Fallacy Essay

Fallacies are a part of human life. It is natural to have committed at least one fallacy in one’s lifetime, and to have witnessed countless others’ fallacies. In my opinion, fallacies are “bad;” they distract and confuse the true meaning and/or argument, and do not answer the questions they are asked.
One of the worst things about fallacies is that they can be very convincing. Sometimes they are convincing because you can’t argue with them, such as the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. The Ad Ignorantiam fallacy claims something is true because it cannot be proved false. An example of this is: Ghosts are real, because you can’t prove that they’re not. This fallacy is impossible to argue; the opponent cannot make an argument to disprove the fallacy. However, this fallacy’s argument does not make any applicable point. It doesn’t show any valid evidence for the argument, in this case, that ghosts do exist. This argument may convince some people, usually those who do not care enough to come up with a quick response which cuts through this fallacy. Also, this fallacy often convinces people because of their trust. Adults will sometimes use this fallacy in an attempt to explain an issue to a child who does not understand an issue. Because the adult is the one speaking, the child show trust and assume knowledge by authority. Another convincing fallacy is the Equivocation fallacy. In this fallacy, one uses language ambiguously, using two different meanings for one word. This fallacy can be particularly convincing, and confusing. An example of this is: A hamburger is better than nothing, nothing is better than good health, therefore a hamburger is better than good health. The word here that has two different meaning is “nothing.” In the first part of the syllogism, the speaker is saying that eating a cheesburger is better than nothing to eat. In the second statement of the syllogism, the speaker is making an exagerration that nothing feels better than being in good health. To make the syllogism complete, on must put the two premises together to make a conclusion. However, because the word has two different meanings in the premises, the conclusion is nether valid or true. This is one reason why the Equivocation fallacy is so powerfully convincing: the syllogism should be an indicator that it is not a fallacy. However, it is not. Also, if confronted with using the Equivocation fallacy, one can claim that s/he was just using a synonm, which can further confuse the audience. In confusing the audience, the speaker than has the opportunity to explain further in his/her own terms that speak closer to what their conception of the equivocated word is, rather than a more innocent meaning.. One other convincing fallacy is the False Dilemma. In this fallacy, one assumes that only two alternatives exist, when in fact, there is a wider range of options. An example of this is: You are either a Republican or a Democrat. One reason why this argument is so convincing is its simplicity. In the case of this example, many Americans simply pick the party with whom they share most of the ideals. It is the simplest thing to do. Far fewer Americans choose to be part of the lesser know parties, such as the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. Perhaps another reason why the False Dilemma is such a convincing argument it is so inclusive. In my example, the Democratic and Republican parties are the most popular and therefore the most likely to have groups of people with generally the same ideas and opinions. This is why they are part of the fallacy. Each party is so inclusive to a common type of person, that the need to differentiate between more than two main parties is lacking. In relation, sometimes people do not feel as if they have the time to enquire into more specific, less general parties, and so decide to belong one of the two major parties, because they do not know that there are other political parties to choose from, or they just feel that they belong with a general set of people. Either way, it is a False Dilemma, to assume that there are only two real political parties. The False Dilemma is very prominent in the information from the Enron mystery. In the Enron mystery, the fallacy of the False Dilemma is shown. The False Dilemma here is simple, “You are with us or you are against us.” Enron used this general fallacy to cover a few other fallacies, such as the binary thinking, and Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc. Midway through the movie, the trips that Skilling went on with other employees of Enron, are talked about in such a way that presents binary thinking. Skilling liked to take a few of the high-ranking employees out on motor-biking trips, where they would ride their motorbikes around on the tracks, performing very dangerous stunts, stunts which could have possibly killed them if there was an accident. These kind of trips were common for Skilling, and if he invited you you basically had to go. If you didn’t go, you weren’t “cool,” (binary thinking) and if you didn’t want to go, not only were you not cool, you could be seen as “against the company” because you didn’t enjoy the company’s relaxation trips.You were also “against the company” if you did not put a lot of your money into the company’s stock. Employees of Enron evaluated each other, and saw this as a weak point to exploit in the peer reviews. They only saw the way an employee used his/her salary, in terms of for the company or against it, aka, the False Dilemma. The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc is also present in the Enron company. Both the Gladwell reading and the movie discuss the PRC or the Performance Review Committee. This was a group of people who reviewed their fellow employees and could collectively decide whether or not to fire the person they were reviewing. The Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc fallacy they used stated that “if you were fired from the job, you must not have been doing a good job,” when in fact they were firing people so that they themselves could be promoted. Another way the Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc fallacy was used, was in explaining the money Enron was supposedly making. They said “we must be doing well if our company is making money.” The only problem with this was that Enron wasn’t making the money they said they were. It was a projection of the money they thought they should have been making, with mark-to-market techniques (where they project the money the plan to make over the course of several years). To emphasize their projections, Enron also used the circular reasoning fallacy (assuming the truth of something the are trying to prove) , where they said “we must be doing well and making money because our stocks are going up.” Another popular fallacy Enron used was the Ad hominem fallacy, where they supported Jeff Skilling and his opinions rather than the facts. If anyone had a question, they were told to “go ask Jeff,” as presented to the audience in the Enron movie.Whatever Jeff said was the right thing, whether or not it was true. Even this sort-of positive fallacy cannot be justified.
In my opinion, fallacies cannot be justified. A the definition of a fallacy, from Dictionary.com is: 1.a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc. Therefore, it cannot be justified in my mind. For me, personally, it is always better to know the truth, then to be mislead. In the case of Enron, the Ad hominem fallacy, “Go ask Jeff,” created more problems than it solved. Jeff, himself, even says that he can’t answer a question specific to Enron’s finances because he is not an accountant. Therefore, the fallacy that Jeff knows everything and controls everything about Enron, makes it nearly impossible to learn about anything going on at Enron. Other fallacies cannot be justified either. Circular reasoning cannot be justified, because in this fallacy, one never makes a valid point in their argument. If a valid point cannot be made and used, then it has no purpose. The fallacy of the False Dilemma cannot be justified because the perspective has narrowed, and not all options have been considered. Without all the options, a proper choice cannot be made. The Ad ignoratiam fallacy, that something is true because it cannot be proved false is similar to the circular reasoning fallacy, where the point cannot be proved because there is no valid argument.
Everyone experiences fallacies in their own lives. One of the most recent examples of a fallacy that occurred in my own life was during the 2008 elections. One of John McCain’s aides, not-so-subtly used the Ad hominem fallacy, by putting emphasis on Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein. McCain promptly fired him because he wanted to attack Obama’s ideals and platforms rather than the man himself, which is the way it should be in politics. A more personal experience with a fallacy was with a discussion with one of my friends on the possibilities of aliens. I said that I wasn’t really sure if I believed in aliens, although I did see the potential for them on planets or in other solar system similar to our own, but did not see the prospect of humans discovering them within the next decade. My friend, a firm believer in extraterrestrials quickly exclaimed that I couldn’t claim that there were no such things as aliens because I could not prove that they did not exist. This is the Ad ignoratiam fallacy. I quickly pointed out to my friend that I had never said that aliens did not exist, I was merely skeptical that we would find any in the next few years. Our discussion moved on after that point. In conclusion, fallacies, which are present in everyone’s lives cannot be justified, at least in my opinion, nor than they can the be “good.” Those wishing to counter my claims may say that some fallacies may protect someone from being hurt. However, I would prefer to know the truth rather than be deceived, or confused on a topic which may be interesting to discuss at length, without the use of fallacies.