study 6: avoiding fallacy
Ad hominem must not be confused with the abusive kind. Ad hominem is a form of argument that assumes the propositions of another for the sake of deducing contradictions or conclusions unacceptable to the person holding the position.
Consider too that there are special circumstances where it is quite appropriate to direct a complex question to another. For example. "Where did you hide the body?" or "Do you know the penalty for perjury?" are questions that are not classified as instances of informal fallacy, once the groundwork has been set down for their use. Context is important in assessing the use of language.
What can one do to avoid informal fallacy? It should be evident that telling someone that he or she is engaging in ad hominem abusive reasoning may not have the desired effect of causing the person to pause and reflect on his or her thinking. The person may not know what you mean by ad hominem, or informal fallacy. What then? Nevertheless, identification of the counterfeit argument by appropriate label is an important first step. A second step requires clear definitions of ambiguous or vague terms. In a third step one may construct a counterexample, analogous in every respect with the informal fallacy in which the premises are obviously true and the conclusion obviously false.
For example, suppose someone argues:
"If President Kennedy was assassinated, then he is dead. Now, all acknowledge that he is indeed dead. Therefore, President Kennedy was assassinated."
This argument is formally fallacious, being guilty of the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. However, another way of demonstrating the fallacy, perhaps more effective than using formal methods, would be to offer a counterargument that is obviously fallacious.
Constructing a counterargument to make explicit fallacious reasoning requires that
A counter argument response could be worded in this way:
"You may just as well argue that if President Johnson was assassinated, then he is dead. President Johnson is dead. Therefore, President Johnson was assassinated."
Obviously, the conclusion of the counterargument does not follow from the true premises. Similarly, the conclusion of the previous argument is not necessitated by its premises.
Consider too that there are special circumstances where it is quite appropriate to direct a complex question to another. For example. "Where did you hide the body?" or "Do you know the penalty for perjury?" are questions that are not classified as instances of informal fallacy, once the groundwork has been set down for their use. Context is important in assessing the use of language.
What can one do to avoid informal fallacy? It should be evident that telling someone that he or she is engaging in ad hominem abusive reasoning may not have the desired effect of causing the person to pause and reflect on his or her thinking. The person may not know what you mean by ad hominem, or informal fallacy. What then? Nevertheless, identification of the counterfeit argument by appropriate label is an important first step. A second step requires clear definitions of ambiguous or vague terms. In a third step one may construct a counterexample, analogous in every respect with the informal fallacy in which the premises are obviously true and the conclusion obviously false.
For example, suppose someone argues:
"If President Kennedy was assassinated, then he is dead. Now, all acknowledge that he is indeed dead. Therefore, President Kennedy was assassinated."
This argument is formally fallacious, being guilty of the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. However, another way of demonstrating the fallacy, perhaps more effective than using formal methods, would be to offer a counterargument that is obviously fallacious.
Constructing a counterargument to make explicit fallacious reasoning requires that
- the propositions be of the same form as the original,
- the format be identical to the original, and
- the premises be true and conclusion be obviously false.
A counter argument response could be worded in this way:
"You may just as well argue that if President Johnson was assassinated, then he is dead. President Johnson is dead. Therefore, President Johnson was assassinated."
Obviously, the conclusion of the counterargument does not follow from the true premises. Similarly, the conclusion of the previous argument is not necessitated by its premises.
This site contains copyright materials. Permission is granted to print and distribute the Studies provided that each reprint bears the copyright notice, author's name, and source, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Studies may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, disk form, or microfiche. Copyright ©Elihu Carranza, 1999, Napa, CA