INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY

OF THE HUMAN PERSON

1st Semester 2022-2023

SIENA COLLEGE OF SAN JOSE, INC.

Basic Education Department
Senior High School
 LESSON 8:
LOGICAL REASONING &
FALLACIES
 Objectives:
At the end of the lesson, you are expected to:
a. enumerate and describe various fallacies in reasoning;

b. spot informal fallacy in an argument in collaboration with other students; and

c. write a short in-class essay on why spotting fallacies in other people’s reasoning
is as important as knowing one’s own.

d. identify deductive and inductive reasoning in arguments

e. categorize an argument as deductive or inductive in collaboration with other

students

f. evaluate challenges and opportunities for pursuing both types of reasoning in

personal and academic/professional contexts
 ARGUMENTATATION
RHETORIC

REASONING
LOGICAL
ERRORS

DEBATE
EXPLANATION
SUBJECT MATTER

Reason is man's tool of understanding. It is the method of identifying entities

through one's senses. It is the means of integrating those perceptions into concepts,
gaining knowledge through this integration, integrating that knowledge into the
rest of one's knowledge, and evaluating and manipulating ideas and facts.
Reason is the process of thinking. Its fundamental attribute is clarity. The use of
vague notions, fuzzy feelings, or "instincts" is not reason. Reason requires clear,
identifiable building blocks. It uses ideas, memories, emotions, and sensory input.
Reason is also organized. It is systematic and purposeful. It concentrates
on fundamentals, and makes pertinent associations. Since clarity is the purpose of
reason, it must use clear methods, as well as clear tools. It must
use logic, deduction, and induction.
 LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING: TOOLS IN REASONING
Logic is centered on the analysis and construction of arguments. In the first
lesson, logic was discussed as one of the branches of philosophy. Logic and critical
thinking serve as paths to freedom from half-truths and deceptions. Critical thinking
is distinguishing facts (objective) and opinions or personal feelings (subjective. In
making rational choices, first, we suspend beliefs and judgments until all facts have
been gathered and considered.
Through facts are important, critical thinking also takes into consideration cultural
systems, values, and beliefs. These three concepts could influence the interpretation
of the meaning of facts. Critical thinking helps us uncover biases and prejudices and
open to new ideas not necessarily in agreement with previous thoughts.
 Warnings, advice, belief, or opinion lack a claim that anything is being proved. If
an opinion or belief has no evidence or reason that supports some conclusion, there
is no argument. A factual claim must present evidence or reasons (Hurley, 2011).
Consider passage A: “ a dark tan may seem attractive though recent studies have
shown that too much sun exposure may lead to skin cancer.” The statements that
claim to present the evidence or reason are the premises.
In passage B, the claim “ Human cloning is evil,” purports to prove something. The
statement that the evidence claimed to support or imply is the conclusion. In this
case, “Human cloning should never be allowed” is the conclusion.
It is not necessary that the premises present actual evidence or true reasons nor that
the premises actually support the conclusion. But at least the premises must claim to
present evidence or reasons. There must be a claim that the evidence or reasons
support or imply something.
 In general, there are two basic types of reasoning: deductive and inductive.
Inductive reasoning – is based on observations in order to make generalizations. This
means from many specific examples and instances, a person can make a general
guess. For example, many people are holding their umbrellas, the ground is wet, and
the wind is strong so probably it is raining. This reasoning is often applied in prediction,
forecasting, or behavior.
An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer merely to
establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, the
premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they were true, then it would
be unlikely that the conclusion is false.
There is no standard term for a successful inductive argument. But its success or
strength is a matter of degree, unlike deductive arguments. A deductive argument is
valid or else invalid.
Deductive reasoning- draws conclusions from usually one broad judgment or definition and
one more specific assertion, often an inference.
Take for instance:
All philosophers are wise ( Major premise)
Confucius is a philosopher ( Minor premise)
Therefore, Confucius is wise (Conclusion)
A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be
(deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided
that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true.
Here is a valid deductive argument:
• It's sunny in Manila. If it's sunny in Manila, he won't be carrying an umbrella. So, he
won't be carrying an umbrella.
• Every time I've walked by that dog, he hasn't tried to bite me. So, the next time I
walk by that dog he won't try to bite me.
 The difference between the two kinds of arguments does not lie solely in the
words used; it comes from the relationship the author or expositor of the
argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion.
If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises
definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that
their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the
argument is inductive.
Take for example:
John is ill. If John is ill, then he won't be able to attend our meeting today. Therefore,
John won't be able to attend our meeting today.
 That argument is valid due to its logical structure. If 'ill' were replaced with
'happy', the argument would still be valid because it would retain its special logical
structure (called modus ponens). Here is the form of any argument having the
structure of modus ponens:
P
If P then Q
So, Q
The capital letters stand for declarative sentences, or statements, or
propositions. The investigation of these logical forms is called Propositional Logic.

Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and statement logic, is the
branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or modifying entire propositions,
statements or sentences to form more complicated propositions, statements or
sentences, as well as the logical relationships and properties that are derived from
these methods of combining or altering statements.
1. Validity and Soundness of an Argument
Based on the previous example (or syllogism), if the two premises are constructed logically,
then the conclusion must follow logically; the deductive argument is valid. This does not
necessarily mean that the conclusion is true or false. Validity comes to form a logical
conclusion based on logically-constructed premises. (Reed 2010.)
2. Strength of an Argument
An example of inductive reasoning is surveying. Multistage random sampling, that is, selecting
provinces first, then towns, then barangays, is always by probability proportional to size. Cebu
and Pangasinan are provinces most frequently (but not always) sampled. This system is done
by all reputable survey institutions. Surveys try to get many specific examples to arrive at a
general and educated guess.
The outstanding proof that multistage sampling works are the success of the election
( Mangahas, 2011). Pre-stratification by social class is unnecessary. The respondents who tell us
about their votes are the same ones who tell us about their hunger. Mangahas (2011) believed
they are equally truthful about the two matters.
On the other hand, inductive arguments cannot prove if the premises are true which will
also determine the truth of the conclusion. Inductive reasoning proves only probable
support for the conclusion. An inductive argument that succeeds in providing such
probable support is a strong argument. While an inductive argument that fails to provide
such support is weak, a strong argument with true premises is said to be cogent. For
example.

Jay: Do you think Congressman Luli will be reelected?

Yna: I doubt it. Her district has become more conservative, in recent years. Also,
63% of the registered voters in her district are in opposition.

This argument is both a statistical argument and a predictive argument, which are two
common patterns of inductive reasoning. Also, the conclusion does not follow necessarily
the premises.
FALLACIES

Fallacies are mistakes of reasoning, as opposed to making

mistakes that are of a factual nature.
The study of fallacies is an application of the principles of critical
thinking. Being familiar with typical fallacies can help us avoid them.
We would also be in a position to explain other people's mistakes.
There are different ways of classifying fallacies. Broadly speaking, we
might divide fallacies into four kinds.
• Fallacies of inconsistency: cases where something inconsistent or
self-defeating has been proposed or accepted.
• Fallacies of inappropriate presumption: cases where we have an
assumption or a question presupposing something that is not
reasonable to accept in the relevant conversational context.
• Fallacies of irrelevance: cases where irrelevant reasons are being
invoked or relevant reasons being ignored.
• Fallacies of insufficiency: cases where the evidence supporting a
conclusion is insufficient or weak.
FALLACIES OF INCONSISTENCIES
Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something inconsistent, self-
contradictory or self-defeating is presented.
Inconsistency
Here are some examples:
• "One thing that we know for certain is that nothing is ever true or
false." - If there is something we know for certain, then there is at
least one truth that we know. So it can't be the case that nothing is
true or false.
• "Morality is relative and it is just a matter of opinion, and so it is
always wrong to impose our opinions on other people." - But if
morality is relative, it is also a relative matter whether we should
impose our opinions on other people. If we should not do that,
there is at least one thing that is objectively wrong.
FALLACIES OF INCONSISTENCIES
Fallacies of inconsistency are cases where something inconsistent, self-
contradictory or self-defeating is presented.
Self-defeating Claims
A self-defeating statement is a statement that strictly speaking is not
logically inconsistent, but is near enough in that it is obviously false when
being asserted. Consider these examples:
• Very young children are fond of saying "I am not here" when they are
playing hide-and-seek. The statement itself is not logically inconsistent,
since it is logically possible for the child not to be where she is. What is
impossible is to utter the sentence as a true sentence (unless it is used
for example in a telephone recorded message.)
• Someone who says, "I cannot speak any English."
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE PRESUMPTION
Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have
explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to accept
in the relevant context. Some examples:
• Many people like to ask whether human nature is good or evil. This
presupposes that there is such a thing as human nature and that it
must be either good or bad. But why should these assumptions be
accepted and are they the only options available? What if human
nature is neither good nor bad? Or what if good or bad nature
applies only to individual human beings?
FALLACIES OF INAPPROPRIATE PRESUMPTION
Fallacies of inappropriate presumption are cases where we have
explicitly or implicitly made an assumption that is not reasonable to accept
in the relevant context. Some examples:
• Consider the question "Have you stopped being an idiot?" Whether
you answer "yes" or "no", you admit that you are, or have been, an
idiot. Presumably you do not want to make any such admission. We
can point out that this question has a false assumption.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
Taking irrelevant considerations into account.

