CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Formal and Informal Fallacies

hello I'm Paul honey and I'm a philosophy graduate student at Duke University and in this video I'm going to introduce you to formal and informal fallacies first consider the following arguments premise 1 if someone is allergic to peanuts then she doesn't eat peanut butter premise 2 Jane doesn't eat peanut butter conclusion therefore Jane is allergic to peanuts consider this other argument premise 1 a feather is light premise 2 what's light cannot be dark conclusion therefore a feather cannot be dark these arguments probably seemed a bit off to you and you're right each argument contains a fallacy though each has different kind a fallacy as we've seen in other wireless philosophy videos is a defect in reasoning this defect can be unintentional or intentional that is I could simply make a mistake in my reasoning or I could want to trick you into believing something by using deceptive reasoning either way it's probably a good idea that we were able to understand and identify distinct fallacy types so that we can adequately correct any defects in our reasoning but before we talk about fallacy types let's recall what a valid argument is consider this argument premise 1 if someone is a philosopher and she publishes articles in philosophy Tamar Gendler is a philosopher therefore Tamar Gendler publishes articles in velocity this is a valid argument actually although it has no bearing on this arguments validity Jen lawyers published over 20 articles among her other works this form of argument is called modus ponens and it can be represented as the following premise 1 if X then Y premise 2 X inclusion therefore Y and this is a valid argument form the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises remember though this valid form does not mean that the premises are true it would still be a valid argument if Tamar Gendler had decided to become a train conductor for instance instead of a philosopher see the videos on soundness and validity if you have questions about this we can also have an invalid argument form let's return to our first argument this argument as you might have suspected contains a fallacy a formal fallacy and a formal fallacy is exactly what it sounds like a defect in the form of the argument in other words there are certain forms of arguments that are invalid this invalid argument form is a formal fallacy called affirming the consequent this fallacy is apparent if you consider that Jane just might not like peanut butter so simply because Jane isn't like peanut butter she doesn't eat it given just the fact that she doesn't eat it and the conditional on premise 1 we cannot conclude that Jane is allergic to peanut butter this form the fallacy can be represented it in the following way if X then Y Y therefore X and this form a fallacy is one that you don't want to use this is actually one of the fallacies frequently tested on the LSAT so if you are interested in one more practice in identifying this fallacy check out the video on affirming the consequent we will talk more about this and other formal fallacies and upcoming videos but for now we need to see that formal fallacies are fallacies because of the poor form of the argument any argument of these forms will be invalid so anything can be plugged into these bad argument forms and the argument would be about for instance if meow then Splatt Splatt therefore me out is invalid so now that we have a general understanding of formal fallacies what about informal ones let's look at our other example from the beginning of this video notice this fallacy arises out of the content of the argument not out of the form the form may at first glance seem valid that is if we ignored the meaning of the content consider that we can use a seemingly similar argument form to make a valid argument for instance premise 1 rain is wet premise 2 what sweat cannot be dry conclusion therefore rain cannot be dry and here we have a valid argument that seems to have a similar form as a fallacious one and one that lacks defects in its content but the content of our fallacious argument given the two meanings of light light weight and light color yields some problems that is if we understand the meaning of the terms the two meanings like for instance we realize that the argument actually has an invalid argument form initially without considering the meaning of the content it looks like the form of the argument is something like all x ry what is y cannot be z therefore no x RZ but actually given the shifting meaning of light the form is more like all X or Y what is W cannot be Z therefore no x RZ this fallacy is called Co dication and see the video on this if you'd like to know more about it the only way we can understand this defect is by examining the content of the argument if we just looked at the form without understanding the content then we could not detect this fallacy so as we now know informal fallacies occur because of problems with the content of the arguments so an argument might have a seemingly valid form but committin informal fallacy because of a defect in its content hence an argument might have true premises in a seemingly valid form yet also commit a fallacy to reiterate a formal fallacy means that the argument has a defect in its form while an informal fallacy has a defect in the arguments content which might also yield a defect in its form so now that's the difference between formal and informal fallacies you

Channel: Wireless Philosophy

Views: 253,685

Rating: 4.8747501 out of 5

Keywords: Khan Academy, Philosophy, Wireless Philosophy, Wiphi, video, lecture, course, Critical Thinking, Formal Fallacy, Informal Fallacy, Logic, Paul Henne, Duke University, Argumentation Theory, equivocation, affirming the consequent, valid, sound

Id: VDGp04CfM4M

Length: 7min 5sec (425 seconds)

Published: Sun Jul 03 2016

Reddit Comments

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of our first commenting rule:

Read the post before you reply.

