Ch 6. Fallacies That Violate the Relevance Criterion

Fallacies of Irrelevance

Definition: These fallacies violate the relevance criterion of a good argument by using premises or appeals that are irrelevant to the truth or merit of the conclusion.

Categories of Irrelevant Reasoning

1. Fallacies of Irrelevant Premise

   • Also called non sequiturs (Latin: “it does not follow”)
   • The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
   • Sometimes referred to as argumentative leaps, meaning a huge logical gap exists between premises and conclusion.

2. Fallacies of Irrelevant Appeal

   • Attempt to support a conclusion by appealing to an irrelevant factor.
   • The appeal only appears to support the conclusion but has no actual bearing on its truth.

These fallacies create the illusion of a reasonable argument but fail to provide genuine evidence for the conclusion.

Fallacies of Irrelevant Premise

These fallacies involve premises that fail to support the conclusion.

1. Genetic Fallacy

Definition: Evaluating something based on its origin and ignoring changes that may have altered its character.

Examples:

• Rejecting a politician because they were immature in grade school.
• Declining to wear a wedding ring because of its alleged sexist origins.
• Distrusting a doctor due to their teenage interest in pornography.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask what is currently wrong with the thing being criticized.
• Use absurd counterexamples, e.g., “John was a messy child, so he must be a bad chef.”

2. Rationalization

Definition: Using plausible but false reasons to justify a belief or action held for other reasons.

Examples:

• A student blaming test anxiety instead of lack of preparation for a bad LSAT score.
• A person saying they were “going to break up anyway” after being dumped.
• Justifying skipping a wedding with irrelevant excuses instead of admitting they just didn’t want to go.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask if they would still hold their belief if their stated reasons were false.
• Point out that their reasons do not support their conclusion.
• Focus on identifying the real reasons rather than exposing dishonesty.

3. Drawing the Wrong Conclusion

Definition: Missing the point by drawing a conclusion not actually supported by the evidence.

Examples:

• George W. Bush’s argument:
  • Premise: Marriage is sacred.
  • Conclusion: Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
  • Flaw: No connection is established between sacredness and gender requirements.
• Proposing limited teaching contracts based on an argument that teacher evaluations are inadequate.
• Arguing that reporters are important → Therefore, reporters should never be jailed for withholding sources.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Show the actual conclusion that the evidence supports.
• Suggest that a different argument is needed to support the original claim.
• Use absurd counterexamples, e.g., “We like the same things → We should get married.”

4. Using the Wrong Reasons

Definition: Providing irrelevant or inappropriate reasons for supporting a conclusion.

Examples:

• Opposing gun control because it won’t stop criminals (when the goal is reducing accidental deaths).
• Criticizing philosophy for not solving problems (when its purpose is to explore fundamental issues, not necessarily solve them).
• Arguing against tobacco ads using reasons why smoking is bad (instead of reasons why advertising should be restricted).

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Point out that the conclusion is unrelated to the given reasons.
• Suggest more appropriate evidence to support or oppose the claim.
• If necessary, clarify the actual goals of a policy to prevent misrepresentation.

Fallacies of Irrelevant Appeal

These fallacies rely on irrelevant factors such as authority, popularity, emotions, or threats rather than valid reasoning.

1. Appeal to Irrelevant Authority

Definition: Supporting a claim by appealing to an authority who is unqualified, unidentified, or biased.

Examples:

• Citing an unnamed source for a major claim about government pollution.
• Defending a college curriculum change because the governing board approved it, even though curriculum decisions belong to the faculty.
• Suggesting that FBI leadership should testify about their own misconduct as if they were impartial authorities.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for the authority’s identity if one is not provided.
• Question their expertise in the relevant field.
• Point out potential biases without accusing dishonesty.
• Use absurd counterexamples, e.g., “Would you trust Michael Jordan as an expert on underwear just because he advertises Hanes?”

