Formal fallacy

Template:Short description In logic and philosophy, a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning with a flaw in its logical structure (the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion). A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy. A formal fallacy must have an invalid logical form and thus be unsound. An informal fallacy, however, may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false. An argument can be both a formal fallacy and an informal fallacy. In everyday conversation, the term logical fallacy usually refers to a formal fallacy. While "the logical argument is a non sequitur" is synonymous with "the 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.

Related concept

Propositional logic 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 premises, 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.

Common examples

Euler diagram showing how axioms of "most animals in this zoo are birds" and "most birds can fly" need not mean that "most animals in this zoo can fly"

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. 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 Euler 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 birds have beaks.
2. That creature has a beak.
3. Therefore, that creature is a bird.

"That creature" may well be a bird, but the conclusion 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 creatures 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 contradictions.

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: Template:Quote

See also

• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Template:Annotated link
• Subverted support – Logical fallacy of explanation

References

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, Template:ISBN
• 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.
• Sagan, Carl, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books, March 1997 Template:ISBN, 480 pp. 1996 hardback edition: Random House, Template:ISBN