8/13/2019 Sofisme2

1/7

Sofisme

ARGUMENTUM AD LOGICAM (argument to logic) . This is thefallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof orargument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning isfallacious because there may be another proof or argument thatsuccessfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears inthe context of a straw man argument.

This is another case in which the burden of proof determines whetherit is actually a fallacy or not. If a proposing team fails to providesufficient support for its case, the burden of proof dictates they should

lose the debate, even if there exist other arguments (not presented bythe proposing team) that could have supported the case successfully.Moreover, it is common practice in debate for judges to give noweight to a point supported by an argument that has been proveninvalid by the other team, even if there might be a valid argument theteam failed to make that would have supported the same point; this isbecause the implicit burden of proof rests with the team that broughtup the argument. For further commentary on burdens of proof, seeargumentum ad ignorantiam, above.

ARGUMENT AD NAUSEAM (argument to the point of disgust;i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something bysaying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeatsomething, it will not become any more or less true than it was in thefirst place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again andagain; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitutefor real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with goodreason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is thatthe judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in anypublic speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonnatell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em."Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

2/7

substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mentionargumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other teamhas made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it againand again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it isevocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do:retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong,drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum adnauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they'vegiven us no justification for their bald assertions!"

ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM (argument or appeal to numbers) .This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how manypeople think that it's true. But no matter how many people believesomething, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "Atleast 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access toabortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

This fallacy is very similar to argumentum ad populum, the appeal tothe people or to popularity. When a distinction is made between thetwo, ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to theopinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope ofgetting others (such as judges) to jump on the bandwagon, whereasad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on thenumber of people who hold a particular belief. The distinction is a fineone, and in general the terms can be used interchangeably in debaterounds. (I've found that ad populum has better rhetorical effect.)

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM (argument or appeal to thepublic) . This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by showing

that the public agrees with you. For an example, see above. Thisfallacy is nearly identical to argumentum ad numerum, which youshould see for more details.

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

3/7

DCTO SIMPLICITER (spoken simply, i.e., sweepinggeneralization) . This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statementand expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words,stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong asmen and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull theirweight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statementmay be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but itis not necessarily true for every member of the group in question(there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

As the example indicates, dicto simpliciter is fairly common in debaterounds. Most of the time, it is not necessary to call an opposingdebater down for making this fallacy -- it is enough to point out whythe sweeping generalization they have made fails to prove their point.

Since everybody knows what a sweeping generalization is, using theLatin in this case will usually sound condescending. It is alsoimportant to note that some generalizations are perfectly valid andapply directly to all individual cases, and therefore do not commit thefallacy of dicto simpliciter (for example, "All human males have a Ychromosome" is, to my knowledge, absolutely correct).

POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC (after this, therefore becauseof this) . This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simplybecause A happened prior to B. A favorite example: "Most rapistsread pornography when they were teenagers; obviously, pornographycauses violence toward women." The conclusion is invalid, becausethere can be a correlation between two phenomena without onecausing the other. Often, this is because both phenomena may belinked to the same cause. In the example given, it is possible thatsome psychological factor -- say, a frustrated sex drive -- might causeboth a tendency toward sexual violence and a desire for pornographic

material, in which case the pornography would not be the true causeof the violence.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is nearly identical to cum hoc ergo propterhoc, which you should see for further details.

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

4/7

RED HERRING . This means exactly what you think it means:introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the questionat hand. For example, "The opposition claims that welfaredependency leads to higher crime rates -- but how are poor peoplesupposed to keep a roof over their heads without our help?" It isperfectly valid to ask this question as part of the broader debate, butto pose it as a response to the argument about welfare leading tocrime is fallacious. (There is also an element of ad misericordiam inthis example.)

It is not fallacious, however, to argue that benefits of one kind may justify incurring costs of another kind. In the example given, concernabout providing shelter for the poor would not refute concerns aboutcrime, but one could plausibly argue that a somewhat higher level of

crime is a justifiable price given the need to alleviate poverty. This isa debatable point of view, but it is no longer a fallacious one.

