Fallacies
Dr. Michael C. Labossiere, the author of a Macintosh tutorial named
Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0,
has kindly agreed to allow the text of his work to appear on the Nizkor
site, as a Nizkor Feature. It remains © Copyright 1995 Michael C.
Labossiere, with distribution restrictions -- please see our
copyright notice.
If you have questions or comments about this work, please direct them
both to the Nizkor webmasters
(webmaster@nizkor.org)
and to Dr. Labossiere
(ontologist@aol.com).
Other sites that list and explain fallacies include:
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an
argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises
and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either
true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which
is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or
false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A
deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or
appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive
argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to
provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the
conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of
support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good
deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all
its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the
argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known
as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises,
it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or
"cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises
are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs
from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be
more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the
premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of
support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it
is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false
conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive
fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be
inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for
the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the
conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Columbus is the capital of the United States.
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
[
Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Matteo Dell'Amico provides this feature in Italian
Index
Description of Fallacies
Examples of Fallacies
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).