Why fallacy happen

As we saw above, a formal fallacy occurs when there is an issue with the logical structure of an argument, which renders the argument invalid. For example:. As we saw above, an informal fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the premises of an argument, which renders the argument unsound.

For example, the Gish gallop is a fallacious debate technique, which involves attempting to overwhelm your opponent by bringing up as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the relevance, validity, or accuracy of those arguments. However, because its overall argumentation pattern revolves around the intent to deceive, this technique is said to be fallacious.

In this regard, note that logical fallacies, in general, tend to include a form of reasoning that is not only logically invalid or unsound in some way, but that is also misleading.

However, there is some variability in terms of how you implement these steps when it comes to different fallacies and different circumstances, and an approach that will work well in one situation may fail in another. This is because, in practice, human interactions and debates are highly complex, and involve more than just exchanging logically sound arguments with one another. To identify cases where you are doing this, try to examine your reasoning, and see if you can identify any flaws, either in the way that your arguments are structured, or in the premises that you rely on in order to make those arguments.

Then, adjust your reasoning accordingly, in order to fix these flaws. Before you counter an argument that you think is fallacious, you should make sure that it is indeed fallacious, to the best of your ability.

There are various ways to do this, including slowing down your own reasoning process so you can properly think through the argument, or asking the person who proposed the argument to clarify their position.

In this post, we look at correlation and causation to help you understand — and hopefully avoid — the false cause fallacy in your academic writing.

A correlation is a mutual relationship between two or more things. Typically, this is a statistical relationship where two variables are interdependent:. Correlations like this can be useful because they can help us spot a connection between two things. For instance, few would deny that skipping meals can cause hunger, or that a faster vehicle can reduce journey time. But we must be careful when drawing this kind of conclusion. Correlation does not always imply causation.

And if we misinterpret a correlative relationship, we might fall into the false cause fallacy. For instance, if one thing happens after something else, we may assume that the first causes the second.

However, following from or coinciding with something is not the same as causing it. And if we are too quick to conclude a causal relationship, we might end up with a false cause.

When looking at a correlation, we may misunderstand the relationship between the variables. And this can lead to mixing up a cause and an effect. For instance, based on a correlation alone, it would be just as reasonable to believe that windmills cause wind as it would be to believe wind causes windmill blades to turn.

All we know is that the two things happen together, increasing and decreasing at the same rate. Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox. For anyone who knows anything about windmills, this is obviously a false cause: windmills catch wind to create rotational energy, not the other way around.

Thus, a correlation can only tell us about a cause if we know how the variables are related. And if we get this relationship wrong, we can end up with reverse causation. A similar error is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy i. Thus, the analogy is weak, and so is the argument based on it. Arguments by analogy are often used in discussing abortion—arguers frequently compare fetuses with adult human beings, and then argue that treatment that would violate the rights of an adult human being also violates the rights of fetuses.

Whether these arguments are good or not depends on the strength of the analogy: do adult humans and fetuses share the properties that give adult humans rights? Many respected people, such as actor Guy Handsome, have publicly stated their opposition to it. It also helps to choose authorities who are perceived as fairly neutral or reasonable, rather than people who will be perceived as biased. One of the most common versions is the bandwagon fallacy, in which the arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something because everyone else supposedly does.

The arguer is trying to get us to agree with the conclusion by appealing to our desire to fit in with other Americans. Keep in mind that the popular opinion is not always the right one.

But Dworkin is just ugly and bitter, so why should we listen to her? You did it, too! Definition: The appeal to pity takes place when an arguer tries to get people to accept a conclusion by making them feel sorry for someone.

Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist. Therefore, God exists. Tip: Look closely at arguments where you point out a lack of evidence and then draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence. Definition: One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. But such harsh measures are surely inappropriate, so the feminists are wrong: porn and its fans should be left in peace.

Tip: Be charitable to your opponents. State their arguments as strongly, accurately, and sympathetically as possible. Often, the arguer never returns to the original issue. After all, classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well.

Premise: Classes go more smoothly when the students and the professor are getting along well. But the audience may feel like the issue of teachers and students agreeing is important and be distracted from the fact that the arguer has not given any evidence as to why a curve would be fair.

Tip: Try laying your premises and conclusion out in an outline-like form. How many issues do you see being raised in your argument?

Can you explain how each premise supports the conclusion? Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place.

But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends. It is a decent, ethical thing to help another human being escape suffering through death.