FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE:

a. Argumentum ad Hominem

The mirror-image of the appeal to authority is the ad hominem argument, in which we are encouraged to reject a
proposition because it is the stated opinion of someone regarded as disreputable in some way. This can happen in
several different ways, but all involve the claim that the proposition must be false because of who believes it to be
true:

Harold maintains that the legal age for drinking beer should be 18 instead of 21.

But we all know that Harold . . .

. . . dresses funny and smells bad. or

. . . is 19 years old and would like to drink legally or

. . . believes that the legal age for voting should be 21, not 18 or

. . . doesn't understand the law any better than the rest of us.

Therefore, the legal age for drinking beer should be 21 instead of 18.

In any of its varieties, the ad hominem fallacy asks us to adopt a position on the truth of a conclusion for no better
reason than that someone believes its opposite. But the proposition that person believes can be true (and the
intended conclusion false) even if the person is unsavory or has a stake in the issue or holds inconsistent beliefs or
shares a common flaw with us. Again, personality is irrelevant to truth.

b. Argumentum ad Misericordiam

Turning this on its head, an appeal to pity tries to win acceptance by pointing out the unfortunate consequences that
will otherwise fall upon the speaker and others, for whom we would then feel sorry.

I am a single parent, solely responsible for the financial support of my children.

If you give me this traffic ticket, I will lose my license and be unable to drive to work.

If I cannot work, my children and I will become homeless and may starve to death.

Therefore, you should not give me this traffic ticket.

Again, the conclusion may be false (that is, perhaps I should be given the ticket) even if the premises are all true, so
the argument is fallacious.

c. Argumentum ad Baculum

In the appeal to force, someone in a position of power threatens to bring down unfortunate consequences upon
anyone who dares to disagree with a proffered proposition. Although it is rarely developed so explicitly, a fallacy of
this type might propose:

If you do not agree with my political opinions, you will receive a grade of F for this course.

I believe that Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

Therefore, Herbert Hoover was the greatest President of the United States.

It should be clear that even if all of the premises were true, the conclusion could neverthelss be false. Since that is
possible, arguments of this form are plainly invalid. While this might be an effective way to get you to agree (or at
least to pretend to agree) with my position, it offers no grounds for believing it to be true.

d. Petitio Principii

Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase
“begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the
correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
Logical Form:

Claim X assumes X is true.

Therefore, claim X is true.

Example #1:

Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.

Explanation: The claim, “paranormal activity is real” is supported by the premise, “I have experienced what can only
be described as paranormal activity.” The premise presupposes, or assumes, that the claim, “paranormal activity is
real” is already true.

Example #2:

The reason everyone wants the new "Slap Me Silly Elmo" doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season!

Explanation: Everyone wanting the toy is the same thing as it being "hot," so the reason given is no reason at all—it
is simply rewording the claim and trying to pass it off as support for the claim.

Exception: Some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.

People like to eat because we are biologically influenced to eat.

 . Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
a. Argumentum ad Antiquum

(also known as: appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from
tradition, appeal to past practice, traditional wisdom)

Description: Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the
historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct. Traditions
are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has
always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.

Logical Forms:

We have been doing X for generations.

Therefore, we should keep doing X.

Our ancestors thought X was right.

Therefore, X is right.

Example #1:

Dave: For five generations, the men in our family went to Stanford and became doctors, while the women
got married and raised children. Therefore, it is my duty to become a doctor.

Kaitlin: Do you want to become a doctor?

Dave: It doesn’t matter -- it is our family tradition. Who am I to break it?

Explanation: Just as it takes people to start traditions, it takes people to end them. A tradition is not a
reason for action -- it is like watching the same movie over and over again but never asking why you
should keep watching it.

Example #2:

Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman; therefore, gay marriage should not be
allowed.

Explanation: Very often traditions stem from religious and/or archaic beliefs, and until people question the
logic and reasoning behind such traditions, people who are negatively affected by such traditions will
continue to suffer. Just because it was acceptable in past cultures and times, does not mean it is
acceptable today. Think racism, sexism, slavery, and corporal punishment.

Exception: Victimless traditions that are preserved for the sake of preserving the traditions themselves do
not require any other reason.

Tip: If it weren’t for the creativity of our ancestors, we would have no traditions. Be creative and start your
own traditions that somehow make the world a better place.

b. Argumentum ad Vericundiam (Appeal to inappropriate authority)

– It happens when an arguer cites a witness or authority who, there is good chances that, is unreliable.