This includes defending a conclusion by appealing to irrelevant reasons,

e.g. inappropriate appeal to pity, popular opinion, tradition, authority, etc.
An example would be when a student failed a course and asked the
teacher to give him a pass instead, because "his parents will be upset".
Since grades should be given on the basis of performance, the reason
being given is quite irrelevant.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
Taking irrelevant considerations into account.

Similarly, suppose someone criticizes the Democratic Party's call for

direct elections in Hong Kong as follows:

"These arguments supporting direct elections have no merit because

they are advanced by Democrats who naturally stand to gain from it."

This is again fallacious because whether the person advancing the

argument has something to gain from direct elections is a completely
different issue from whether there ought to be direct elections.
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE
Failing to take relevant considerations into account

For example, it is not unusual for us to ignore or downplay criticisms

because we do not like them, even when those criticisms are justified. Or
sometimes we might be tempted into making snappy decisions thinking
that our decisions are the best when in fact we should be investigating the
situation more carefully and doing more research.

Of course, if we fail to consider a relevant fact simply because we are

ignorant of it, then this lack of knowledge does not constitute a fallacy.
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENCY
Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is
provided in support of a claim. Probably most common fallacies fall within
this category. Here are a few popular types:

Limited sampling

• Momofuku Ando, the inventor of instant noodles, died at the age of

96. He said he ate instant noodles every day. So instant noodles
cannot be bad for your health.

• A black cat crossed my path this morning, and I got into a traffic
accident this afternoon. Black cats are really unlucky.
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENCY
Fallacies of insufficiency are cases where insufficient evidence is
provided in support of a claim. Probably most common fallacies fall within
this category. Here are a few popular types:

Limited sampling

In both cases the observations are relevant to the conclusion, but a lot
more data is needed to support the conclusion, e.g. Studies show that
many other people who eat instant noodles live longer, and those who
encounter black cats are more likely to suffer from accidents.
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENCY
Appeal to ignorance ( Argumentum ad ignorantiam)
We have no evidence showing that he is innocent. So he must be guilty.
If someone is guilty, it would indeed be hard to find evidence showing
that he is innocent. But perhaps there is no evidence to point either way, so
lack of evidence is not enough to prove guilt.
Naturalistic fallacy
Many children enjoy playing video games, so we should not stop them
from playing.
Many naturalistic fallacies are examples of fallacy of insufficiency.
Empirical facts by themselves are not sufficient for normative conclusions,
even if they are relevant.
FALLACY CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE
Ad hominem Attacking the person presenting “of course he believes that the
the argument instead of the government is flawed, he is a rebel
arguments itself and a Communist”

Appeal to force Using the treat of force or an “If this peace agreement will not be
undesirable event to advance an signed by the government, then we
argument will have no recourse but to go to
war.”

Appeal to emotion Using emotions such as pity or “All this charges are baseless; this is
sympathy just plain harassment-can’t you see
how this is affecting my family?”

Appeal to popular The idea is presented as “Every boy at your age already has a
acceptable because a lot of girlfriend, you should go and find
people accept it one!”

Appeal to tradition The idea is acceptable because it “Marriage should be between man
has been true for a long time and a woman. It has been so for a
long time in this country; it should
FALLACY CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE

Begging the question Assuming the thing or idea to be “I have the right to free speech,
proven is true; also known as therefore you cannot stop me from
“circular argument” talking.”

Cause-and-effect Assuming a “cause-and-effect” “ever since you bought that sweater,

relationship between unrelated everything has been going wrong in
events. your life. You should get rid of it.”

Fallacy of composition Assuming that what is true of a part “These cases of robbery in this district
is true for the whole have convinced me that the city has
become a den of thieves and
criminals.

Fallacy of division Assuming that what is true for the “You come from a family of doctors
whole is true of a part. and intellectuals! Surely you can do
better in this course.”
 ACTIVITY
Direction: Form a group and then, together with your classmates, identify the
informal fallacy committed in the following:
1. You said we’re going to discuss today whether or not we will see a movie
together. All right, what do you want to see “Star Wars” or “X-Men”?
2. Everything in the universe has a beginning and an end. Therefore, the
whole universe must have beginning and end.
3. We must be charitable to our fellowmen. My seatmate wasn’t able to
study for today’s examination. I must therefore share my answers with him.
4. There was no evidence proving that O.J. Simpson was guilty of the crime
charged against him. So he must have been innocent.
5. Nowadays, everybody wants to look cool. So you better start learning how
to smoke to look cool.
 EVALUATION

1. WHAT have you realized after studying fallacies?

2. HOW can we avoid fallacies in our reasoning?
3. WHY is it important to spot fallacies in other people’s arguments?
EXERCISE

Direction: Write a short in-class essay about the following

question.

Should we observe correct reasoning at all times? Explain

your answer. Write in on a half-sheet of yellow paper.