Errors in reasoning we commit.

1) argumentum ad populum- this fallacy is also known as appeal to popularity, we commit this fallacy when we believe something to be true in the absence of evidences, because it is widely held to be true by a majority of people Eg I believe barrack Obama is affiliated to the Illuminati because many people in Nigeria believe so.

2) argumentum ad mesericodiam- this fallacy is also known as appeal to pity, this fallacy is commited when we try to substitute facts for emotional or sentimental notions. Eg even though Kennedy commited murder, he shouldn't be sentenced to death because he is just a poor orphan... Remember in the play (bigger Thomas) Barr borix max attempted to save bigger Thomas by arguing fallaciously that Thomas was a product of a dysfunctional society which should be taken as the stimulus for his villainous act of murder.

3) argumentum ad vericondiam- this fallacy is also known as appeal to irrelevant authority, we commit this fallacy when we attempt to invoke an authority in a wrong or misplaced field. Eg I believe the theory of themodynamics is false because prof wole Soyinka said so. Note, while prof wole Soyinka is indeed a great intellectual of literary studies, any attempt to invoke him as an authority in physics, for or against a concept especially a critical and troublesome one like themodynamics, will amount to a fallacy.

4) argumentum ad ignorantiam - also known as appeal to ignorance, this fallacy is commited when one argues from ignorance, a person believes a concept to be true because there is no available evidence denying its validity. Vice versa Eg because there is no evidence showing this woman is innocent, therefore she must be guilty.

5) argumentum ad hominem (abusive precisely)- also known as " against the man" this fallacy is commited when reasonable arguments are substituted for claims against a person, here the core matter in an issue is neglected whilst the party to the issue is attacked. Eg I believe okonkwo stole this goats even if there are no evidences, because he is a bad man, he beats his wife, smokes all the time and is also an infamous gambler.

6) fallacy of composition- this fallacy is commited when we believe q trait or notion which applies to a specific thing or person must as well apply to other related things or persons. Eg I know Mr okafor, he is an ibo man and is very stingy, greedy and unhelpful, therefore all ibos must be like him.

7) if by whiskey fallacy- this fallacy is commited when we employ the use of words which appear equally appealing to two warring ideas or parties. Eg instead of going straight to the point to say Mr A was wrong and is to blame, people commit the if-by-whiskey fallacy by saying Mr A was wrong, but Mr B was somehow wrong too. Thereby creating an unnecessary balanced apportionment of blame.

begging the question- here the conclusion of an argument is presented in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you. Note even a suckling knows that whatever that is deadly can kill, so the asserter of this proposition made no proof at all of how cigarette can kill, he should have said something like it damages the liver, it destroys the lungs etc as a proof for it capability to kill.

9) fallacy of hasty generalisation- this fallacy is commited when we base a broad report on a little or insignificant investigation. Eg because I went to badagry and saw too many insane persons walking about, therefore Lagos must be filled with too many insane people who walks about.

10) appeal to poverty.. also known as (argumentum ad Lazarum) –this fallacy is committed when we support a conclusion because the arguer is poor eg in a land dispute between a rich man and a poor man, everybody not well trained in rational thinking like lawyers will likely believe all the poor man is saying is true and the land likely belongs to him, because is a common notion that rich men are always inclined to seize lands from the poor unjustly.

.
Bigger Thomas's life was actually very complex
Where he bleeped up was when he burnt Mary and klled Besssie
He was a product of the society
Same way thugs,miscreants,louts,hoodlums are products of the society

theFilmtricsay

Nice update!

interesting

Ignoratio elenchi

Secundum quid ed simplicita

Argumentum ad foolishness: Believing election was rigged without proof and heading to Supreme court. E.g Trump and his supporters

divinemichael:
Errors in reasoning we commit.

Thanks, I have been looking for this type of article for years!
People commit number six all the time on Nairaland

Good write-up, OP.

Lemme add one:
11. Fallacy of False Cause/False Casualty: Argument(s) that confuse chronology with causation. This happens when assuming that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it.

In simple terms, it is a cause & effect argument with a false cause.


E.g: Zimbabwean socialite, Ginimbi, bought a casket a week before his death, therefore he knew that death was coming because he did money ritual.

divinemichael:
Errors in reasoning we commit.



