The Meaning of
Fallacy:
Simply put, a fallacy can be described as ‘a
mistake in reasoning’. Fallacies appear
to have a logical argument, but on close examination,
we see that the argument does not hold up to logical
reasoning. Fallacies have found their place in
our society and culture through erroneous beliefs,
false and exaggerated advertising, and even social
acceptance.
Logical fallacies can broadly be classified into
two groups: fallacies of relevance and fallacies
of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance
occur because the premises on which they are based
are irrelevant to the conclusion. In contrast,
fallacies of insufficient evidence are not based
on faulty premises, but are fallacies because
they do not have sufficient evidence to support
the conclusion.
Taking the example of fallacies of relevance,
we cite three examples below:
Example 1: Fallacy of an Appeal to Pity
‘Bill Baxter deserves to be promoted to
Vice President. He has three small children, and
last week his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.’
This is an example of the fallacy of an appeal
to pity. The fallacy of an appeal to pity occurs
when the presenter of the argument attempts to
evoke feelings of pity or compassion, when such
feelings, however understandable, are not relevant
to the arguer’s conclusion. In the example
cited, the promotion of Bill Baxter to Vice President
should have nothing to do with his family situation-the
fact that he has three small children, and that
his wife has been diagnosed with breast cancer.
His promotion should only be considered based
upon his skills and ability on the job. Therefore
if he is promoted on the grounds of pity i.e.
his family situation, it would be a glaring error
of judgement.
Example from A Real Life Situation:
While this is an example of bad decision making,
in everyday life there are many such situations
we are faced with. For example, some interviewers
view married men to be more responsible than unmarried
men. This is because of the presumption (not necessarily
correct) that men become more stable and responsible
after marriage. The act of marriage imbues them
so to say, with a greater sense of responsibility.
Having to be the breadwinner for a wife and kids
presumes that he has become more stable, and will
take greater responsibility and work with greater
ardor. Thus some interviewers are inclined to
favor married men over unmarried, in positions
of responsibility. This argument may not hold
true however, because its premise is not necessarily
valid. The act of marriage does not always and
automatically make a man more responsible and
stable. In fact, there are many cases of unmarried
men rising to great heights in a profession, because
of the fact that they have not been bogged down
by the pressures of marriage. If anything, the
interviewer should not be biased on this account,
but should view the hiring decision based upon
the interviewee’s past performance and levels
of responsibility that he has assumed in past
jobs.
Example 2: Look Who’s Talking Fallacy:
‘My driving instructor, Mr. Peterson, told
me that it’s dangerous to drive without
a seatbelt. But why should I listen to him? Last
week, I saw him driving without a seatbelt.’
This is an example of the look who’s talking
fallacy. The fallacy of look who’s talking
is committed when the arguer rejects another person’s
argument or claim because that person fails to
practice what he or she preaches. Whilst the most
relevant examples that spring to mind relate to
the differences between what professionals advise
us compared to what they do themselves e.g the
driving instructor telling others to use a seatbelt,
when he himself does not (at least on the occasion
he was seen by his student), or a priest admonishing
us to live a virtuous life when he himself is
involved in a sex scandal. The look who’s
talking fallacy can relate to any situation in
which a leading or authority figure does not practice
what he/she preaches, therefore our respect and
acceptance of what he/she says becomes circumspect.
Example from A Real Life Situation:
A good example of this situation would be if Bill
Clinton were to lecture on the virtues of monogamous
marriage (because he himself was involved in an
extramarital affair). At most his audience would
view him with amusement, and notwithstanding the
virtues of monogamous marriage, would fail to
see him as a good spokesman on the issue.
Example 3: The Bandwagon Argument
Beef Industry Slogan: Beef: Real food for real
people.
This is an example of the bandwagon argument.
A bandwagon argument is an appeal to a person’s
desire to be popular, accepted or valued rather
than to logically relevant reasons or evidence.
This is a ploy most often used by the advertising
industry. Advertising often appeals to our desire
to be accepted or be ‘in line with’
society’s tastes. By stating that such and
such product is the choice of our class or the
higher classes of society, it imbues the product
with an appeal that makes us want to buy it. While
the purchase of the product may not in fact make
any difference to our status or social acceptability,
advertising would certainly want us to think so.
No wonder someone has condemned advertising with
the words: ‘Advertising forces us to buy
products we don’t really need.’
The above slogan advertises beef as real food,
for real people. It is a fallacious statement
in that it implies that food other than beef is
not real food, and that people who do not eat
beef are not real people. Anyone can see that
this slogan is not necessarily true. Vegetarians
are people too. And there are many other types
of food than beef. Hence the statement is exaggerated
and fallacious.
Example from A Real Life Situation:
Another example is that of the Pepsi slogan: Pepsi-the
Choice of the New Generation. In 1984, Pepsi promoted
this campaign, using two advertisements starring
Michael Jackson. It was followed up in 1985 with
advertisements starring Lionel Richie, Tina Turner
and Gloria Estefan. (Pepsi Timeline). While there
was no concrete evidence to back up this slogan,
that Pepsi really was the first choice among the
cola drinks of the younger population- teenagers-
the new generation, such advertising could have
contributed to making the younger crowd want to
drink Pepsi. However such advertising if backed
up by actual figures would have been less fallacious.
It is basically such exaggerated and fallacious
statements that have made nearly all of us take
advertising claims with a grain of salt.
Significance to Critical Thinking & Decision
Making:
The above three examples of fallacies are quite
common in everyday life. However they must be
seen for what they are, and judgement should be
made in the proper context. Taking into context
the appeal to pity, we cannot promote people on
the basis of their family situation (needing more
money to support the household etc.)While on the
other hand, the appeal to pity does have some
merit, for example, in asking for donations for
the aged and homeless. Taking into account the
look who’s talking fallacy, we could at
times choose to suspend judgement based upon the
personality making a speech or proving a point,
and instead concentrate on the points or issues
raised, and consider them on their own merit.
Even in advertising, there are instances of the
‘truth in advertising’ concept. For
example some years ago there was a product called
Death Cigarettes which gained notoriety because
it featured the skull and bones on its pack with
the words ‘Death Cigarettes’. The
message here was: Smoking Kills. While undoubtedly
true, people were impressed with its boldly advertising
the fact. For some time these packs were quite
a collector’s item and the talk of the advertising
world. (Jacob Sullum: Lying for a Living). However
the majority of advertising claims simply cannot
be taken at face value- we must judge the truth
for ourselves.
|