Read the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This sub is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed.

---

I am a bot. Please do not reply to this message, as it will go unread. Instead, contact the moderators with questions or comments.

[u/FelineNursery]

The reply by /u/smugliberaltears is obviously rude and a bit much. However, I think s/he does have a point underneath all the caps-lock. This website, and in particular this sub, does have a disproportional interest in logical fallacies. There are many more search returns for "fallacy" on this sub than there are for more fundamental ideas of philosophy like "positivism," "ontology," aesthetics," etc. etc.

These are pillars of philosophy that are being overshadowed by one area of study of one field of philosophy (logic). I notice too that other aspects of the philosophy of logic like mathematics, causality vs correlation, and probability don't garner nearly as much attention as identifying fallacies. Moreover, many of the posts about fallacies are just listicles, I assume for people to be able to easily digest and call them out when appropriate.

I would venture a guess that many people here are more interested in argumentation than philosophy in general. I think this stems from indignation (understandable given the unjust and often stupid world we live in) and a feeling of intellectual superiority (possibly warranted but not persuasive in making a compelling argument). Without getting overly political, often I think forces of vice and apparent stupidity have the upper hand in our world because they remember the two other modes of persuasion that Aristotle puts on equal footing with logic: ethos (essentially moral character of the speaker, or at least the projected moral character), and pathos (emotional appeal). If you consider these to be "squishy" and logic to be "concrete," please remember that Donald Trump's election was a very real, concrete event. Calling out fallacies will neither undo it nor avert a similar debacle in the future.

So I wouldn't entirely disagree with /u/smugliberaltears' blunt characterization of this fixation with fallacies as "a really annoying Internet thing." Clinging to it to the general exclusion of equally or more important ideas isn't far from mental masturbation, to use Woody Allen's phrase. And yes, philosophy should get us somewhere in the real world.

edit: typo

[u/tomholder]

I think it's a pity we don't teach argument validity in schools (I'd love to see a math class being taught tableau logic).

[u/gummnutt]

Anyone know what software was used to make this video?

[u/wiphiadmin]

TL;DW: In this Wireless Philosophy video, Paul Henne (Duke University) describes the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. This distinction is useful for understanding the fallacies in Wi-Phi's Critical Thinking section.

Thanks for watching! If you like our videos, please subscribe to our YouTube channel!

[u/josephworth]

Don't forget you have yourlogicalfallacyis.com an excellent free resource...

[u/AbdulMohammed]

Reddit isn't interested in logical fallacies. They just want to screech AD HOMINEM and WHATABOUTISM to make themselves feel better.

[u/RedditConsciousness]

I often ask, and haven't quite been satisfied with the answer: What are we to say of persuasive arguments that are not logically airtight, but still possess characteristics such as soundness? This would be informal reasoning, yes? I'm speaking of the most common type of argument -- the one we might make to a group when determining where to go for dinner that evening. Or even the one's we commonly make to ourselves when making any number of small life decisions (and sometimes even large life decisions).

[u/jaxmuzak]

Thanks for sharing! I'm curious about the distinction between formal and informal fallacies. While I'm sure there are some easy cases where the form and content of an argument are obviously different, I imagine there are a lot of cases where the distinction becomes blurry (like in your informal fallacy example). I also imagine that someone could re-frame a formal fallacy so that it looks like an informal fallacy. That possibility troubles me because it can be very difficult to prove or disprove the "content" of an assertion. Questions of fact, in particular, are very hard to prove and easy to muddle: that's why there's so much risk associated with taking litigation before a jury.

tl;dr -- Curious about the distinction between the form and content of an argument and if there are hard lines that separate the two concepts.