8 ) begging the question- here the conclusion of an argument is presented in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you. Note even a suckling knows that whatever that is deadly can kill, so the asserter of this proposition made no proof at all of how cigarette can kill, he should have said something like it damages the liver, it destroys the lungs etc as a proof for it capability to kill.

OP, please I need clarification at the bolded:
Saying a suckling knows. . .! Is that not a fallacy?
Suckling knows extremely little, e.g., if somebody drank a poison in the presence of a suckling and died and the same poison is given to the suckling to drink, the suckling will drink it because the suckling does not know the meaning of cause and effect and most likely suckling does not know that "a deadly thing can kill"!
I think the bolded should fall under the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

Philosophy students.
You need to understand fallacy to win or lose some arguments.

...

sinkhole:
OP, please I need clarification at the bolded:
Saying a suckling knows. . .! Is that not a fallacy?
Suckling knows extremely little, e.g., if somebody drank a poison in the presence of a suckling and died and the same poison is given to the suckling to drink, the suckling will drink it because the suckling does not know the meaning of cause and effect and most likely suckling does not know that "a deadly thing can kill"!
I think the bolded should fall under the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

Whether a suckling knows that whatever that is deadly can kill, must at best be construed or understood from a figurative point of view, to mean that the truth is glaring and speaks for it self, thus needs no defence. But in reality we need not construe the phrase literally, because an infant of 1 or 2 years knows nothing, aside the breast-milk he or she is consistently obsessed with.

divinemichael:


Whether a suckling knows that whatever that is deadly can kill, must at best be construed or understood from a figurative point of view, to mean that the truth is glaring and speaks for it self, thus needs no defence. But in reality we need not construe the phrase literally, because an infant of 1 or 2 years knows nothing, aside the breast-milk he or she is consistently obsessed with.

Yeah, I quite understand the figurative aspect of the illustration, but what of the logical weaklings who may simply opined that "suckling also knows that deadly can kill" because @divinemichael said so thereby commiting argumentum ad populum?
So, in order to avoid confusion and misinformation why can't we just use illustration that is devoid of ambiguity?

theFilmtric:
.
Bigger Thomas's life was actually very complex
Where he bleeped up was when he burnt Mary and klled Besssie
He was a product of the society
Same way thugs,miscteants,louts,hoodlums are product of the society

theFilmtricsay

This is the first reasonable thing I've ever seen you comment

.

Something learnt

If the absence of evidence is not the vindication of the accused, why then do we say 'innocent until proven guilty?' And is this appeal to ignorance?

Fallacy is an error in our thinking

Argumentun ad bacalium


But in all


Man knoweth thy self.

This thread is deserving of front page. A lot of Nairalanders beclouded by sentiments commit these fallacies numerous times in their postulations without even knowing, especially in an argument.

You'll find most of these folks in religion, politics and romance section.

When I engage someone in an argument and discover one fallacy, I bring it to notice immediately.

If he implores red-herring, or perhaps pose not to be aware of the fallacy committed, I give up the argument cause nothing good can come from it

If you always engage in arguments, these fallacies can be a formidable tool which you can use to whoop your opponent back to childhood.

I've beat self-acclaimed professors, lawyers and argumentators just by exploring loopholes in their argument.

It's fun!

Newman20:



Op as for number two


I believe Max's argument that bigger's actions were as a result of the society he grew up is not a fallacy. In fact it was proven true throughout the events of the novel. I think also while he deserves that death the book itself was not made to pardon him, but to show the effects of a racially dominated society.

your talk no follow at all..



Read this again this fallacy is also known as appeal to pity, this fallacy is commited when we try to substitute facts for emotional or sentimental notions

seanwilliam:
your talk no follow at all..



Read this again this fallacy is also known as appeal to pity, this fallacy is commited when we try to substitute facts for emotional or sentimental notions

Sorry. Thanks for the correction

Hmm Philosopher

divinemichael:
Errors in reasoning we commit.

1) argumentum ad populum- this fallacy is also known as appeal to popularity, we commit this fallacy when we believe something to be true in the absence of evidences, because it is widely held to be true by a majority of people Eg I believe barrack Obama is affiliated to the Illuminati because many people in Nigeria believe so.