It happens when:

a. The source is not a genuine authority on the subject at issue

E.g. My dentist told me that rosemary and thyme can be used to treat cancer. I believe this must be true!

Explanation: A dentist is not a specialized doctor that knows cure for cancer. He is not that competent to
declare such statement.

b. The source is biased or has some other reason to lie or mislead

E.g. Halim, the husband of Tina stated that his wife did not steal anyrhing from the Mydin Superstore. Even
though the CCTV at the crime scene show that she put something into her purse, I cant believe that a good
man like Halim would lie to protect his wife. I think Tina is innocent.

Explanation: Halim have more than one reason to lie: Tina is his wife so he had to lie to save his face.
Halim can also be an accomplish to the theft. Needless to say, Halim’s action is clearly biased

c. The accuracy of the source’s observation is questionable

E.g. After snorting 1 gram of heroin all by himself, Thomas swore that he had an hour long conversation
with the long dead founder of Malacca state, Parameswara. I’ve never known Thomas to lie. So, I think we
should believe him.

Explanation: Enough said. What can possibly a guy tell when he is on heroin high? Downright gibberish!
His testimony wont even be accepted in court!

d. The source cited is known to be generally unreliable

E.g. The handout given by the ‘Mestika Syahdu’ cult members stated that the world will end on the 21st
August this year. They claim that when the 3 northern stars of Umbala line up in a parallel way, the end of
the world is very near. This occurence will happen exactly on that date. We should be prepared for the
tragedy.

Explanation: An internet source, a report, an article, or maybe a handout given by the ‘Mestika Syahdu’ cult
members can be regarded as highly unreliable and hard to proof. We can always differentiate a reputable
source to the other by looking at its past records, consistency and evidents given in facts and figures. Its
hard to believe a word from a cult member am I right?

e. The source has not been cited correctly or the cited claim has been taken out of context.
 E.g. It states in the Holy Koran that we should practice free sex. Due to this reason, I believe that we
should practice free sex.

Explanation: Just for a mental note, there are absolutely no religious book that states free sex is a good
practice. Clearly, this citation is not made accurately. Thus, this claim is fallacious.

f. The source claim conflicts with expert opinion

E.g. Syeikh Jamil, a renowned ulama of Turkmenistan, claims that pig meat can be eaten by Muslims. I
believe we should subscribe to his point of view.

Explanation: An overwhelming number evidence, citation and experts of Islam are actually against Syikh
Jamil’s claim. Therefore, it is fallacious to accept Syeikh Jamil’s claim simply on his authority.

g. The issue is not one that can be settled by expert opinion.

E.g. The Dalai Lama said that to achieve eternal solitude, one must devote oneself to the universe by
meditating deeply. We should take his saying as a truth because The Dalai Lama are worshipped by
millions worldwide.

Explanation: Some things just can never be explained objectively. No expert consensus can be reached
because of its abstractism. You can have a million definition of the word eternal solitude. Same goes to
meaning of life, morality etc. Such issues cant be settled by appeals to authority.

h. The claim is highly improbable on its face

E.g. Uncle Sam claims that his 84 year old friend Buddy can jump across buildings. Uncle Sam is the most
trustworthy person that we have come across in this neighborhood. Therefore, if he said that his 84 years
old friend Buddy can jump across buildings, I, for one, will totally believe him.

Explanation: Uncle Sam’s claim is highly improbable, that without a strong evidence that proves this
ridiculous claim, it is clear, by any degree, is obviously fallacious.

… the rest of the fallacies of insufficient evidence will be elaborated in the next post. Bye!

c. Accident

(also known as: destroying the exception, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, dicto simpliciter,
converse accident, reverse accident, fallacy of the general rule, sweeping generalization)

Description: When an attempt is made to apply a general rule to all situations when clearly there are
exceptions to the rule. Simplistic rules or laws rarely take into consideration legitimate exceptions, and to
ignore these exceptions is to bypass reason to preserve the illusion of a perfect law. People like simplicity
and would often rather keep simplicity at the cost of rationality.

Logical Form:
 X is a common and accepted rule.

Therefore, there are no exceptions to X.

Example #1:

I believe one should never deliberately hurt another person, that’s why I can never be a surgeon.

Explanation: Classifying surgery under “hurting” someone, is to ignore the obvious benefits that go with
surgery. These kinds of extreme views are rarely built on reason.

Example #2:

The Bible clearly says, “Thou shall not bear false witness.” Therefore, as a Christian, you better answer the
door and tell our drunk neighbor with the shotgun, that his wife, whom he is looking to kill, is hiding in our
basement. Otherwise, you are defying God himself!

