid]],<ref name="Downden" /> but still remain rationally unpersuasive. Nevertheless, informal fallacies apply to both deductive and non-deductive arguments.
-Though the form of the argument may be relevant, fallacies of this type are the "types of mistakes in reasoning that arise from the mishandling of the ''content'' of the propositions constituting the argument".<ref>{{Cite book |last1 = Copi |first1 = Irving M. |last2 = Cohen |first2 = Carl |year = 2005 |title = Introduction to Logic |edition = 12 |publisher = Pearson Education, Inc. |isbn = 978-0-13-189834-9 }} p.125</ref>
-=== Faulty generalization ===
-A special subclass of the informal fallacies is the set of [[faulty generalization]]s, also known as inductive fallacies. Here the most important issue concerns inductive strength or methodology (for example, [[statistical inference]]). In the absence of sufficient evidence, drawing conclusions based on induction is unwarranted and fallacious. With the backing of [[empirical evidence]], however, the conclusions may become warranted and convincing (at which point the arguments are no longer considered fallacious).{{citation needed|date=February 2016}}
-==== Hasty generalization ====
-For instance, [[hasty generalization]] is making assumptions about a whole group or range of cases based on a [[Sample (statistics)|sample]] that is inadequate (usually because it is atypical or just too small).
-Stereotypes about people ("frat boys are drunkards", "grad students are nerdy", "women don’t enjoy sports", etc.) are a common example of the principle.
-Hasty generalisation often follows a pattern such as:
-:X is true for A.
-:X is true for B.
-:Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.
-While never a valid logical deduction, if such an inference can be made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing. This is because with enough empirical evidence, the generalization is no longer a hasty one.
-=== Relevance fallacy ===
-The [[fallacy of relevance|fallacies of relevance]] are a broad class of informal fallacies (see the [[#Fallacies of relevance|navbox below]]), generically represented by [[missing the point]]: presenting an argument, which may be [[soundness|sound]], but fails to address the issue in question.
-==== ''Argumentum ex silentio'' ====
-An [[argument from silence]] features an unwarranted conclusion advanced based on the absence of data.
-=== Examples of informal fallacies ===
-{{Main|List of fallacies#Informal fallacies}}
-==== ''Post hoc'' (false cause) ====
-This fallacy gets its name from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," which translates as "after this, therefore because of this."
-''Definition:'' Assuming that because B comes after A, A caused B.
-Sometimes one event really does cause another one that comes later—for example, if I register for a class, and my name later appears on the roll, it's true that the first event caused the one that came later. But sometimes two events that seem related in time aren't really related as cause and event. That is, temporal correlation doesn't necessarily entail causation.
-==== Slippery slope ====
-''Definition:'' The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but in fact there is not enough evidence for that assumption.
-The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "[[slippery slope]]," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; they assume we can't stop halfway down the hill.<ref>{{Cite web |url = http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/Logic%20and%20Analysis/most_common_logical_fallacies.htm |title = The Most Common Logical Fallacies |website = www.webpages.uidaho.edu |access-date = 2017-12-12 }}</ref>
-==== False analogy ====
-This error in reasoning occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons, hence the [[false analogy]]'s informal nickname of the "[[apples and oranges]]" fallacy.<ref>{{cite journal |last = Kornprobst |first = Markus |title = Comparing Apples and Oranges? Leading and Misleading Uses of Historical Analogies |journal = Millennium&nbsp;— Journal of International Studies |year = 2007 |volume = 36 |pages = 29–49 |doi = 10.1177/03058298070360010301 }}</ref>
-==Measurement fallacy==
-Some of the fallacies described above may be committed in the context of measurement.
-Where [[mathematical fallacies]] are subtle mistakes in reasoning leading to invalid mathematical proofs, measurement fallacies are unwarranted inferential leaps involved in the extrapolation of raw data to a measurement-based value claim. The ancient Greek Sophist [[Protagoras]] was one of the first thinkers to propose that humans can generate reliable measurements through his "human-measure" principle and the practice of ''dissoi logoi'' (arguing multiple sides of an issue).<ref>{{cite book |last = Schiappa |first = Edward |title = Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric |year = 1991 |publisher = University of South Carolina Press |location = Columbia, SC |isbn = 978-0872497580 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last = Protagoras |title = The Older Sophists |year = 1972 |publisher = Hackett Publishing Co. |location = Indianapolis, IN |isbn = 978-0872205567 |url-access = registration |url = https://archive.org/details/oldersophistscom0000unse }}</ref> This history helps explain why measurement fallacies are informed by [[informal logic]] and [[argumentation theory]].
