Procedural
Fallacies
Procedural Fallacies
They all violate basic logical justice.
The arguments may be formally
valid, but they are used, or treated,
wrongly. These fallacies are just as
common in argument as others, but
less often recognized in logic
textbooks. They do not have
technical titles
2
Refuting an argument by refuting its conclusion
Definition: Examples:
❏ “All offense, no defense” 1. President Duterte had a lot of
❏ You can refute an argument by accomplishments therefore
identifying a false premise, he is the best president we
ambiguous term or its logical ever had.
fallacy. 2. Socrates is a man. All men are
❏ You need to show how or where mortal. Therefore, Socrates is
mortal.
the argument and why does it
3. If one person stands up at a
not prove its conclusion. ball game, then she will get a
better view. Therefore, if
everyone stands up at a ball
game, then everyone will get
a better view.
3
Assuming that Refuting an Argument Refutes Its Conclusion
Definition: Examples:
1. “If God existed, there
❏ “All defense, no offense”
would be no sickness and
❏ This fallacy is made by showing the
calamities.”
error in your opponent’s argument and
thinking that settles the matter, thinking 2. “God must exist because
that refutes your opponent’s the universe is very big and
conclusion powerful.”
❏ Just because someone offers a weak 3. “I have gay friends
argument for a conclusion, that does therefore I am not
not show that the conclusion is false homophobic”
❏ Premise/s are untrue, which means that
the argument is invalid. But conclusion
is true.
4
Ignoring the argument
Definition: Example:
❏ Ignoring your opponent's argument 1. Marx says “As for charges
altogether and starting up as if the against Communism made
opponents did not say anything at from a religious, a
all. philosophical and, generally,
❏ After waiting for the opponent to from an ideological
tell his argument, instead of standpoint, are not
answering related to the deserving of serious
examination. Thus he seeks
controversy she then speaks about
simply to dismiss the
another topic that is not associated objection rather than answer
with the argument therefore she’s them.
speaking without responding to
what the opponent said.
5
Substituting explanations for proof
Definition: Example:
❏ Giving proof is claiming to “have the 1. Christian believers only
door slammed shut”. believe in God because they
❏ Proof = conclusion must be true and its are afraid of death.
contradictory cannot be true 2. Children are failing school
❏ Explanation is claiming to only have because they spend too
opened the door much time on gadgets and
❏ Explanation = likelihood that x is the entertainment.
explanation for y
❏ Explanation is when you show how
something could possibly be true
6
Answering another argument than the one given
Definition: Example:
1. Stephen A. Smith says that Kyrie
❏ Fallacy that diverts the attention
Irving is immature, occasionally
from one argument into another
❏ Answering a question they know selfish, and unreliable because of the
how to answer, not answering the reason that he gets to choose what
question they don't know. game to play and what game to
❏ This fallacy occurs when you skip showing no consideration for his
change the original meaning of fans who pay to see him play.
the question or argument that has
been presented. You then go on to Max Kellerman rebuttal says Irving
refute the new argument that you has been one of the players
just made rather than the original considered to be the most fun to
one. watch followed by multiple
compliments about Kyrie and his skill
when it comes to dribbling, shooting,
and proceeded to ranking Kyrie as
an all-time point guard.
2.
7 3.
Shifting the burden of proof
Definition: Example:
❏ “Guilty until proven innocent”
1. Lisa believes in ghosts. Mark tells
❏ The “burden of proof” or “onus of
proof” is a matter of protocol, or her that there is no evidence that
interpersonal rules in debate. The one ghosts exist. Lisa tells Mark that
who has this “burden of proof” has to there is no evidence that they
prove his case; if he does not, he loses don't.
the debate 2. Many religions believe in a higher
power, but few back up the
Logical form: argument with evidence of its
Person 1 is claiming Y, which requires existence. Instead, many argue
justification. that you can't prove that a higher
Person 1 demands that person 2 justify power doesn't exist.
the opposite of Y. 3. An employee claims harassment
Person 2 refuses or is unable to comply. without proof, and argues that
the employer cannot prove that
Therefore, Y is true. she was not harassed.
8
Winning the argument but losing the arguer or vice versa
Definition: Example:
Ted: Robin, I was talking to the travel agent
about where we might be taking our
❏ means ignoring the personal, vacation this summer. I think we should go to
psychological factor and ending Ireland!
up being distrusted and treated Robin: I am going to have a girl’s trip to
as an enemy or a threat by the Alaska with Lily and Patrice.
person you wanted to persuade. Ted: What are you talking about?
Robin: What's wrong with heading out with
❏ emotional appeals devoid of
them for vacation?
logic
Ted: You and I have been together for a
❏ Pathos represents an appeal to
whole year, and our vacation time should be
the emotions of an audience.
about the two of us!
Robin: Really? Who made that rule up?
Ted: With that attitude, I don't really think we
have much more to discuss here.
Robin: That works for me!
9
Thank you!
10