[talk.bizarre] Argumentum ad Hominem et al

webber@athos.rutgers.edu.UUCP (12/04/87)

It has come to my attention that the readers of these groups are having
difficulty presenting fallacious arguements.  So, if you will all open
your copy of Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic (5th edition) to page
86, it is time for a review.

There are three kinds of fallacies: ``fallacies of relevance,'' ``fallacies
that aren't relevant,'' and ``fallacies of ambiguity.''  Since ``fallacies
that aren't relevant'' aren't relevant, we shall concentrate on ``fallacies
of relevance'' and ``fallacies of ambiquity (sort of).''

Fallacies of Relevance:

Luckily, there are thirteen fallacies of relevance, i.e.,

(1) Argumentum ad Baculum (commonly called appeal to force) is really not
relevant to the net and if you use it your account will be removed.

Argumentum ad Hominem is the ambiguous fallacy of relevance having two
forms: (2) Abusive and (3) Circumstantial.  Since you are too dumb to
understand the abusive form, I will only address the circumstantial
form.  On the other hand, since you are obviously a person who
communicates more often with ASCII than with EBCIDIC, it is hardly
likely that you would understand the subtleties of the circumstantial
form.  I am afraid that a person in your circumstances is just
incapable of understanding these sorts of things.  [Although
difficult, this fallacy can be pulled off without reference to Freud.
OOPS -- well, like I said, it is difficult.]

(4) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam was the first fallacy to ever be used in
human conversation (and no one has ever proven it wasn't -- so there!).

(5) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (commonly called appeal to pity) is
hardly a fallacy at all since any decent person could surely not
ignore such an appeal.  Indeed, it was probably only because an evil
logician wanted to debunk the notion of 13 being unlucky that
Argumentum ad Misericordiam was declared a fallacy bringing the total
to 13 instead of its proper 12.  I ask you: ARE WE GOING TO STAND FOR
SUCH CRUEL AND UNDESERVED CLASSIFICATIONS?

(6) Argumentum ad Populum is one of those silly new-fangled fallacies
that probably won't last so there is no point in considering it further.

(7) Argumentum ad Verecundiam (commonly called appeal to authority) is
a fallacy since it says so in Copi's book.

(8) Accident is the sort of fallacy you use when preparing an example of
a fallacy so that people can ``know the enemy.''  So clearly it is
false that one should not use fallacies.

(9) Converse Accident (also know as hasty generalization) explains how
fallacies got their current bad name.  Just because all past uses of
fallacies have been to hide poor reasoning does not mean that someone
won't someday use them for some noble end.

(10) False Cause (commonly known as non causa pro causa or post hoc
ergo propter hoc) was what caused Copi to write his book.  This is clear
since Copi wrote his book after False Cause was discovered.  Indeed,
every new edition of Copi's book has been preceeded by a fresh use of
this fallacy in the editorial pages of the New York Times.

(11) Petito Principii (also called ``begging the question'') is a fallacy,
since otherwise it wouldn't appear in this list of fallacies, so we list
it here.

Have you stopped using the fallacy of (12) Complex Question yet?

(13) Ignoratio Elenchi (also called irrelevant conclusion) is the
fallacy you committed in line 5 of your most recent news message.  It
is a horrible fallacy and I could speak at great length about just how
bad a fallacy it is but I am sure you understand now.

Fallacies of Ambiguity:

There are only 4 or 5 fallacies of ambiguity, e.g.,

(1) Equivocation is a simple fallacy and since fallacies are thoughts it 
follows that it is also a simple thought.

In ancient Greece, a prophet named (2) Amphiboly said that if you argue
with Socrates you will always win and Socrates will be a happy man.  Upon
hearing this, people for miles around came and argued with Socrates, but
he continually defeated them and remained a sad man for no one would ever
come to his aid and argue with him against all the fools who constantly
plagued him.

Some say the fallacy of (3) Accent SHOULD NOT be used among friends, but
others say it should not be used AMONG FRIENDS.

Since the fallacy of (4) Composition is not bad if only used once and
since every statement only occurs once, it follows that it is not bad if
every statement were a fallacy of Composition.

On the otherhand, it is clearly foolish to say that every statement is
the fallacy of (5) Division, so it is obviously foolish to say that
any statement is a fallacy of Division.

Of course, there are others who think there are Seven Types of
Ambiguity, but such subtlety will be left for an advanced discussion
on literary fallacies.

------ BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)