Informal fallacies are errors in arguments resulting from the content rather than logic. They can be categorized as relevance, presumption or ambiguity errors. Examples include Ad Hominem, Ad Verecundiam and Ad Populum fallacies. These can be subtle and used to influence opinion when facts and logic do not support the argument.
An informal fallacy is an error in an argument or statement resulting from the content of the statement rather than from a failure in logic. There are dozens of types of errors that can result in an informal error, but most can be classified as errors of relevance, presumption or ambiguity. Each of these classifications covers several specific informal errors, and many more don’t fit neatly into either category.
In this context, “casual” is not used to mean casual or imprecise. Instead, “formal” and “informal” identify the faulty part of an argument. A formal fallacy contains a flaw in the form of the argument where the logic is applied incorrectly. An informal error is incorrect due to the content of the argument.
Relevance errors attempt to support arguments with irrelevant facts and claims. The facts provided may be true, but the information does not prove the premise defended to be true. Many of the more common errors are identified by Latin names.
For example, an “Ad Hominem” fallacy attempts to prove an argument by discrediting the other party. Advocates of the opposite position may or may not be “bad”, “greedy” or “lazy”. This is not about whether the position they hold is valid or true, clearly identifying such insults as informal fallacies.
Some materiality errors attempt to sway opinion based on outside influences. An “Ad Verecundiam” fallacy claims support from an authority figure as proof that a claim is true. “Ad Populum” fallacies work in much the same way, with the support coming from popular opinion rather than from an individual or authority.
Presumption can also lead to an informal fallacy, confusing coincidence with cause and effect. Generalizations and circular reasoning are sometimes used to a similar effect. In a straw man argument, an opposing view is exaggerated and this unreasonable exaggerated view is attacked.
Another common type is the ambiguity fallacy. Words often have multiple meanings, sometimes with only subtle differences. When multiple meanings of a word or phrase are used to support an argument, or when the meanings are unclear, the result is a fallacy of ambiguity.
There are dozens of forms of informal fallacy. Many are obvious attempts to distance an argument from reason. Others are quite subtle and may appear to be reasonable arguments at first. Some of these approaches can be effective in debating and influencing opinion, but are more often used because the relevant facts and logic do not support the stated position.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
