Introduction to Logical Fallacies

Dear student,

I am happy to see the debate you had about our former president Soeharto. To me, it is an indication of openness and critical thinking. I believe that it is a good habit we should further develop.

Today I am going to present you about logical fallacies, hopefully it can improve the quality of our debate. Fallacy is a component of an argument which, being demonstrably flawed in its logic or form, render the argument invalid in whole.

So why learn logical fallacies at all?
I can think of a couple of good reasons. First, it makes you look smart. You can show that the opposition has made an error in reasoning, it shows that you can think on your feet and that you understand the opposition's argument possibly better than they do. Second, hopefully, you can find ways to transform fallacious arguments into perfectly good ones.

It is supposed to be just an introduction. If you're interested, I'll give you link to the more advance source.

***False Dilemma***

Meaning:A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while in reality there are more options. Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Sample: "It's either punish him or forgive him"

Proof: Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option,like we can forgive him and put him to trials.

***Argument from Ignorance***

Meaning: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof."

Sample: "Since you can't proof that he's guilty, so he's not, so don't big talk"

The law in most democracies also allows negative proofs in criminal cases; namely, a defense lawyer may argue:

X is innocent because there is no (or insufficient) proof that X is guilty

This, however, is based upon the legal 'presumption of innocence', which is specifically intended to allow guilty parties to go free, to minimise the chance of innocent parties being convicted.
This concept is entirely inapplicable to normal logical argument.

***Appeal to Popularity***

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim.

Sample:The media shows that public mourn for the death of the general,so you may as well mourn for him.

Appeal to Pity

The reader is told to agree to the proposition because of the pitiful state of the author.

Sample:"Let's just forgive him and forget all of his past mistakes. He's so old and dying"

Proof:
Identify the proposition and the appeal to pity and argue that the pitiful state of the arguer has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition.

***Prejudicial Language***

Meaning:Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Sample:"People who knows how to thanks would not try sent the father of development to jail"

Proof:
Identify the prejudicial terms used (eg. "people who knows how to thanks"). Show that disagreeing with the conclusion does not make a person "wrong thinking" or "unreasonable".

I think it's already long enough. If you wanna learn and find out more about the complete list of logical fallacies. You can always ask Uncle Google :D

reference:
www.onegoodmove.org, www.infidels.org, www.csun.edu, www.hebrew4christians.com,