Critical Thinking can be defined as an active and systematic attempt to understand and evaluate the argument. Critical Thinking skills ensure the ability to identify and isolate fallacious arguments in our everyday lives. A fallacy is an argument that is flawed.
Using appropriate examples identify and summarize the various types of fallacies of arguments that exist.
Introduction
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information gathered, experienced, observed, or communicated as a guide to belief and action.
Richard Paul (1995) described critical thinking as unique and purposeful thinking that is systematic and habitual.
Robert Ennis also agrees that critical thinking is reasonable and reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do (Ennis, 1985).
Critical thinking by definition can be explained as the determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim and the degree of confidence with which we should accept or reject it.
It helps us to formulate a judgment as to whether a position, theory, or idea is incomplete or unclear, insufficiently supported by the contentions made in its behalf, or whether the argument is unconvincing, or simply wrong.
Critical thinking involves;
- Analyzing what is said and assessing it carefully
- Seeking evidence
- Putting all information together in a coherent way and attempting to avoid mistakes in thinking.
- Questioning things that do not make sense
- Making decisions and plans in the light of the best available information.
Fallacy: The term fallacy originated from the Latin words fallax (“deceptive”) and fallare (“to deceive”) – (errors in reasoning).
A fallacy can be defined as a flaw or error in reasoning.
It is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.
In order to comprehend what a fallacy is, we must comprehend what a contention is. Very quickly a contention comprises at least one premise and one end (conclusion).
An argument is a set of statements related in such a way that some of them are presented as evidence for another. They can have a number of premises but they can have only one conclusion.
Premises are the sentences in an argument that purports to give evidence for the conclusion.
The conclusion is the sentence in an argument that is supposedly supported by the evidence.
Logic is the study devoted to analyzing and evaluating arguments and appraising their correctness or incorrectness. It tries to develop and state general principles by which to decide whether the alleged evidence is true and supports some assertion.
As described by Dowden (2010), fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. They may be created unintentionally or intentionally in order to deceive other people. To practice good critical thinking, one has to detect and get rid of these fallacies.
Types of Fallacies
There are a number of fallacies common to the endeavor of thinking and reasoning.
Formal fallacies are invalid arguments due to mistakes in the reasoning or logic that occur independently from the actual content of the arguments. They are simply invalid or unjustified deductions or conclusions. While, informal fallacies are invalid arguments due to mistakes in reasoning that are related to the content of the argument (Dowden, 2010).
The Appeal to Authority Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when someone accepts a truth on blind faith just because someone they admire said it. People offer weak claims and then try to hide behind their authority in an effort to avoid successful challenges to their position on an issue. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the 'authority” rather than the logic of the claim itself. For example, someone argues that drinking is morally wrong and they quote a pastor’s sermon in church.
The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy
It happens when the person making the claim asserts that a particular position must be true because no one has proven it to be false or is true because they say it is true or heard someone else say it was true, even though there is no foundation for the opinion. Having a little knowledge about the subject, as we know, can be dangerous, because it enables people to falsely assert that they must be right about an issue because of that limited knowledge, when in fact, they have overlooked the factors that need to be considered in order to represent a fully articulated argument.
It occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not because he or she does not know enough about the subject. For example, no one has proved that God actually does not exist, so He does exist.
Begging the Question Fallacy
Begging-the-Question is another form of fallacy that occurs when the person making the argument creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for their position. In this form of fallacy a statement that contains multiple points or variables is presented as a single sentence even though it contains the assertion of multiple factors that have not yet been proven.
This type occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself. For example, someone says fruits and vegetables are part of a healthy diet since a healthy eating plan includes fruits and vegetables.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
False Dilemma Fallacy
These occur when someone is only given two choices for possible alternatives when more than two exist. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist. For example, someone saying you are either with God or against Him.
The Appeal to Pity Fallacy
This fallacy occurs when someone seeks to gain acceptance by pointing out an unfortunate consequence that befalls them. It attempts to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity. You feel sorry for the person making the claim because of their appeal to sympathy, the situation or results, and if you choose not to accept their position or proposal something bad will happen to them. For example, when someone is looking for a job and they are diagnosed with cancer, they use that to get them a job because they need the money for their treatment or I deserve an A in Business Communication class because my mum was really sick and so I couldn’t concentrate.
Band Wagon Fallacy
Occurs when a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so. It argues that one must accept or reject an argument because of everyone else that accepts it or rejects it-similar to peer pressure. For example, university students who used not to go clubbing start clubbing because most students in university party and they say that’s the only way to have fun- they are influenced by their peers.
Fallacy of Generalizations
Generalizations are stereotypes.