The term red herring is sometimes used loosely to refer to any kind ofdiversionary tactic, such as presenting relatively unimportantarguments that will use up the other debaters' speaking time anddistract them from more important issues. This kind of a red herring isa wonderful strategic maneuver with which every debater should befamiliar.

SLIPPERY SLOPE. A slippery slope argument is not always afallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adoptingone policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies oractions also being taken, without showing a causal connectionbetween the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popularexample of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, thenext thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine."This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason hasbeen provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization ofanother. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugshave somehow remained illegal.

There are a variety of ways to turn a slippery slope fallacy into a valid(or at least plausible) argument. All you need to do is provide somereason why the adoption of one policy will lead to the adoption ofanother. For example, you could argue that legalizing marijuanawould cause more people to consider the use of mind-altering drugs

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

5/7

acceptable, and those people will support more permissive drugpolicies across the board. An alternative to the slippery slopeargument is simply to point out that the principles espoused by youropposition imply the acceptability of certain other policies, so if wedon't like those other policies, we should question whether we reallybuy those principles. For instance, if the proposing team argued forlegalizing marijuana by saying, "individuals should be able to dowhatever they want with their own bodies," the opposition could pointout that that principle would also justify legalizing a variety of otherdrugs -- so if we don't support legalizing other drugs, then maybe wedon't really believe in that principle.

STRAW MAN. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extremeversion of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument

they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words intosomebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven'tactually made, in which case the straw man argument is a veiledversion of argumentum ad logicam. One example of a straw manargument would be to say, "Mr. Jones thinks that capitalism is goodbecause everybody earns whatever wealth they have, but this isclearly false because many people just inherit their fortunes," when infact Mr. Jones had not made the "earnings" argument and hadinstead argued, say, that capitalism gives most people an incentive towork and save. The fact that some arguments made for a policy arewrong does not imply that the policy itself is wrong.

In debate, strategic use of a straw man can be very effective. Acarefully constructed straw man can sometimes entice anunsuspecting opponent into defending a silly argument that he wouldnot have tried to defend otherwise. But this strategy only works if thestraw man is not too different from the arguments your opponent hasactually made, because a really outrageous straw man will berecognized as just that. The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at

all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument youropponent has made.

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

6/7

PETITIO PRINCIPII (begging the question) . This is the fallacy ofassuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you aretrying prove. For all practical purposes, this fallacy is indistinguishablefrom circular argumentation.

The main thing to remember about this fallacy is that the term"begging the question" has a very specific meaning. It is common tohear debaters saying things like, "They say pornography should belegal because it is a form of free expression. But this begs thequestion of what free expression means." This is a misuse ofterminology. Something may inspire or motivate us to ask a particularquestion without begging the question. A question has been beggedonly if the question has been asked before in the same discussion,and then a conclusion is reached on a related matter without the

question having been answered. If somebody said, "The fact that webelieve pornography should be legal means that it is a valid form offree expression. And since it's free expression, it shouldn't bebanned," that would be begging the question.

http://referat-referate.blogspot.ro/2013/02/erori-tipice-in-demonstratie-si.html?m=1

6. argumentum ad consecquentiam (argument relativ la consecin e)const n a invoca consecin ele aplic rii tezei pentru a o justificaadev rul sau falsitatea ei. 7. argumentum ad baculum ( argumentul bastonului) const ninvocarea for ei (amenin rii) pentru a ob ine adeziunea la o tez .

Aceast procedur este foarte frecvent n argument rile din politicainterna ional . 8. argumentum ex silentio (argumentul prin trecere sub t cere):absen a obiec iilor la o tez este luat drept argument pentru adev rul

ei. 9. eroarea obiec iunilor se produce c nd din existen a obiec iilor sededuce falsitatea tezei

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20nauseam

8/13/2019 Sofisme2

7/7

http://neortodox.blogspot.ro/2011/10/greseli-de-logica-si-argumentare-care.html?m=1