2) argumentum ad mesericodiam- this fallacy is also known as appeal to pity, this fallacy is commited when we try to substitute facts for emotional or sentimental notions. Eg even though Kennedy commited murder, he shouldn't be sentenced to death because he is just a poor orphan... Remember in the play (bigger Thomas) Barr borix max attempted to save bigger Thomas by arguing fallaciously that Thomas was a product of a dysfunctional society which should be taken as the stimulus for his villainous act of murder.

3) argumentum ad vericondiam- this fallacy is also known as appeal to irrelevant authority, we commit this fallacy when we attempt to invoke an authority in a wrong or misplaced field. Eg I believe the theory of themodynamics is false because prof wole Soyinka said so. Note, while prof wole Soyinka is indeed a great intellectual of literary studies, any attempt to invoke him as an authority in physics, for or against a concept especially a critical and troublesome one like themodynamics, will amount to a fallacy.

4) argumentum ad ignorantiam - also known as appeal to ignorance, this fallacy is commited when one argues from ignorance, a person believes a concept to be true because there is no available evidence denying its validity. Vice versa Eg because there is no evidence showing this woman is innocent, therefore she must be guilty.

5) argumentum ad hominem (abusive precisely)- also known as " against the man" this fallacy is commited when reasonable arguments are substituted for claims against a person, here the core matter in an issue is neglected whilst the party to the issue is attacked. Eg I believe okonkwo stole this goats even if there are no evidences, because he is a bad man, he beats his wife, smokes all the time and is also an infamous gambler.

6) fallacy of composition- this fallacy is commited when we believe q trait or notion which applies to a specific thing or person must as well apply to other related things or persons. Eg I know Mr okafor, he is an ibo man and is very stingy, greedy and unhelpful, therefore all ibos must be like him.

7) if by whiskey fallacy- this fallacy is commited when we employ the use of words which appear equally appealing to two warring ideas or parties. Eg instead of going straight to the point to say Mr A was wrong and is to blame, people commit the if-by-whiskey fallacy by saying Mr A was wrong, but Mr B was somehow wrong too. Thereby creating an unnecessary balanced apportionment of blame.

begging the question- here the conclusion of an argument is presented in support of itself in a premise (e.g.: saying that smoking cigarettes is deadly because cigarettes can kill you. Note even a suckling knows that whatever that is deadly can kill, so the asserter of this proposition made no proof at all of how cigarette can kill, he should have said something like it damages the liver, it destroys the lungs etc as a proof for it capability to kill.

9) fallacy of hasty generalisation- this fallacy is commited when we base a broad report on a little or insignificant investigation. Eg because I went to badagry and saw too many insane persons walking about, therefore Lagos must be filled with too many insane people who walks about.

10) appeal to poverty.. also known as (argumentum ad Lazarum) –this fallacy is committed when we support a conclusion because the arguer is poor eg in a land dispute between a rich man and a poor man, everybody not well trained in rational thinking like lawyers will likely believe all the poor man is saying is true and the land likely belongs to him, because is a common notion that rich men are always inclined to seize lands from the poor unjustly.

Logic and philosophy GSP207

sinkhole:
OP, please I need clarification at the bolded:
Saying a suckling knows. . .! Is that not a fallacy?
Suckling knows extremely little, e.g., if somebody drank a poison in the presence of a suckling and died and the same poison is given to the suckling to drink, the suckling will drink it because the suckling does not know the meaning of cause and effect and most likely suckling does not know that "a deadly thing can kill"!
I think the bolded should fall under the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

beg to differ, the statement was clearly figurative speech.

femi4:
Argumentum ad foolishness: Believing election was rigged without proof and heading to Supreme court. E.g Trump and his supporters

..
U are mad.. .
They are coming for u like..

Truth table next.

Bigger Thomas - Native Son.

I read the book when I was 13. Always stuck in my head

Imagine say SARS hold you for road, your oversabi self kon go dey quote "argumentum ad mesericodiam fallacy" for them.

By the time dem use koboko reconfigure your ear, your brain go facilitate.