Fallacy Of Accent

Maple Ridge (Home of Mr. Bobby Buff)

Blackwell Reference Online

Cited

'Fallacy of Accent

Logic

A fallacy originally noticed by Aristotle, in which an argument proceeds to a conclusion by changing the syllabic accent of a word and hence causing its meaning to be changed. Such an argument is, of course, invalid. It is later expanded to cover cases in which one argues by emphasizing different parts of a sentence hence changing its meaning. It is also called the fallacy of emphasis, and usually occurs in spoken language. “The fallacy of accent is committed whenever a statement is accented in such a way as to change its meaning, and is employed in an argument.” Carney and Scheer, Fundamentals of Logic.'

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'The fallacy of accent defends for its effectiveness on the fact the meaning of statements can change, depending on the stress put on words. The accenting of words or phrases can give a meaning quite different from that intended, and can add implications which are not part of the literal meaning.' (31).

Example used

'Light your cigarette' (31).

a) Without accent it looks like an invitation. (31).
b) As opposed to lighting a tablecloth or something else. (31).
c) Instead of someone else. (31).
d) Instead of sticking it in your ear. (31).

The author notes that by changing the accent, the meaning can be changed. (31)

'Light your cigarette', reads like an invitation or instruction.

''Light your CIGARETTE', reads as if an instruction to light the cigarette instead of something else.

'Light YOUR cigarette' read like an instruction to light your own cigarette and not another's.

'LIGHT your cigarette' reads as an invitation, instead of sticking it in your ear.

The author states: 'The fallacy lies with the additional implications introduced by emphasis. (32).

For our Blog context, that being theology, philosophy of religion, philosophy and Bible, this following statement from Pirie is relevant and profound:

'Your most widespread use of the fallacy of accent can be to discredit opponents by quoting them with an emphasis they never indented'. (32).

He notes that Richelieu needed six lines by which to hang an honest man. (32).

I reason he is meaning Cardinal Richelieu of France. This would be a good historical example where Christianity was politicized and did not closely follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his disciples, the Apostles and scribes.

The use of accent in a fallacious manner can twist words for the purpose of a lie.

Another example provided:

'Samson was blinded by the king of the Philistines who had promised not to touch him'. (32).

One can promise not to touch you, but pay to have someone else blind you...

One should pay special attention to the educated and elite, whether in a political, corporate, religious or other context when he or she may be using the fallacy of accent to persuade the masses.

But of course the masses can use the fallacy as well.

From a Biblical, Christian perspective this type of fallacious reasoning, this type of twisting of the truth, for the sake of attempting to win an argument, is unethical and morally wrong.

If one cannot win an argument without using fallacy, or more importantly present a good argument, perhaps premises and conclusions need to be reconsidered.

Abusive Analogy

Google+

Abusive Analogy

Preface

A section of the entry by entry review of the Pirie text. Originally published on Blogger 20151029, revised on Blogger 20250601 for a version on academia.edu.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Abusive Analogy

From Pirie

'The fallacy of abusive analogy is a highly specialized version of the ad hominem argument. Instead of the arguer being insulted directly, an analogy is drawn which is calculated to bring him into scorn or disrepute. The opponent or his behaviour is compared with something which will elicit an unfavourable response toward him from the audience.' (29).

Pirie provides the example:

'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29).

'(This is true, but is intended as abuse so that the hearer will be more sympathetic to the possibility of certain knowledge.) (29).'

This statement is not necessarily true, it is using hyperbole. Theoretically, a scientist could speculate on the existence of outer space, without being certain, while the Khoekhoe (more accurate term) may or may not, have an understanding of the concept of outer space, but also without certainty.

In other words, with Pirie's explanation, science using inductive reasoning, testing and empirical research may not claim certainty, at least in some cases, but there is still considerable, significant knowledge that has been obtained through the scientific method. A lack of certainty with inductive scientific reasoning, does not for example, by default make certain deductive philosophical and theological reasoning certain.

An analogy is not effective here as inductive and deductive reasoning succeeds or fails based on the trueness of premises and conclusions presented.

Blackburn explains that arguing by analogy is stating that since things are alike in some ways they will 'probably' (14) be alike in others. (14). The use of 'probably' here is key. Often arguing by analogy produces some similarities and some differences rendering the argument unsound.

If such an argument is used comparing only the things certainly alike it is reasonable.

However, Blackburn cites Wittgenstein, noting it can be irresponsible to generalize one case. (14).

In other words, generalizing by argument of analogy can be irresponsible. 

Wittgenstein 

Wittgenstein’s Generalisations About Generalisations: Medium-Dec 12, 2019

Paul Austin Murphy 

Cites

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1912-1978) Ludwig Wittgenstein's Blue Book, University of Pittsburgh (depositor), University of Pittsburgh.

https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735061817932

Digital Library

“Our craving for generality has [as one] source … our preoccupation with the method of science. I mean the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws; and, in mathematics, of unifying the treatment of different topics by using a generalization. Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness. I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is ‘purely descriptive’.” 

'I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is ‘purely descriptive’.”'

A philosophical problem here, potentially at least, as this is just a small section of Wittgenstein's work and explanation, is of consistency. Wittgenstein is explaining something. He is not simply providing a description, but is offering an opinion. 

However, generalization within abusive analogy is fallacious because an ad hominem, personal attack, analogy, is concerned with attacking a person making the statement or premise (s) with a conclusion. When in contrast, what is important for accuracy is the trueness of a statement, or premise (s) and conclusion presented. Using an analogy with a generalization stating 'If science admits no certainties, then a scientist has no more certain knowledge of the universe than does a Hottentot running through the bush.' (29); this is generalizing the knowledge of the scientist within analogy. A lack of certainty does not equate to lack of knowledge, in the case of the scientist. The scientist may hold to many ideas as probably right, that may or may not, one day may be shown to be certainly right.

Wittgenstein: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive-Spring 2025 Edition 

By

Anat Biletzki 

Anat Matar

Cited 

'It is here that Wittgenstein’s rejection of general explanations, and definitions based on sufficient and necessary conditions, is best pronounced. Instead of these symptoms of the philosopher’s “craving for generality,” he points to ‘family resemblance’ as the more suitable analogy for the means of connecting particular uses of the same word. There is no reason to look, as we have done traditionally—and dogmatically—for one, essential core in which the meaning of a word is located and which is, therefore, common to all uses of that word. We should, instead, travel with the word’s uses through “a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing” (PI 66). Family resemblance also serves to exhibit the lack of boundaries and the distance from exactness that characterize different uses of the same concept. Such boundaries and exactness are the definitive traits of form—be it Platonic form, Aristotelian form, or the general form of a proposition adumbrated in the Tractatus. It is from such forms that applications of concepts can be deduced, but this is precisely what Wittgenstein now eschews in favor of appeal to similarity of a kind with family resemblance.'  

Generalities lead to error when they produce reasoning that fails to embrace true statements and or true premise (s) and conclusion. Better to specifically review and produce statements and or premise (s) and conclusion for accuracy in truth.

In regards to Wittgenstein rejecting definitions based on sufficient and necessary conditions: 

Texas State University/Department of Philosphy Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition 

Cited 

'A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there.' 

'Department of Philosophy

Dr. Craig Hanks, Chair'

I reason

Sufficient conditions mean all of the necessary conditions exist for an event

Wittgenstein: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive-Spring 2025 Edition 

My add below (PI):

• Philosophical Investigations, 1953, G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations (PI), 4th edition, 2009, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• ---

Primary sources noted on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive 

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Bibliography 

The Big Typescript: TS 213, German English Scholars’ Edition, 2005, C. Grant Luckhardt and Maximilian E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

• The Blue and Brown Books (BB), 1958, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Culture and Value, 1980, G. H. von Wright (ed.), P. Winch (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1, 1982, vol. 2, 1992, G. H. von Wright and H. Nyman (eds.), trans. C. G. Luckhardt and M. A. E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “A Lecture on Ethics”, 1965, The Philosophical Review, 74: 3–12.
• Lectures and Conversations on Aesthetics, Psychology and Religious Belief, 1966, C. Barrett (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Letters to C. K. Ogden with Comments on the English Translation of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1973, G. H. von Wright (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Letters to Russell, Keynes and Moore, 1974, G. H. von Wright and B. F. McGuinness (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Dictating Philosophy (To Francis Skinner – The Wittgenstein-Skinner Manuscripts), 2020, Arthur Gibson and Niamh O’Mahony (eds.), Cham: Springer.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein: Public and Private Occasions, 2003, J. Klagge and A. Nordmann (eds.), Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Ludwig Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle: Conversations Recorded by Friedrich Waismann (VC), 1979, B. F. McGuinness (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Notebooks 1914–1916, 1961, G. H. von Wright and G. E. M. Anscombe (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Notes Dictated to G. E. Moore”, in Notebooks 1914–1916.
• “Notes for Lectures on ‘Private Experience’ and ‘Sense Data’”, 1968, Philosophical Review, 77: 275–320.
• On Certainty, 1969, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe and D. Paul (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Grammar, 1974, R. Rhees (ed.), A. Kenny (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations, 1953, G.E.M. Anscombe and R. Rhees (eds.), G.E.M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Philosophical Investigations (PI), 4th edition, 2009, P.M.S. Hacker and Joachim Schulte (eds. and trans.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Philosophical Occasions, 1993, J. Klagge and A. Nordmann (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Philosophical Remarks, 1964, R. Rhees (ed.), R. Hargreaves and R. White (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• ProtoTractatus—An Early Version of Tractatus Logico- Philosophicus, 1971, B. F. McGuinness, T. Nyberg, G. H. von Wright (eds.), D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (trans.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Remarks on Colour, 1977, G. E. M. Anscombe (ed.), L. McAlister and M. Schaettle (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough”, 1967, R. Rhees (ed.), Synthese, 17: 233–253.
• Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, 1956, G. H. von Wright, R. Rhees and G. E. M. Anscombe (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell, revised edition 1978.
• Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, 1980, vol. 1, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), vol. 2, G. H. von Wright and H. Nyman (eds.), C. G. Luckhardt and M. A. E. Aue (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• “Some Remarks on Logical Form”, 1929, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 9 (Supplemental): 162–171.
• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C. K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921.
• Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1961, D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness (trans.), New York: Humanities Press.
• The Voices of Wittgenstein: The Vienna Circle, 2003, Gordon Baker (ed.), Gordon Baker, Michael Mackert, John Connolly and Vasilis Politis (trans.), London: Routledge.
• Wiener Ausgabe [Vienna Edition, vols. 1, 2, 3, 5], 1993–1995, Michael Nedo (ed.), Vienna: Springer.
• Wittgenstein: Conversations, 1949–1951, 1986, O. K. Bouwsma, J. L. Kraft and R. H. Hustwit (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett.
• Wittgenstein in Cambridge: Letters and Documents 1911–1951, 2008, Brian McGuinness (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein Source Bergen Nachlass Edition, 2009, Alois Pichler (ed.), Bergen: Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen.
• Wittgenstein: Lectures, Cambridge 1930–1933, From the Notes of G.E. Moore, 2016, David G. Stern, Brian Rogers, and Gabriel Citron (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Family Letters: Corresponding with Ludwig,, 2021, Brian McGuinness (ed.), London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishers.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1930–1932, 1980, D. Lee (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures, Cambridge 1932–1935, 1979, A. Ambrose (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures on the Foundations of Mathematics, 1976, C. Diamond (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psychology 1946– 47, 1988, P. T. Geach (ed.), London: Harvester.
• Wittgenstein’s Nachlass: The Bergen Electronic Edition, 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Notes on Logic, 2009, Michael Potter (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wittgenstein’s Whewell’s Court Lectures: Cambridge, 1938–1941, From the Notes by Yorick Smythies, 2017, Volker Munz and Bernard Ritter (eds.), Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
• Zettel, 1967, G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright (eds.), G. E. M. Anscombe (trans.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• The Collected Manuscripts of Ludwig Wittgenstein on Facsimile CD Rom, 1997, The Wittgenstein Archives at the University of Bergen (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