-===Knowledge value measurement fallacy===
-The increasing availability and circulation of [[big data]] are driving a proliferation of new metrics for scholarly authority,<ref name=Meho>{{Cite journal |last = Meho |first = Lokman I. |year = 2007 |title = The Rise and Rise of Citation Analysis |journal = [[Physics World]] |volume = January |pages = 32–36 |arxiv = physics/0701012 |bibcode = 2007physics...1012M |doi = 10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url = http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Metrics-of-Scholarly/5449 |title = The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority |last = Jensen |first = Michael |date = June 15, 2007 |work = [[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] |access-date = 28 October 2013 |publisher = The Chron |editor-last = Riley |editor-first = Michael G. |issn = 0009-5982 |oclc = 1554535 }}</ref> and there is lively discussion regarding the relative usefulness of such metrics for measuring the value of knowledge production in the context of an "information tsunami".<ref name="Baveye 2010 191–215">{{Cite journal |last = Baveye |first = Phillippe C. |year = 2010 |title = Sticker Shock and Looming Tsunami: The High Cost of Academic Serials in Perspective |journal = [[Journal of Scholarly Publishing]] |volume = 41 |issue = 2 |pages = 191–215 |doi = 10.1353/scp.0.0074 }}<!--|accessdate=28 October 2013--></ref>
-For example, [[anchoring]] fallacies can occur when unwarranted weight is given to data generated by metrics that the arguers themselves acknowledge is flawed. For example, limitations of the [[journal impact factor]] (JIF) are well documented,<ref>{{Cite book |url = http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/More_Scholarly_Resources/CCA%20Impact%20Factor%20Report%20Final.pdf |title = Impact Factors, Journal Quality, and Communication Journals: A Report for the Council of Communication Associations |last = National Communication Journal |publisher = National Communication Association |year = 2013 |location = Washington, D.C. |access-date = 2016-02-22 |archive-date = April 4, 2016 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160404212454/http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/More_Scholarly_Resources/CCA%20Impact%20Factor%20Report%20Final.pdf |url-status = dead }}</ref> and even JIF pioneer Eugene Garfield notes, "while citation data create new tools for analyses of research performance, it should be stressed that they supplement rather than replace other quantitative-and qualitative-indicators."<ref>{{cite journal |last = Garfield |first = Eugene |title = What Citations Tell us About Canadian Research |journal = Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science |year = 1993 |volume = 18 |issue = 4 |page = 34 |access-date = }}</ref> To the extent that arguers jettison acknowledged limitations of JIF-generated data in evaluative judgments, or leave behind Garfield's "supplement rather than replace" caveat, they court commission of anchoring fallacies.
-A [[naturalistic fallacy]] can occur for example in the case of sheer quantity metrics based on the premise "more is better"<ref name="Baveye 2010 191–215" /> or, in the case of developmental assessment in the field of psychology, "higher is better."<ref>{{cite journal |last = Stein |first = Zachary |title = Myth Busting and Metric Making: Refashioning the Discourse about Development |journal = Integral Leadership Review |date = October 2008 |volume = 8 |issue = 5 |url = http://www.archive-ilr.com/archives-2008/2008-10/2008-10-article-stein.php |archive-url = https://archive.is/20131030094158/http://www.archive-ilr.com/archives-2008/2008-10/2008-10-article-stein.php |archive-date = October 30, 2013 |access-date = October 28, 2013 }}</ref>
-A [[false analogy]] occurs when claims are supported by unsound comparisons between data points. For example, the [[Scopus]] and [[Web of Science]] bibliographic databases have difficulty distinguishing between citations of scholarly work that are arms-length endorsements, ceremonial citations, or negative citations (indicating the citing author withholds endorsement of the cited work).<ref name=Meho/> Hence, measurement-based value claims premised on the uniform quality of all citations may be questioned on false analogy grounds.
-As another example, consider the [[Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index]] of Academic Analytics. This tool purports to measure overall faculty productivity, yet it does not capture data based on citations in books. This creates a possibility that low productivity measurements using the tool commit [[argument from silence]] fallacies, to the extent that such measurements are supported by the absence of book citation data.
