3.2 Fallacies of Relevance Part 1

Summary

In this video, the speaker explores fallacies of relevance, where premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Key fallacies covered include Appeal to Force (using threats to manipulate belief), Appeal to Pity (evoking sympathy to avoid accountability), Appeal to Popularity (bandwagon argument based on popularity), and Ad Hominem Abusive (attacking the person instead of addressing the argument). These fallacies exploit psychological manipulation rather than logical reasoning. The video aims to help viewers recognize these mistakes in reasoning, preparing them for practical application and tests on identifying such fallacies.

Takeaways

• 😀 Fallacies of relevance occur when the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
• 😀 The Fallacies of Relevance involve psychological manipulation or misuse of language to influence conclusions.
• 😀 Fallacies are errors in reasoning, and informal fallacies require careful attention to the content and language used.
• 😀 Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad Baculum) involves using threats (physical or psychological) to make someone believe a conclusion.
• 😀 Example of Appeal to Force: A boss threatens to withhold a bonus to make an employee support a policy.
• 😀 Appeal to Pity involves evoking pity or sympathy to influence someone's acceptance of a conclusion, which is logically irrelevant.
• 😀 Example of Appeal to Pity: A driver explains personal misfortunes to avoid receiving a speeding ticket.
• 😀 Appeal to the People (Bandwagon Fallacy) is an argument based on popularity, where something is assumed true or good because it's popular.
• 😀 Example of Appeal to the People: A person suggests buying a Toshiba laptop simply because it's popular.
• 😀 Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem Abusive) is a fallacy where the character of the person is attacked rather than addressing their argument.
• 😀 Example of Ad Hominem: A person dismisses Tom’s argument on stem cell research by attacking his character instead of engaging with his points.

Q & A

What is a Fallacy of Relevance?

A Fallacy of Relevance occurs when the premises of an argument are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. These fallacies distract from logical reasoning by introducing emotional or psychological manipulations instead of valid reasoning.

What distinguishes Fallacies of Relevance from other types of fallacies?

Unlike formal fallacies, which involve errors in logical structure, Fallacies of Relevance involve irrelevant premises that do not logically support the conclusion. These fallacies often manipulate emotions or social pressures.

What is the fallacy of Appeal to Force?

The Appeal to Force fallacy occurs when someone uses a threat (physical or psychological harm) to make others accept a conclusion. It relies on intimidation rather than valid reasoning.

Can you give an example of Appeal to Force?

An example would be: 'Mary, I know you won't support the new sexual harassment policy, but I can decrease or withhold your bonus.' This uses a threat to influence Mary's decision, rather than presenting logical reasons to support the policy.

What is the Latin term for Appeal to Force, and what does it mean?

The Latin term for Appeal to Force is 'Argumentum ad Baculum,' which translates to 'argument based on the stick,' referring to the threat of physical harm (the 'stick') to convince someone.

What is the Appeal to Pity fallacy?

The Appeal to Pity fallacy occurs when someone tries to evoke pity from others to make them accept a conclusion. Emotional appeals, such as making others feel sorry for you, are logically irrelevant to the argument.

Provide an example of the Appeal to Pity fallacy.

An example would be: 'Officer, I know I was speeding, but I had a bad day, my pet goldfish died, and I was laid off. Please don't give me a ticket.' The reasons given are irrelevant to the speeding violation.

What is the Bandwagon Approach in the Appeal to the People fallacy?

The Bandwagon Approach is a type of Appeal to the People fallacy where someone argues that a conclusion is true or good simply because many people believe or follow it. Popularity is used as evidence, which is irrelevant to the quality of the argument.

Can you explain an example of the Bandwagon Approach?

An example would be: 'You should buy the latest Toshiba laptop. Everyone is buying it!' The popularity of the laptop does not guarantee that it is a good product, and popularity is irrelevant to the decision-making process.

What is an Argument Against the Person (Ad Hominem Abusive) fallacy?

The Argument Against the Person, or Ad Hominem Abusive, occurs when someone attacks a person’s character instead of addressing their argument. This fallacy seeks to discredit the individual rather than engaging with their reasoning.

Can you give an example of an Ad Hominem Abusive fallacy?

An example would be: 'Tom argues for stem cell research, but did you know he’s a heavy drinker and barely graduated from high school? Why should we listen to him?' This attacks Tom’s character instead of addressing the actual argument about stem cell research.

Why is the personal attack in an Ad Hominem Abusive fallacy irrelevant?

The personal attack is irrelevant because Tom’s personal characteristics, such as his drinking habits or educational background, do not impact the validity of his argument for stem cell research. The focus should be on the argument itself, not the individual making it.

How can you avoid committing a Fallacy of Relevance?

To avoid committing a Fallacy of Relevance, focus on providing logical, relevant evidence that directly supports your conclusion. Avoid using emotional appeals, threats, or attacking the character of others instead of addressing their arguments.

Why is it important to recognize Fallacies of Relevance in critical thinking?

Recognizing Fallacies of Relevance is essential in critical thinking because they distract from logical reasoning. By identifying these fallacies, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate arguments based on their actual merits, rather than emotional or irrelevant appeals.