Formal fallacy

 ( Barriers To Critical Thinking ) 

In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of Reason with a flaw in its logical structure (the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion). In other words:

• It is a pattern of reasoning in which the conclusion may not be true even if all the are true.
• It is a pattern of reasoning in which the premises do not Entailment the conclusion.
• It is a pattern of reasoning that is invalid.
• It is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a Logic process.

A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy which may have a valid logical form and yet be Soundness because one or more Premise are false. A formal fallacy, however, may have a true premise, but a false conclusion. The term 'logical fallacy' is sometimes used in everyday conversation, and refers to a formal fallacy.

Propositional logic,

for example, is concerned with the meanings of sentences and the relationships between them. It focuses on the role of logical operators, called propositional connectives, in determining whether a sentence is true. An error in the sequence will result in a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true Premise, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a formal fallacy is a fallacy in which deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process. This may not affect the truth of the conclusion, since validity and truth are separate in formal logic.

While "a logical argument is a non sequitur" is synonymous with "a logical argument is invalid", the term non sequitur typically refers to those types of invalid arguments which do not constitute formal fallacies covered by particular terms (e.g., affirming the consequent). In other words, in practice, "non sequitur" refers to an unnamed formal fallacy.

---

Common examples In the strictest sense, a logical fallacy is the incorrect application of a valid logical principle or an application of a nonexistent principle, such as reasoning that:

1. Most animals in this zoo are birds.
2. Most birds can fly.
3. Therefore, most animals in this zoo can fly.

This is fallacious: a zoo could have a large proportion of flightless birds.

Indeed, there is no logical principle that states:

1. For some x, P(x).
2. For some x, Q(x).
3. Therefore, for some x, P(x) and Q(x).

An easy way to show the above inference as invalid is by using Venn diagrams. In logical parlance, the inference is invalid, since under at least one interpretation of the predicates it is not validity preserving.

People often have difficulty applying the rules of logic. For example, a person may say the following syllogism is valid, when in fact it is not:

1. All have beaks.
2. That creature has a beak.
3. Therefore, that creature is a bird.

"That creature" may well be a bird, but the Consequent does not follow from the premises. Certain other animals also have beaks, such as turtles. Errors of this type occur because people reverse a premise.

In this case, "All birds have beaks" is converted to "All beaked animals are birds." The reversed premise is plausible because few people are aware of any instances of beaked creatures besides birds—but this premise is not the one that was given. In this way, the deductive fallacy is formed by points that may individually appear logical, but when placed together are shown to be incorrect.

---

Special example A special case is a mathematical fallacy, an intentionally invalid mathematical proof, often with the error subtle and somehow concealed. Mathematical fallacies are typically crafted and exhibited for educational purposes, usually taking the form of spurious proofs of obvious Contradiction.

---

Non sequitur in everyday speech In everyday speech, a non sequitur is a statement in which the final part is totally unrelated to the first part, for example:

---

See also

• Subverted support – Logical fallacy of explanation

---

Notes

Bibliography

• Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, De Sophistici Elenchi.
• William of Ockham, Summa of Logic (ca. 1323) Part III.4.
• John Buridan, Summulae de dialectica Book VII.
• Francis Bacon, the doctrine of the idols in Novum Organum Scientiarum, Aphorisms concerning The Interpretation of Nature and the Kingdom of Man, XXIIIff .
• The Art of Controversy | Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten – The Art Of Controversy (bilingual), by Arthur Schopenhauer
• John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic – Raciocinative and Inductive. Book 5, Chapter 7, Fallacies of Confusion.
• C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies. Methuen London, 1970.
• Fearnside, W. Ward and William B. Holther, Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument, 1959.
• Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005,
• D. H. Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, Harper Torchbooks, 1970.
• Douglas N. Walton, Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1992.
• Warburton Nigel, Thinking from A to Z, Routledge 1998.
• Carl Sagan, . Ballantine Books, March 1997 , 480 pp. 1996 hardback edition: Random House,

---

External links

Post Comment