Fallacy

Fallacy Summary and Application

Fallacy as defined by the web site Dictionary.com (2006) is "A false notion a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference, incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness or the quality of being deceptive." Fallacies are everywhere; in the workplace, in the media, and even at home. Fallacies can contain both relevant information and insufficient evidence. In the workplace today, it is important to be able to identify fallacies or the business could be adversely affected. A fallacy can be considered an argument also. If an argument contains a fallacy, then the conclusion will not necessarily be truthful or proven. Some fallacies can also be used to trap a person into believing incorrect conclusions. Some of these may be intentional and some unintentional. This paper will define three separate fallacies, explain their significance to critical thinking, and provide examples that illustrate each fallacy. The three closely related fallacies that have been chosen are Personal Attack, Appeal to Emotion and the Red Herring Fallacy.

A Personal Attack fallacy is committed when we reject the argument or claim of a person by attacking them with abusive remarks used as evidence to support their claim or argument. (Bassham, 2002) This type of thinking is fallacious because it directs the claim at the individual and not the claim that they are making. The truth in a claim should always be independent of the individual person. Many times a negative statement will make an assumption based on how they view the person. So no matter how you feel about a person, that should not be a part of the evidence used to support the argument. People should instead focus attention on the content of the claim and not the person who made the argument. The content of the claim should be what is used to determine the validity of the claim, not an attack on the person that is making it.

We have many examples of this type of fallacy almost every day in business. Most people have been in a meeting where a person makes a statement and then they are attacked, not the facts pertaining to their statement. A good Business Example might be the last project Bill managed was 30% over budget, so I don't believe Bill's projections on this one could be correct. A person who can only make their case by attacking others probably doesn't have much of case to begin with. In this particular case, something objectionable is identified about a person: Bill went over budget on his last project. The arguer then goes on to conclude that, just because of this fact, that the budget will not be correct the next time around. Instead of showing where Bill made an error previously, the argument simply attacks them for who they are, and claims that we can dismiss anything said without even considering the new budget. The proper way to evaluate the merits of this argument is by looking at what the argument says, not by distracting people's attention from the argument by insulting the person. There could be other reasons that Bill's last project went over budget. Properly understood, this personal attack is stating that Bills is wrong because of a previous budget that he worked on rather than about the new project projections. The personal attack fallacy is important to remember when reading the business section of the newspaper. It is tempting to assume, after hearing bad information about individuals, to discount all of the information brought up by that person, instead of trying to understand the business at hand.

Another fallacy closely related in business to the Personal Attack fallacy is the appeal to emotion fallacy. "The Appeal to Emotion fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true" (Labossiere, 1995). This fallacy is common in politics and also found in advertising. This fallacy is an effective persuasive device. This is because emotions often carry more force than reason. It is the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide usage. Political speeches are aimed at stirring emotions in people to get them to vote or act a certain way. In advertising, most commercials are aimed at evoking emotions that will influence people to buy specific products. A good Example of this fallacy would be: this new computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. This argument does not state the advantages of the computer compared to other computers, rather states the fact of power. In other words, the arguer is trying to emphasize power, which has nothing to do with the usefulness of the computer. Please notice that the use of these tactics to inspire emotions is an important skill. Sometimes without an appeal to peoples' emotions, it is difficult to get them to act. There is nothing inherently wrong with this; however, it is not an acceptable form of argumentation.