Bentham aimed to show up the ways made use of by political reactionaries when they lack reasonable or valid arguments to present against a measure they did not agree with. The forms of argument used to, knowingly or unknowingly, justify an erroneous position are called fallacies, hence, the terminology in use “fallacies of argument”. I distinctly remember thinking at the time I heard the lecturer’s introduction, “I’m sure that the ways of arguing described will be evident as being put to use in much wider circles than political reactionaries!”
Earlier this year I was engaged to research, develop and write a number of subjects for a proposed Bachelor degree course for vocational teachers. One of the subjects concerned values and ethics as it would apply to the teachers concerned. I must admit, I smiled quietly (undetected) at the initial meeting where the guidance given was one broad sentence and no recommended reference material. Now, I thought, here is a challenge. However, my mind wandered back to a subject I had studied at university some twenty years ago, “Ethics and Educational Administrators”, one of the first of such subjects to be offered in Australia at the time. I’m pleased to say that a good draft subject and assessment outline eventuated for the project I had been engaged for. (However, I withdrew from the project part way through due to the attempted imposition of unethical contractual changes. This was an ironic situation given the subject matter I was writing on. That is another story.)
“The Newton of Legislation”
In researching and developing suitable subject content, I remembered the lecturers had introduced the subject by considering the work of Jeremy Benthem, 1748-1832, who once described his aim as wanting to become the “Newton of Legislation”. He published some 10 million words and produced the same amount in unpublished words. Through the convenience of the Web, I tracked down a biography of Benthem which included selections from his writings for use in part of the subject content that I was to write. “The Book of Fallacies” was the work that had particularly remained filed away in my brain. The two lecturers must have done a good job, I thought.
Bentham aimed to show up the ways made use of by political reactionaries when they lack reasonable or valid arguments to present against a measure they did not agree with. The forms of argument used to, knowingly or unknowingly, justify an erroneous position are called fallacies, hence, the terminology in use “fallacies of argument”. I distinctly remember thinking at the time I heard the lecturer’s introduction, “I’m sure that the ways of arguing described will be evident as being put to use in much wider circles than political reactionaries!”
Fallacies of Argument
What follows is not a complete description or analysis of fallacies of argument, but I suspect that you will read and listen more closely to persuasive arguments put to you in the workplace and elsewhere after reading them. Keep in mind though, that persuasive devices are a useful supplement in a number of circumstances. The main problem is when they are are used in isolation of more in-depth reasoning.
| Fallacy | Definition |
| Fallacies of Authority | False experts who do not/can not know |
| Fallacies of Force | Others in power agree, it must be right |
| Fallacies of Ignorance | No evidence it’s false, so must be true |
| Fallacies of Pity | Judgement based solely on emotions |
| Fallacies of Tradition | We’ve always done it this way |
| Fallacies of Extremes | ‘black and white’ choice only |
| Fallacies of False Cause | Weak assumptions linked to cause & effect |
| Fallacies of Faulty Analogy | False similarities lead to misinformation |
| Fallacies of Faulty Generalisation | Based on insufficient information |
| Fallacies of Hasty Generalisation | Broad conclusion from a one case |
| Fallacies of Personal Attack | Derision of the person not the message |
| Fallacies of Another Wrong | Avoids the point, highlights misdeed |
| Fallacies of Prejudging | Emotional, prejudicial language |
| Fallacies of Danger | Fear and alarm suppresses open discussion |
| Fallacies of Delay | Artful diversion and procrastination |
| Fallacies of Confusion | Ague generalities, sham distinctions |
Particularly Insidious Fallacies
All fallacies can be insidious, however, some are particularly damaging and the speaker or writer rarely makes them unknowingly. Commonly found in political arguments, these insidious fallacies also find their way quite easily into management and organisational speeches and documents.
Barrage of Objections – burying the issue with irrelevant considerations
Card Stacking – omitting part or all of the evidence
Engineered Suspicions – creating suspicions that don’t relate to the issue
Inappropriate Humour – laughing at a serious issue
‘Red Herring’ – irrelevant information redirects the true agenda
Where to from here?
Next time you are to provide an argument or are in the midst of one, consider the following:
o Is your main argument clear and with direction?
o Have you given the opposing view and raised relevant questions?
o Do you have convincing reasons and main points?
o Have you provided evidence?
o Have you made realistic assumptions?
These questions will help locate the strengths of your argument and where it needs more work thereby avoiding alienating yourself through "flights of fallacy".
