Fallacies of Relevance 1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force). The arguer appeals to

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Fallacies of Relevance 1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to force). The arguer appeals to force or the threat of force to compel acceptance of the conclusion. 2. Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). "The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.'" The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons' argument. 3. Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial). In this case, one tries to convince the opponent to agree to the conclusion based on the opponents circumstances. For example (from Copi), a hunter may claim an anti-hunter must say hunting is acceptable since the anti-hunter is not a vegetarian. 4. Argumentum ad Ignoratiam (argument from ignorance). "The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by the argument that there must be ghosts because no one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any." 5. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (appeal to pity). The arguer appeals to pity where the conclusion is a matter of reason and not one of sentiment. 6. Argumentum ad Populam. "the attempt to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the emotions and enthusiasms of the multitude, rather than by appeal to the relevant facts." 7. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). This is especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that authority's expertise. In the field of the authority's expertise, "this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. ... Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it." 8. Accident. "The fallacy of accident consists in applying a general rule to a particular case whose 'accidental' circumstances render the rule inapplicable." 9. Converse Accident (hasty generalization). Making a general rule based on a few atypical cases. 10. False Cause. This is mistaking a event to be the cause of some other event. For example, the sun rises every day after my rooster crows; therefore, my rooster causes the sun to rise. 11. Petitio Principii (begging the question). The conclusion of an argument is contained in one of the premises assumed. 12. Complex Question. This is a question of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" variety. 13. Ignoratio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). An argument which supports one conclusion is made to prove a different conclusion. Copi's example is a legislator who, in discussing a housing bill, argues only that decent housing for all is desirable, rather than whether the bill in question would achieve that goal. Fallacies of Ambiguity. 1. Equivocation. Using the same word in two different senses. 2. Amphiboly. Arguing from premises which are ambiguous due to their grammatical construction. 3. Accent. Stressing a word in a sentence which thereby changes the meaning. 4. Composition. Attributing to the whole the properties of the parts. 5. Division. Attributing to the parts the properties of the whole.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank