Amphiboly

Travel+Leisure: Facebook

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

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.

Examples from Pirie

I met the ambassador riding his horse. He was snorting and steaming, so I gave him a lump of sugar.' (38)

'FOR SALE: Car by elderly lady with new body and spare tyre. (38)

Note

I now just realize this is how 'tyre' is spelled in British English. I wrote my MPhil and PhD theses with British English, but 'tyre' is still new to me.

(Canadian and American English is 'tire')

Amphiboly is the fallacy of ambiguous construction. (37)

The fallacy occurs often when one fails to consider alternate readings. (38)

This could be due to mistakes in punctuation and grammar.

He states that astrology makes good use of amphiboly as do fortune tellers and a prophet to 'hedge his bets' (38) and 'have it both ways. (38)

This would of course be a false prophet. A true prophet, receiving actual information from God would do no such thing and to hedge bets would risk death in error. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 both stating a false prophet within the Old Testament, Mosaic Law should be put to death.

In the New Testament context a false prophet is to be exposed as such by the Church. This minus the Mosaic Law. 2 Peter (false prophets and false teachers) and Jude (false teachers) are two notable New Testament books to expose false religionists. Jesus also mentioned false Christs and false prophets in Matthew 24.

I am not implying or indicating that all prophets use amphiboly, although to Pirie's credit, he points out a tool that can be used by false religionists.

'The Elements' text is useful considering vagueness and ambiguity in writing arguments.

Vagueness described as a term's lack of precision (176) and ambiguity allows for various possible meanings, each which may be precise. (176).

In Cambridge, Amphiboly is called '(double arrangement)' as traditional fallacy from Aristotle's list. (376). It is the use of 'syntactically ambiguous sentences.' (376).

trekearth

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

From Google+ Eastern or Southern Europe?

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

Originally published 2015-11-11. Revised with additions on 2023-11-17, for a posting on academia.edu.

Preface

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

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

Blackburn explains 'Any proposition of the form 'if p then q'. The condition hypothesized, p, is called the antecedent of the conditional, and q the consequent'. Blackburn (1996: 73).

According to Blackburn conditional equates to consequent.

Affirming The Consequent Fallacy

Pirie writes affirming the consequent fallacy is natural for those that confuse 'the order of horses and carts'. Pirie (2006)(2015: 35).

His example

'When cats are bitten by rabid hedgehogs they die. Here is a dead cat, so obviously, there is a rabid hedgehog about'. (35).

The author explains that there are other overlooked reasons for the death of the cat such as being hit by a vehicle or electrocuted. The death of the cat from a rabid hedgehog cannot be reasonably deduced as fact. (35).

It is proper to affirm the antecedent (p from Blackburn) to prove (q) the consequent, but not vice-versa. (35).

So, using his example, when cats are bitten by a rabid hedgehog they die (or when cats are infected by rabies, my add) (p), but the (q) cannot be affirmed to prove (p).

There are many possible reasons for a deceased feline.

Interestingly, Pirie notes that this fallacy is used in the legal system, the courts, as the basis for circumstantial evidence.

For example, based on his examples.

If John wanted to kill his wife Joan, he would have taken out an extra life insurance on Joan.

John did take out extra life insurance on Joan.

Or,

If John had wanted to poison Joan to death, he would have bought poison.

John did buy poison.

These both have alternate explanations (37) but when these mount up it becomes easier for a court to find someone guilty of a crime. (37).

Pirie writes that this fallacy under review, is used to impute motives to a person. (37). This could be committed in a legal and court context, or like to find guilt with someone.

Perhaps in truth, perhaps in error.

Logically fallacious: Affirming the Consequent 

Cited

'Description: An error in formal logic where if the consequent is said to be true, the antecedent is said to be true, as a result. 

Logical Form: If P then Q. Q. Therefore, P. Example #1: If taxes are lowered, I will have more money to spend. I have more money to spend. Therefore, taxes must have been lowered. 

Explanation: I could have had more money to spend simply because I gave up crack-cocaine, prostitute solicitation, and baby-seal-clubbing expeditions.'

'References: Jevons, W. S. (1872). Elementary lessons in logic: deductive and inductive : with copious questions and examples, and a vocabulary of logical terms. Macmillan.'

(Quite the examples from the website...)

Critical thinker academy: Affirming the Consequent

Cited

'“Affirming the Consequent” is the name of an invalid conditional argument form. You can think of it as the invalid version of modus ponens.

Below is modus ponens, which is valid:

1. If A then B

2. A

Therefore, B

Now, below is the invalid form that you get when you try to infer the antecedent by affirming the consequent:

1. If A then B

2. B

Therefore, A

No matter what claims you substitute for A and B, any argument that has the form of I will be valid, and any argument that AFFIRMS THE CONSEQUENT will be INVALID.

Remember, what it means to say that an argument is invalid is that IF the premises are all true, the conclusion could still be false. In other words, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

Here’s an example:

1. If I have the flu then I’ll have a fever.

2. I have a fever.

Therefore, I have the flu.

Here we’re affirming that the consequent is true, and from this, inferring that the antecedent is also true.

But it’s obvious that the conclusion doesn’t have to be true. Lots of different illnesses can give rise to a fever, so from the fact that you’ve got a fever there’s no guarantee that you’ve got the flu.'

(Yes, sadly I had the mumps and a fever as a child)

(Therefore a valid deductive argument can have: 

False premises and a true conclusion (FT) 

False premises and a false conclusion (FF) 

True premises and a true conclusion (TT) 

However... True premises and a false conclusion (TF) is invalid

Valid arguments with all true premises are called sound arguments

These also have true conclusions)

---

Cumulative evidences

In PhD thesis research, this fallacy connects to cumulative evidences. One evidence by itself may not lead to a reasonable conclusion, but the more cumulative evidences there are, the more reasonable a conclusion.

From a Biblical perspective, historical Scriptural evidences for the existence of the triune God, Christ and the Gospel can be used, primarily in an attempt to demonstrate Christianity as a reasonable or most reasonable worldview, philosophy, theology.

Secondarily, theistic philosophical (philosophy of religion) evidences such as the idea as necessary for an infinite, eternal, first cause can also be used, although they do not prove the Biblical God, they support the existence of such a creator.

Therefore the secondary cumulative evidences can support the primary cumulative evidences.

But this should not be done affirming the consequent fallacy.

I would NOT state simply...

(A) An infinite, eternal, first cause, is necessary (antecedent)

(b) The eternal Biblical God is documented in scripture (consequent)

A to B exists (yes, both A and B exist)

Therefore 

B to A means B is A (affirming the consequent fallacy)

All is correct until the therefore...

More premises are required in support of B = A.

Deism and other forms of theism are other worldviews and philosophical and theological possibilities. But these propositions and evidences must be reasonably and accurately compared to the propositions, and conclusions, the evidences, for Biblical Christianity. Through my MPhil and PhD theses research, and my website research and articles, I have connected the historical, Scriptural God to philosophy of religion concepts. I do reason that within reasonable, but not absolute certainty, internally and externally the premises in support of Biblical Christianity as a worldview are superior to premises in support of any other worldview. Therefore Biblical Christianity is true. Note, from my archives, only the infinite God has absolute, 100% certainty.

But reviews of, and comparisons to, other worldviews have taken place. Even without admittedly complete objectivity, having been a biblical Christian from a very young age, this was done with the use of reasoning, prayer, considering propositions and then premises and conclusions as evidence.

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

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

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.

Accident Fallacy

Sydney: Google+

Accident Fallacy

Preface

A short but tricky article from 20151107, where I continued to review the Pirie text on fallacies. Slight revisions and additions for an entry on academia.edu 20240817.

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

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

Cited

Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'. (33). The features in question may be accidental and may be considered an unusual, allowable exception. (33). Almost every generalization could be rejected because of a possible accidental case it does not cover. But to always maintain this is the fallacy of accident. (33). 

It is fallacious to treat a general, qualified statement as if it is unqualified. (33). The author states that it is a fallacy that appeals to anarchists because it appears to overturn general rules. (33).

General rules with a few exceptions.

Clarification

In philosophy:

An unqualified statement is considered certain.

Unqualified = Certain

A qualified statement has levels of uncertainty.

Qualified = Uncertain    

Accident Fallacy

Blackburn writes that the accident fallacy is from the unqualified (certain my add) statement to the statement qualified (uncertain, my add). (7). Pirie explains that this fallacy assumes the 'freak features of an exceptional case are enough to accept rejection of the general rule'.

'a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid ' (7).

Blackburn writes that is an (alleged) fallacy. (7). Arguing from the general case to the specific, particular case, without recognizing some qualifying factors. (7).

He lists as example: 'If some snakes are harmless then some snakes in this bag are harmless.' (7).

I take it that philosophically, one should be careful in the diagnosis of accident fallacy, as it may not always be so.

My example: 

Florida won the 2024 Stanley Cup.

Florida will therefore will the next three Stanley Cups. 

Technically possible, but highly unlikely. There are 32 teams competing and the odds are Florida will not win the next three Stanley Cups. In a sense, it is an exception that any one particular team is that year's winner. It is always more likely that one of the other 31 teams will win the Stanley Cup, at least mathematically. Even a favoured team before the season would not likely even receive even odds to be champions from the odds makers.

We can see here why Blackburn calls it an alleged fallacy. My example could theoretically occur. A team can win four Stanley Cups in a row, but it has only be done by the Montreal Canadiens (2x) and New York Islanders (1x).

Converse Accident Fallacy

From the qualified (uncertain, my add) statement to the unqualified (certain, my add). (7).

'a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter' Blackburn (7).

The fallacy of taking out a needed qualification. (7).

Also known as 'converse fallacy of the accident'. (7).

'If it is always permissible to kill in war, then it is always permissible to kill'. (7).

My example:

I would question even the qualified (uncertain) statement in the example.

It is permissible to kill willing opposing combatants.

It is not permissible to kill unwilling opposing combatants (surrendered or injured).

It is not permissible to kill civilians.

Therefore, it is not always permissible to kill in war.

However, for the example listed, it is not always permissible to kill (answering the unqualified, certain premise) because warfare operates with a different set of legal and ethical rules than does non-warfare.

--- 

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

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

Converse Accident: Hasty Generalization from Lander University 

Cited 

'Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of considering two few cases or certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that fits them alone. (Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the opposite of the fallacy of accident.)'

Cited

'Converse accident fallacies arise since many different logical generalizations are consistent with a finite amount of data. But not all of those generalizations are consistent with each other.' 

webmaster@philosophy.lander.edu

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.