Explanation: To assume any law, even divine, applies to every person, in every time, in every situation,
even though not explicitly stated, is an assumption not grounded in evidence, and fallacious reasoning.

Exception: Stating the general rule when a good argument can be made that the action in question is a
violation of the rule, would not be considered fallacious.

The Bible says, “Thou shall not murder,” therefore, as a Christian, you better put that chainsaw down and
untie that little kid.

Tip: It is your right to question laws you don’t understand or laws with which you don’t agree.

d. Hasty Generalization

(also known as: argument from small numbers, statistics of small numbers, insufficient statistics, argument
by generalization, faulty generalization, hasty induction, inductive generalization, insufficient sample, lonely
fact fallacy, over generality, overgeneralization, unrepresentative sample)

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are
much more in line with the typical or average situation.

Logical Form:

Sample S is taken from population P.

Sample S is a very small part of population P.

 Conclusion C is drawn from sample S and applied to population P.

Example #1:

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes a day since age fourteen and lived until age sixty-nine.
Therefore, smoking really can’t be that bad for you.

Explanation: It is extremely unreasonable (and dangerous) to draw a universal conclusion about the health
risks of smoking by the case study of one man.

Example #2:

Four out of five dentists recommend Happy Glossy Smiley toothpaste brand. Therefore, it must be great.

Explanation: It turns out that only five dentists were actually asked. When a random sampling of 1000
dentists was polled, only 20% actually recommended the brand. The four out of five result was not
necessarily a biased sample or a dishonest survey; it just happened to be a statistical anomaly common
among small samples.

Exception: When statistics of a larger population are not available, and a decision must be made or opinion
formed if the small sample size is all you have to work with, then it is better than nothing. For example, if
you are strolling in the desert with a friend, and he goes to pet a cute snake, gets bitten, then dies instantly,
it would not be fallacious to assume the snake is poisonous.

Tip: Don’t base decisions on small sample sizes when much more reliable data exists.

e. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from ignorance)

(also known as: appeal to ignorance)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.
Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Forms:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot
be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.
 Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of
them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with
spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them,
simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore,
life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is
not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be
able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or
possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a
fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?

Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!

Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than
evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

f. False Dilemma

(also known as: all-or-nothing fallacy, false dichotomy*, the either-or fallacy, either-or reasoning, fallacy of
false choice, fallacy of false alternatives, black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses,
bifurcation, excluded middle, no middle ground, polarization)

Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists
between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can
also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three
choices are presented when more exist.

Logical Forms:

Either X or Y is true.

Either X, Y, or Z is true.
Example (two choices):

You are either with God or against him.

Explanation: As Obi-Wan Kenobi so eloquently puts it in Star Wars episode III, “Only a Sith deals in
absolutes!” There are also those who simply don’t believe there is a God to be either with or against.

Example (omission):

I thought you were a good person, but you weren’t at church today.

Explanation: The assumption here is that if one doesn't attend chuch, one must be bad. Of course, good
people exist who don’t go to church, and good church-going people could have had a really good reason
not to be in church -- like a hangover from the swingers' gathering the night before.

Exception: There may be cases when the number of options really is limited. For example, if an ice cream
man just has chocolate and vanilla left, it would be a waste of time insisting he has mint chocolate chip.

It is also not a fallacy if other options exist, but you are not offering other options as a possibility. For
example:

Mom: Billy, it’s time for bed.

Billy: Can I stay up and watch a movie?

Mom: You can either go to bed or stay up for another 30 minutes and read.

Billy: That is a false dilemma!

Mom: No, it’s not. Here, read Bo’s book and you will see why.

Billy: This is freaky, our exact conversation is used as an example in this book!

Tip: Be conscious of how many times you are presented with false dilemmas, and how many times you
present yourself with false dilemmas.

Note: Staying true to the definitions, the false dilemma is different from the false dichotomy in that a
dilemma implies two equally unattractive options whereas a dichotomy generally comprises two opposites.
This is a fine point, however, and is generally ignored in common usage.
 RULES OF LEGAL REASONING

Rules of collision:

Conflicting law – role of the judiciary to reconcile:

1. Interpret the law as a whole

2. Status shall be given a meaning that will not contravene the constitution
3. In case of conflict and harmonizing is not possible, the latest law shall prevail
4. In case general vs special, special law shall prevail
5. Law prevails over ordinance

Rules of judgement:

1. The only entity empowered by the Constitution to interpret is the Supreme Court

Rules of procedure:

1. Process of how a litigant would protect his rights