Logic and Fallacies

Logic and Fallacies



We accept, with all its limitation, that our consciousness is solely based on our accumulated sensory perceptions. There could potentially and hypothetically be other ‘perceptive’ faculties that could influence cognitive recognition, concepts of reality etc., but we have no way of knowing about them. Consequently, when we engage in the discussion of things, and its progression to ideas we are really manipulating interpreted perceptions from our sensory exposure. When we escalate our discussions, as in making a proposition, creating a hypothesis or defending a position as in stating an argument we are engaging in “reasoning”. Analysis of this reasoning will determine if the reasoning is valid, i.e. sound, invalid or is “fallacious”, a fallacy.

We cannot go into the various forms of logic here, but about three types constitutes the most common forms in argumentative reasoning, i.e. abductive, deductive and inductive, reasoning. In argumentative theory we attempt to extract the premises on which the argument is based, the validity or truthfulness of the premises determines whether the argument proposed is valid, sound or can even be considered true, or whether it is a fallacy.Fallacies are important as many proponents of irrational ideas (especially organizational operators) are noted to structure their arguments in the structures of legitimate arguments, using flawed premises that appeal to the emotions or to the sense of authority, even the gods, in order to arrive at a conclusion that is flawed but accepted. Some of these conclusions even become popular and persist for centuries even.We cannot list all fallacies here but a List of Fallacies can be downloaded from here.
The general structure of an argument takes the form of

  1. A listing of one or more premises (that should be consistent i.e. free of contradictions)
  2. Some method of deduction or drawing an inference and
  3. A conclusion.

Ex. of a syllogistic argument:(simplistic)

  • All mangoes are fruits                               Major premise
  • All Alphonso’s are mangoes                       Minor premise
  • All Alphonso’s are fruit                              Conclusion

These are based on two propositions, premises, having a common term (mangoes in this instance), and a conclusion which itself is a proposition involving the two unrelated terms from the premises.

Ex.of an obvious fallacy, the major and minor premises are true, yet the conclusion is false.
Some fruits are mangoes
Apples are fruits
Therefore apples are mangoes

This kind of obfuscation and discombobulation is frequently used in the media by political and other operatives, more frequently than one would believe. Some have embedded permanency in the collected thought processes.

Our objective is to ferret these out and expose them as part of our liberation of “The Facts”

Leave a Reply