Download - Fallacy Report
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
1/22
FALLACYof
FOUR
TERMS
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
2/22
What isFALLACY?A "fallacy" is what we consider a
mistake, and a "logical fallacy on
that note is a mistake in reasoning.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
3/22
Importance ofIdentifying andUnderstandingFallacies
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
4/22
Identifying and understanding sings ofFallacies of Reasoning allows one to.
spot and understand signs of fallaciesand thus make corrections to thesemistakes through the knowledge of whathas been done wrong convincingly andcorrectly.
gain understanding of which ones are
really the correct reasoning that leads youfrom the ideas of point A to point B .
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
5/22
The Four TermFallacy(Latin quaternio terminorum)
..is aformal logical fallacy that occurs
when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather
than the requisite three. This form of argument is
thus invalid.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
6/22
SyllogisticRule ViolatedAll valid categorical syllogisms have
exactly three terms, each of which is
used in the same sense throughout theargument.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
7/22
For example:
Valid Syllogism:
Major premise:All fish have fins.
Minor premise:All goldfish are fish.
Conclusion:All goldfish have fins.
Here, the three terms are: "goldfish", "fish", and"fins".
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
8/22
Invalid Syllogism:
Major premise:All fish have fins.
Minor premise:All goldfish are fish.
Conclusion:All humans have fins.
The premises don't connect "humans" with "fins",
so the reasoning is invalid. Notice that there are
four terms: "fish", "fins", "goldfish" and "humans".
Two premises aren't enough to connect fourdifferent terms, since in order to establish
connection, there must be one term common to
both premises.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
9/22
More examples
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
10/22
All dogs are animals, and all catsare mammals, so all dogs aremammals. The four terms are: dogs,
animals, cats and mammals.
Note: In many cases, the fallacy of four terms is
a special case ofequivocation. While the same
word is used, the word has different meanings,and hence the word is treated as two different
terms.
Example 1:
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
11/22
Only man is born free, and nowomen are men, therefore, nowomen are born free.
The four terms are: man (in the sense of
'humanity'), man (in the sense of 'male'), and
women and born free.
Proof: Identify the four terms and where
necessary state the meaning of each term.
This is the easiest way to identify the
fallacy.
Example 2:
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
12/22
Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; ithas allowed us to develop technology, and evento put men on the moon. So why would peopledeny the science of evolution?
Example 3:
The argument equivocates on the word science which caneither mean operational science or origins science. Operation
science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for
technology. Origins science is an attempt to understand past
events in light of present evidence; its much more easily
tainted by historical bias than operation science and is notdirectly testable or repeatable. The two types of science
should not be mixed within an argument.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
13/22
Evolution is a fact, we see it in animals
as they adapt to their environment!
Example 4:
The first part of this statement is referring to allegedly idea
where animals change from one kind to another (common
descent) whilst the 2nd part is referring to the observable small
variation within the kind. This is also known as the bait-and-
switch fallacy. Evolutionists use a known scientific observation
and then later switch to another meaning to promote common
descent. This kind of argument is usually presented due toignorance of the theory or just a dirty trick. Unfortunately, in
my experience its usually the latter.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
14/22
Fallacy ofEquivocation
The Four Term Fallacy is otherwise known
as the Fallacy of Equivocation as a point of
view of informal logic. It is because the
Equivocation of the middle term is a
frequently cited source of a fourth term being
added to a syllogism. And this common error
is what we call the Ambiguous Middle.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
15/22
For example: (Fallacy of Equivocation)
"A poor lesson is better than a good lessonbecause a poor lesson is better than nothing, andnothing is better than a good lesson.
Note how in the following argument we have anuncomfortable feeling that the argument seems good withtrue premises, but the conclusion is obviously false.Often, we smile at arguments like these because we knowsomething is drastically wrong, but it is not initiallyintuitively obvious what it is. Knowing that a valid
argument cannot have true premises and a falseconclusion, and yet the argument appears to be perfectlyvalid, is a tip-off for the presence of the fallacy ofequivocation.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
16/22
Nothing is better than a good lesson.A poor lesson is better than nothing.A poor lesson is better than a goodlesson.
Obviously, there is something wrong with thissyllogism; this is evident from its humorousappearance. When we sketch a diagram,without attending to the meaning of the classes,
it is clear that the diagram would appear valid.How is this possible?
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
17/22
Although the argument does not translate very well intostandard form categorical propositions, if we attempt todo so, we can see that the classes do not match. The word"nothing" is being used in two different senses. Oneattempt at translation yields:
No [lessons] are [things better than good lessons.]
All [poor lessons] are [things better than no lessons atall.]
All [poor lessons] are [things better than good lessons.]
Notice that we have more than three terms--our middleterm does not match. Hence, we cannot get a validdiagram.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
18/22
Another example of equivocation, a more tricky one:
Major premise: The pen touches the paper.
Minor premise: The hand touches the pen.
Conclusion: The hand touches the paper.
This is more clear if you use "is touching" instead of"touches". It then becomes clear that "touching the pen" isnot the same as "the pen", thus creating four terms: "thehand", "touching the pen", "the pen", "touching thepaper". A correct form of this statement would be:
Major premise:All that touches the pen, touches thepaper.
Minor premise: The hand touches the pen.
Conclusion: The hand touches the paper.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
19/22
ReducingTerms
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
20/22
Sometimes a syllogism that is apparently
fallacious because it is stated with more than three
terms can be translated into an equivalent, valid
three term syllogism.
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
21/22
For example:
Major premise: No humans are immortal.Minor premise:All Greeks are people.Conclusion:All Greeks are mortal.
This EAE-1 syllogism apparently has five terms:"humans", "people", "immortal", "mortal", and"Greeks". However it can be rewritten as a standardform AAA-1 syllogism by first substituting thesynonymous term "humans" for "people" and then by
reducing the complementary term "immortal" in thefirst premise using the inference knownas obversion (that is, "No humans are immortal." isequivalent to "All humans are mortal.").
-
8/3/2019 Fallacy Report
22/22
References:PHI1 Workbook 2011http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_termshttp://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/deductive-logic-arguments/fallacy-of-four-termshttp://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.htmlhttp://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html
Presented by:
Longares, Michelle
Legaspi, Raquel
Armas, Joylie
Soriano, Daisyrie
Baylon, Rochelle