Fallacies and Their Applications to Decision Making - Essay Example

Fallacies and Their Applications To Decision Making This paper explores three common fallacies: the slippery-slope fallacy, the fallacy of false alternatives and the fallacy of relevance. After defining each fallacy, there are explanations of the significance of each to critical thinking. The general application of each fallacy to decision making is discussed. The slippery-slope is an argument that one action will initiate a chain reaction or domino effect leading to an undesirable result. In other words, the slippery-slope means "one thing leads to another" (Holt, 2006) or "God knows where it will end". Slippery-slope arguments can be valid or fallacious. According to slippery-slope reasoning, if A and B are events, then if A occurs, the chances that B occurs will increase. The slippery-slope argument warns of dire effects of actions without ever criticizing the proposed action itself (Nunberg, 2003). According to Nunberg, this type of argument is never used for change, but only to maintain the status quo. He compares the slippery-slope argument to the parable about letting a camels nose into the tent; soon the camel will want to warm the rest of its body too, pushing its way slowly in until the tents inhabitant is displaced. Nunberg suggests that the way out of these fallacies is knowing where to put the hump, or knowing where one thing ends and another begins. As an example of a slippery-slope argument that may contain mechanisms that can be valid, Newman & Volokh (2003, p.21) discuss the issue of installing surveillance cameras to deter criminals. The initial investment in costly cameras may persuade some people to expand the surveillance program to include permanent archives and other intrusive techniques, since it would be more cost effective with existing equipment. Newman & Volokh (pp.21-22) also use the example of gun registration potentially leading to gun confiscation, since gun registration could implement legal grounds and make confiscation more cost effective. Newman & Volokh (2003, p.22) also discuss "attitude-altering slippery-slopes", where people are swayed to believe a conclusion is sound because it is the law. In other words, people apply the reasoning: if something is one way, then it ought to be that way. According to this type of slippery-slope argument, small policies can lend support to more sweeping and oppressive policies. According to Newman & Volokh (2003, p.23), a slippery-slope argument is made valid when an underlying mechanism is identified, such as in the examples above. Claiming a slippery-slope without providing any details is what leads to ineffective arguments. Presumably, it is the absence or presence of evidence showing the chances of event B occurring increases with the occurrence of event A that determines whether a slippery-slope argument is fallacious or valid. During decision making, evidence of the increased chance of an event occurring should be presented as further premises in order to link the first premise with the conclusion of the slippery-slope argument. The fallacy of false alternatives occurs when the number of alternatives said to be less than the actual number. All-or-nothing and either/or statements often fall into this category. The fallacy of false alternatives is sometimes called the false dilemma, false dichotomy, or the black-or-white fallacy (Curtis, 2006). An example is assuming a person is either a Democrat or a Republican, when there are many other political views. According to Curtis (2006), the fallacy of false alternatives contains a disjunctive either-or premise. An argument of this type may take the form of first claiming there are only two alternatives, which both lead to the same result; therefore the result is taken as true. An example of the use of the false alternatives fallacy is a politician making the argument that cutting taxes is necessary for the economy, so spending on health and education must wait (Bowell & Kemp, 2001, pp.146-147). The false premise in this example is that cutting taxes and spending cannot be done at the same time, and that they are mutually exclusive choices. According to Bowell and Kemp (p.147), the false dilemma fallacy can also be used to accuse people of holding extreme views they do not: for instance, if someone makes a statement they do not support X, they can be accused of supporting anti-X, when in fact their views may be intermediate or undecided. The fallacy of false alternatives, or false dilemma, can be avoided during decision making by not limiting positions to two mutually exclusive ones, which sets up the false dilemma. Arguments should allow the possibility of intermediate alternatives that can dissolve dilemmas. Fallacies of relevance occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. These type of fallacies often go unnoticed because they are psychologically or emotionally relevant (Cline, 2006); the conclusion may seem to follow because of this appeal to emotion. A valid argument should reach a conclusion from the premises based on logic and reason instead of emotions. Other types of fallacies of relevance include appeal to authority, consequences or pity (Holt, 2006). Appeal to authority cites an authority instead of giving actual evidence in support of the conclusion. Appeal to consequences makes the consideration of the attractiveness of the conclusion or the unattractiveness of the alternatives the focus, instead of what the evidence supports. Appeal to pity is a specific example of appeal to emotion, and relies on evoking sympathy instead of using logic. Other fallacies of relevance listed by Holt (2006) include: personal attacks and irrelevant appeals to novelty or antiquity, force, poverty or wealth, and popularity. Personal attacks attempt to disprove a statement by discrediting the person making it. An appeal to novelty (or antiquity) takes the newness (or oldness) of a conclusion as proof of its truth. An appeal to force threatens anyone who dares to contradict the conclusion. An appeal to poverty (or wealth) suggests that the poor (or the rich) believe the conclusion, so it must be true. An appeal to popularity suggests a conclusion is true because it is widely believed. Another name for the fallacy of relevance is the red herring fallacy, which occurs whenever irrelevant premises are used (Bowell & Kemp, 2001, p.150). The red herring fallacy is an argumentative technique that is sometimes used to purposely distract the listener from the real argument (Bowell & Kemp, pp.141-142). Bowell and Kemp use the example of a presidents popularity as a reason to throw out a sexual harassment charge. Irrelevant premises such as that of the president’s popularity are meant to create a positive attitude about the conclusion. Red herring arguments often depend on the listener to have knowledge of what constitutes relevant criteria within a subject. In the example above, recognizing the red herring fallacy created by the president’s popularity premise relies on the listener having knowledge of what is relevant in deciding guilt in the field of law. The red herring fallacy always has an element of fooling the listener to believe something is relevant on the basis of a lack of knowledge. Fallacies of relevance can be avoided during decision making by using and accepting only logic and reasoning in arguments, and avoiding the use of emotion to persuade. In addition, arguments should use only what is relevant to the subject matter involved. Listeners during decision making should be alert to arguments that move outside their areas of knowledge, in order to investigate relevance. References Bowell, T., & Kemp, G. (2001). Critical Thinking: A Concise Guide. New York: Routledge. Cline, A.(2006). Fallacies of Relevance. About.com. Retrieved 24 Sep 2006 from http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_relevance.htm Curtis, G.N. (2006). Black-or-White Fallacy. Fallacy Files. Retrieved 24 Sep 2006 from http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html Holt, T. (2006). Logical Fallacies: An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning. Retrieved 23 Sep 2006 from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/index.html Newman, D., & Volokh, E. (2003). In Defense of the Slippery Slope. Legal Affairs. Retrieved 23 Sep 2006 from http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slipperymag.pdf Nunberg, G. (2003, Jul 1). Linguist Geoff Nunberg. Fresh Air from WHYY. National Public Radio. Retrieved 23 Sep 2006 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1316297 Read More