Logical Fallacy

Logical Fallacies

Day in and day out, the average employee is involved with one or more arguments, and from these arguments one must make a decision based on the outcome. All arguments contain fallacies which is an argument that contains a mistake in reasoning (Bassham, 140). This paper will discuss three different types of fallacies that one could use any given day. These three fallacies are the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy, the Ad Homien fallacy, and the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Appeal to Ignorance

The fallacy of appeal to ignorance occurs when an arguer asserts the claim must be true because no one has proven it false or, conversely, that a claim be false because no one has proven it true (Bassham, 166). Critical thinking is used in the appeal to ignorance. It is used even in the argument portion of a conversation. Both sides take the facts and decipher it for their own knowledge and their decision. Even if one side doesn't agree with the other, facts are stated for both accounts to make the decision. Whether or not they are false facts or not doesn't matter, just that they are facts. Its application to general thinking is used by population as a whole everyday.

In Genesis, the first book Bible, it is written that God created the Heaven and Earth (Bible page 1). This is an argument that will never be proven in either direction, and one must realize that evolution cannot be recreated in a lab using the scientific method. For people that believe in the Bible and the teachings of God the statement is true. For the people that believe in evolution the previous statement is not true. This is a great example of the appeal to ignorance. Neither statement can be proven. It is merely a matter of one's own beliefs.

Ad Hominem

The fallacy of personal attack is when we reject a person's argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person's argument of claim (Bassham, 143). The significance to critical thinking is to take away from the main issue. Instead of talking about the discussion at hand the arguer chooses to point the attention to the other person in the argument to side-track the discussion. This fallacy has no real application to decision making besides trying to confusion the issue.

In 2004 Presidential Debate, one of the questions asked that night was if homosexuality was a choice. Sen. Kerry responded "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as (cnn.com, 2006)." Sen. Kerry chose that statement to personally attack Dick Chaney and his family. Sen. Kerrys' hopes were that he would sidetrack the issue and be able to skirt by without making a commitment on his own personal choices. Senator Kerry clearly "sucker-punched" Dick Cheney who was publicly against homosexuals until it was revealed that his own daughter was one.

Tu Quoque "Look Who's Talking"

The fallacy of Look Who's Talking is committed when an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim because that person fails to practice what he or she preaches (basham, 145). The significance of the look who's talking fallacy in critical thinking, shows that one must choose their words wisely to create the correct illusion, meaning the ability to turn one's complaint into another's ammunition.