Bibliography

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1912-1978) Ludwig Wittgenstein's Blue Book, University of Pittsburgh (depositor), University of Pittsburgh.

https://digital.library.pitt.edu/islandora/object/pitt%3A31735061817932

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

O'Conell Bridge, Dublin: trekearth

Fleet Street, London: trekearth

Ad Hominem/Against the Man

Facebook and Travel+Leisure: Possibly Turkey

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

'If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer.' Pirie (2006)(2015: 122). The author states that an insult in itself is not fallacious, (122) but ad hominem is used in a way to attempt to undermine an opponent's argument. (122).

So, therefore, in my opinion, someone could be rightly and justly called a 'jerk' because he/she is acting in such a negative way in an argument and this would not be the use of the fallacious. A fallacy being the use of poor and invalid reasoning; as well it is the use of an invalid structure of argument.

But if someone is called a 'jerk' in an attempt to undermine the opponent's argument then it is fallacious.

The argument is not treated by its merit. (122).

Blackburn explains that ad hominem is an attempt to argue against a person via personal attack, it is less commonly used by praising a person, or it may or may not be used by forceful attacks against a person's position but they do not advance matters intellectually against a person's beliefs and views. Blackburn (1996: 24).

Douglas Walton writes that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374).

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Being Reasonable In An Argument

Giethorn, Holland/Netherlands: Facebook & Travel+Leisure

Vancouver

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

The author explains that a person can win an argument by being offensive (as in bad-mannered) as long as the force of the reasoning cannot be withstood by the opponent. Pirie (2006)(2015: 26).

That being stated the author, wisely in my view, points out that it is easier to win an argument 'if your demeanour is pleasant', (26).

Pirie then uses the good example of salesmen convincing people to purchase goods. (26).

A skilled arguer will often allow his opponent 'a let-out, a graceful retreat'. (26). This allows one to concede an argument without losing face. (26). I very strongly hold to the idea of humbly letting an opponent in an argument 'save face'. There are several possible reasons to do this, but one is to love one's neighbour as self (Matthew 22 and Mark 12), and to love those in Christ (John 15, 1 John) and another is that even as it appears one may be winning an argument, persons are finite and sinful and a very humble attitude in arguing is itself reasonable.

One may have made the better premise (s) and conclusion but is not necessarily completely free from potential intellectual error in that context. Even after the most successful arguments there is always some room for humility and doubt as a finite, sinner.

As well, no argument, thesis or post, for example, is completely exhaustive in presentation.

There is also room within an argument to cease argumentation and take the position of student in order to learn.

Even in the next realm with perfected humanity (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22), those in Christ will still be finite.

The author states that in winning an argument it is better to appear reasonable than dogmatic. (26). It is more persuasive to readers and listeners. A warning to those that are philosophically, theologically and religiously fundamentalist (ic). The authors explains that the best way to appear reasonable is to be reasonable. (28). Win the argument he states but in a level and civilized manner. (28).