These occur when a very broad application is applied to a single premise. “All people in similar situations react the same way”, or “Every time this situation occurs we find ourselves faced with a problem”.
Clearly, there must be exceptions because “every” situation is different and we need to be careful to qualify our commentary so that it is factual and not vulnerable to critique. Another example is, saying all women are mater
The Slippery-Slope fallacy
This happens when someone rejects every aspect of an argument or counterargument despite its merit as a legitimate approach because they feel that it will undermine their authority, or cause them to lose the argument outright, or change their position on an issue. We see evidence all around us relative to this form of fallacy where rather than treat issues on a case-by-case basis, government officials take a position that an exception will “open the floodgates” of change and evaporate their ability to hide behind a generalized policy that was created as a guideline for providing services and not as gospel for service to their constituents.
Ad Hominem Fallacy
Ad Hominem is a Latin phrase meaning “toward the man” or “against the man”.
This is the argument that attacks the defender of the claim rather than the claim in dispute.
It focuses criticism on the person making the argument rather than the logic of the argument itself. This form of fallacy brings into question the character of the person, their credentials, reputation, the office they occupy, or the position they hold. In this fallacy, the person is made to seem ridiculous in an effort to undermine the argument that is being presented and not the logic of their argument. It concludes that the statement is false and backs it up with claims to attack.
This occurs when an acceptance or rejection of a concept is rejected based on its source, not its merit. For example, someone who has not gone to the university is excluded in some conversations saying that they cannot know anything based on the topic and their level of education.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Fallacy (“after this, therefore because of this,”).
These are casual conclusions based on correlations. It infers that a particular event is caused by another event because both events happen one after another.
You must think very carefully before concluding that because event A precedes event B, A is the cause of B. These fallacies occur when it is assumed that, because one thing happened after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. For example, the rooster crows before dawn, so it is the rooster that causes sunrise.
Such thinking is unable to distinguish between a coincidence and a causal relationship.
In order to evade false causes one is required to identify or to avoid confusing necessary and sufficient causes or to distinguish relations from mere correlations.
Straw- Man Fallacy
These occur when someone appears to be refuting the original point made but is actually arguing a point that wasn't initially made.
It involves making the mistake of attributing a ridiculous position that the person making a claim does not hold and has never asserted or oversimplification to set the stage for an attack. For example, Teens should be taught about contraception methods so they can practice safe sex should they choose to have intercourse. Strawman proponents of sex education want to give kids a license to have sex with no consequences. It ignores the things that make the issue of sex education complicated, and it boils down the opposing position to a narrow, extreme view.
Red Herring Fallacy
Diverting attention from the question – the irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Sometimes the premises seem related to the conclusion, but they really aren’t: you are being led down the wrong path.
A red herring is a fallacy as it misses the point and is talking about a different issue. Sometimes, people intentionally use a red herring as a tactic of evasion (so it relates to dodging, weaving, and beating around the bush, though while these are all defensive tactics, the red herring is a bit more aggressive, in that it attempts to lead you astray) For example I can't believe you thought that latest Disney movie was ok for children to watch. Disney pays 12-year-old girls 31 cents an hour.
Conclusion
People use arguments to persuade other people and to win debate rather than to find the truth. As a critical thinker, the goal is to find the truth; always try to see through the fallacious tactics.
Arguments should specify the contentions and variables in our scientific equations and articulate the hypothesized relations that exist between the individual variables, as well as the eventual result. Argument decomposition is a standard approach used to “get to the truth” and is an effective mechanism in order to avoid falling victim to the fallacies that have been identified previously.
How to formulate a conclusion plays a crucial role in judging the legitimacy of an argument.
“Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water” Don’t dismiss the whole argument once they spot fallacious thinking.
“Once you have a Hammer, everything becomes a Nail” You can see many fallacies around you all the time once you recognize these patterns. Many critical thinkers now suddenly start to see fallacies where there aren’t any: it just looks like a fallacy! This is sometimes called the ‘Fallacy fallacy’.
References
- An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better: By Joe Y.F Lau (2011).
- Carter, K.C (2005). A First Course in Logic. US: Pearson Education Inc.
- Damer E.T (2001). Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical guide to fallacy- free arguments, US: Wadsworth.
- Dowden B. 2010 Fallacies- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Online), http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/, diakses 21 September 2014.
- Ennis R. (1995). A logical has is for measuring Critical Thinking Skills. Educational Leadership.
- URL: http://www.justiceacademy.org/iShare/Campbell/HostageArray.pdf.
- Walton, Douglas, 1998.Ad Hominem Arguments. The University of Alabama Pressing, 2001.
Stuck on your essay?
