Phil 203 - Logic

Handout #5

Dr. Wilson

Important fallacies not covered by our text:

1. Pseudorefutation - This is a type of ad hominem that is based on the claims of inconsistency. We are quilty of this fallacy when we say that a person’s claim is false because it is inconsistent with something else the person has said or done. The problem is that people deserve the opportunity to change their minds, and also find some way to reconcile seemingly conflicting claims. Hypocrisy - sometimes people recommend courses of action as true while not being able to follow the course of action. Someone who smokes saying that smoking is wrong. Smoking is right or wrong independent of the fact that that person smokes or not. So the claim needs to be taken seriously and assessed on the merits of the case independent of whether someone is able to quit smoking or not. Likewise with belief in God or religion. Just because a believer is not perfect does not mean that his or her beliefs are false.

2. Burden of proof fallacy - this occurs when the burden of proof is put on the wrong side of an issue or is placed too heavily on one side compared with the other. “Oh, yeah! Then prove it!” Burden of proof usually is put on a claim that is initially implausable, but people sometimes want to shift the burden of proof in order to evade their own burden of proof.

Speaker #1 -“I think we should invest more money in expanding the interstate highway system” (Burden of proof lies here)

speaker #2 - “I think that would be a big mistake”

speaker #1 -“How could anybody object to more highways?” (speaker tries to shift the burden of proof to speaker #2).

Much of the subtlty of burden of proof hangs on who initiates a claim. People shift that burden in order to evade proof for their claims.

4. A sub type of burden of proof is the appeal to ignorance. “A good God exists because no one has been able to prove that he doesn’t exist.”

5. False cause fallacy (also called post hoc ergo propter hoc) - this occurs when someone claims that an event was caused by another event simply because the first event preceded the second event. No attempt is made to link the events causally with reference to studies that have proven the link. For instance, if someone eats a candy bar and then goes out and kills someone, that might be taken as the cause of the killing. Yet, evidence shows that people eat candy bars everyday and they do not go out and kill other people. So this is false cause.