2. Appeal to Common Opinion (Bandwagon Fallacy)

Definition: Arguing that a claim is true or an action is justified because many people believe or do it.

Examples:

• Arguing that tanning beds and sunbathing must be safe because millions of people do it.
• Claiming that marijuana is harmless because 60% of Americans approve of it.
• Assuming a CD is good just because it tops the charts.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Remind the arguer that popularity doesn’t equal truth.
• Give examples of widely held false beliefs (e.g., people once thought the Earth was flat).
• Show how public opinion shifts (e.g., compare poll results from different years).
• Use an absurd counterexample, e.g., “Lots of people believe in astrology. Does that make it scientifically valid?”

3. Appeal to Force or Threat (Authoritarianism)

Definition: Using threats, intimidation, or force to persuade instead of evidence or reasoning.

Examples:

• A graduate advisor implying that a student must comply sexually to stay in a Ph.D. program.
• A professor requiring attendance at a lecture but providing no justification beyond authority.
• A businesswoman trying to suppress a news article about her DUI arrest by threatening to pull advertising.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Expose the threat by asking, “Are there any good reasons for me to accept this demand?”
• Challenge authoritarianism by asking for justification, e.g., “Why is this lecture required?”
• Point out that a bad argument can still produce results, but that doesn’t make it logical.

4. Appeal to Tradition

Definition: Defending a practice solely because it is traditional, even when better alternatives exist.

Examples:

• Insisting on circumcision because “it’s tradition.”
• Pressuring a daughter to remain Southern Baptist because her family always has.
• Opposing women at VMI because the school had been all-male since Stonewall Jackson’s time.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Acknowledge that traditions can be good, but not always justified.
• Ask if there are better alternatives that serve the same purpose.
• Highlight harmful traditions that have been abandoned (e.g., segregation).

5. Appeal to Self-Interest

Definition: Encouraging someone to support a position based solely on their personal benefit, ignoring broader issues.

Examples:

• Persuading someone to support tax cuts just because they personally benefit.
• Telling a female professor she should support affirmative action simply because she’s a woman.
• Convincing a foreign language professor to oppose dropping a language requirement to protect their own job.

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Ask for reasons that apply to everyone, not just personal benefits.
• Point out broader consequences of the decision.
• Accept the argument only if it is also backed by objective reasoning.

6. Manipulation of Emotions

Definition: Persuading people by exploiting their emotions instead of presenting valid reasoning.

Common Forms:

1. Appeal to Pity – Using sympathy to justify a decision.
2. Flattery – Using excessive praise to influence someone.
3. Guilt by Association – Linking an opponent to unpopular people to discredit them.
4. Group Loyalty – Pressuring someone to conform to group expectations over logical reasoning.
5. Appeal to Shame – Making someone feel bad for not accepting a claim, even when there’s no wrongdoing.

Examples:

• Flattery: A stockbroker saying, “You’re obviously an intelligent investor, so I won’t waste time explaining our services.”
• Appeal to Pity: Urging Brad to take Nicole to the dance because she’s lonely, rather than because he actually wants to.
• Group Loyalty: Pressuring a woman not to testify in a rape case because the accused is her brother-in-law.
• Appeal to Shame: A woman saying, “Any decent man would open the door for a lady.”
• Guilt by Association: “How can you vote for Senator Hamilton? LGBT groups support him.”

Attacking the Fallacy:

• Acknowledge emotions but insist on rational evaluation.
• Ask for actual evidence supporting the claim.
• Show how manipulative tactics often lead to bad decisions.
• Use absurd counterexamples, e.g., “Would you make major life decisions based on flattery?”

Key Takeaways:

• Fallacies of irrelevant appeal distract from reasoning by using authority, popularity, tradition, threats, or emotions.
• Relevance is key—arguments should be judged on their logical merit, not irrelevant factors.
• Attack the fallacy by demanding real evidence, exposing manipulation, and using counterexamples.