-[[Ecological fallacy|Ecological fallacies]] can be committed when one measures scholarly productivity of a sub-group of individuals (e.g. "Puerto Rican" faculty) via reference to aggregate data about a larger and different group (e.g. "Hispanic" faculty).<ref>{{cite journal |last = Allen |first = Henry L. |title = Faculty Workload and Productivity: Ethnic and Gender Disparities |journal = NEA 1997 Almanac of Higher Education |year = 1997 |page = 39 |url = http://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubAlmanac/ALM_97_04.pdf |access-date = October 29, 2013 }}</ref>
-==Intentional fallacy==
-Sometimes a speaker or writer uses a fallacy intentionally. In any context, including academic debate, a conversation among friends, political discourse, advertising, or for comedic purposes, the arguer may use fallacious reasoning to try to persuade the listener or reader, by means other than offering relevant evidence, that the conclusion is true.
-Examples of this include the speaker or writer:<ref name="Shewan">
-{{Cite book |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=22s9JWeHJbAC&pg=PA92 |title = Applications of Grammar: Principles of Effective Communication |last = Shewan |first = Edward |publisher = Christian Liberty Press |year = 2003 |isbn = 978-1-930367-28-9 |edition = 2nd |access-date = February 22, 2016 |chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=22s9JWeHJbAC&pg=PA84 |chapter = Soundness of Argument }}
-</ref>
-# Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a [[Red herring#Logical fallacy|red herring]] ([[Ignoratio elenchi]])
-# Insulting someone's character ([[Ad hominem|argumentum ad hominem]])
-# Assume the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" ([[begging the question|petitio principii]])
-# Making jumps in logic ([[Non sequitur (logic)|non sequitur]])
-# Identifying a false cause and effect ([[post hoc ergo propter hoc]])
-# Asserting that everyone agrees ([[argumentum ad populum]], [[Bandwagon effect|bandwagoning]])
-# Creating a "false dilemma" ([[False dilemma|"either-or fallacy"]]) in which the situation is oversimplified
-# Selectively using facts ([[Card stacking|card-stacking]])
-# Making false or misleading comparisons ([[false equivalence]] and [[false analogy]])
-# Generalizing quickly and sloppily ([[hasty generalization]])
-In humor, errors of reasoning are used for comical purposes. Groucho Marx used fallacies of [[amphiboly]], for instance, to make ironic statements; [[Gary Larson]] and [[Scott Adams]] employed fallacious reasoning in many of their cartoons. Wes Boyer and Samuel Stoddard have written a humorous essay teaching students how to be persuasive by means of a whole host of informal and formal fallacies.<ref name="How to Be Persuasive">{{Cite web |url = http://www.rinkworks.com/persuasive/ |title = How to Be Persuasive |last = Boyer |first = Web |last2 = Stoddard |first2 = Samuel |website = Rink Works |access-date = December 5, 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180727043805/http://www.rinkworks.com/persuasive/ |archive-date = July 27, 2018 |url-status = dead }}</ref>
-When someone uses logical fallacies intentionally to mislead in academic, political, or other high-stakes contexts, the breach of trust calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.<ref>Habick, Timothy, and Linda Cook. (2018) AICPA Test Development Fairness Guidelines. Association of International Certified Public Accounts, Ewing, NJ.{{page needed|date=December 2016}}<!-- Where does one find this citation? --></ref>
-==Assessment&nbsp;— pragmatic theory==
-According to the pragmatic theory,<ref>{{cite book |first1 = Douglas N. |last1 = Walton |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=4uTWAAAAMAAJ |title = A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy |publisher = [[University of Alabama Press]] |author-link = Douglas N. Walton |year = 1995 |location = Tuscaloosa |pages = 324 |isbn = 9780817307981 }}</ref> a fallacy can in some instances be a careless error, the unintentional use of a heuristic (short version of an argumentation scheme) to jump to a conclusion. However, more worryingly, in other instances it is a tactic or ploy intentionally used inappropriately in argumentation to try to win an argument unfairly. There are always two parties to an argument containing a fallacy&nbsp;— the perpetrator and the intended victim. The dialogue framework required to support the pragmatic theory of fallacy is built on the presumption that argumentative dialogue has both an adversarial component and a collaborative component. A dialogue has individual goals for each participant, but also collective (shared) goals that apply to all participants. A fallacy of the second kind is seen as more than simply violation of a rule of reasonable dialogue. It is also a deceptive tactic of argumentation, based on sleight-of-hand. Aristotle explicitly compared contentious reasoning to unfair fighting in athletic contest. But the roots of the pragmatic theory go back even further in history to the Sophists. The pragmatic theory finds its roots in the Aristotelian conception of a fallacy as a sophistical refutation, but also supports the view that many of the types of arguments traditionally labeled as fallacies are in fact reasonable techniques of argumentation that can be used, in many cases, to support legitimate goals of dialogue. Hence on the pragmatic approach, each case needs to analyzed individually, to determine by the textual evidence whether the argument is fallacious or reasonable.
+Fallacies are commonly divided into "formal" and "informal". A [[formal fallacy]] can be expressed neatly in a standard system of logic, such as [[Propositional calculus|propositional logic]], while an [[informal fallacy]] originates in an error in reasoning other than an improper logical form. Arguments containing informal fallacies may be formally [[Validity (logic)|valid]], but still fallacious.
+==Etymology==
+From Middle English, from Old French ''fallace'', from Latin ''fallacia'' (“deception, deceit”), from ''fallax'' (“deceptive, deceitful”), from ''fallere'' (“to [[deceive]]”).
 ==See also==
-{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
-{{columns-list|
 Lists
-* {{annotated link|List of cognitive biases}}
-* {{annotated link|List of fallacies}}
-* {{annotated link|List of memory biases}}
-* {{annotated link|List of paradoxes}}
-* {{intitle|Fallacy}}
-* {{intitle|Fallacious}}
-Concepts
-* {{annotated link|Aporia}}
-* {{annotated link|Anti-pattern}}
-* {{annotated link|Argumentation theory}}
-* {{annotated link|Argument map}}
-* {{annotated link|Association fallacy}}
-* {{annotated link|Cognitive bias}}
-* {{annotated link|Cognitive distortion}}
-* {{annotated link|Critical thinking}}
-* {{annotated link|Demagogue}}
-* {{annotated link|Evidence}}
-* {{annotated link|Fallacies of definition}}
-* {{annotated link|False premise}}
-* {{annotated link|False statement}}
-* {{annotated link|Illusion}}
-* {{annotated link|Inference objection}}
-* {{annotated link|Inquiry}}
-* {{annotated link|Jumping to conclusions}}
-* {{annotated link|Lemma (logic)|Lemma}}
-* {{annotated link|Mathematical fallacy}}
-* {{annotated link|Paradox}}
-* {{annotated link|Prosecutor's fallacy}}
-* {{annotated link|Sophist}}
-* {{annotated link|Soundness}}
-* {{annotated link|Lies, damned lies, and statistics}}
-* {{annotated link|Truth}}
-* {{annotated link|Validity (logic)|Validity}}
-* {{annotated link|Victim blaming}}
-==See also==
-'''Lists'''
 * [[List of cognitive biases]]
 * [[List of fallacies]]
 * [[List of paradoxes]]
-'''Concepts'''
+Concepts
+* [[Aporia]]
+* [[Anti-pattern]]
+* [[Argumentation theory]]
+* [[Argument map]]
 * [[Association fallacy]]
-* [[Cogency]]
 * [[Cognitive bias]]
 * [[Cognitive distortion]]
-* [[Demagogy]]
+* [[Critical thinking]]
+* [[Demagogue]]
 * [[Evidence]]
 * [[Fallacies of definition]]
 * [[False premise]]
 * [[False statement]]
-* [[Invalid proof]]
+* [[Illusion]]
+* [[Inference objection]]
+* [[Inquiry]]
+* [[Jumping to conclusions]]
+* [[Lemma (logic)|Lemma]]
 * [[Mathematical fallacy]]
-* [[Naturalistic fallacy]]
 * [[Paradox]]
-* [[Sophism]]
+* [[Prosecutor's fallacy]]
+* [[Sophist]]
 * [[Soundness]]
+* [[Lies, damned lies, and statistics]]
 * [[Truth]]
-* [[Validity]]
+* [[Validity (logic)|Validity]]
 * [[Victim blaming]]
-* [[Whig history]]
-'''Works'''
-* ''[[Attacking Faulty Reasoning]]''
-* ''[[Straight and Crooked Thinking]]''
 {{GFDL}}