MODULE 2

1 QUARTER
st

Chapter 2 Knowing the Truth

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a

perspective, not the truth.”
- Marcus Aurelius

Most Essential Learning Competencies

2.1 Distinguish opinion from truth
K to 12 CG Code: PPT11/12-lc-2.1
2.2 Realize that the methods of philosophy lead to wisdom and truth
K to 12 CG Code: PPT11/12-ld-2.2
2.3 Evaluate truth from opinions in different situations using the methods
of philosophizing
K to 12 CG Code: PPT11/12-ld-2.3

Lesson 3: The Nature of Truth

At the end of the lesson, the learner should be able to:

1. Explain the nature of truth as a property of beliefs and statements.
2. Identify the different ways of distinguishing certain kinds of truth.
3. Explain the difference among certain kinds of truth.

Pre-assessment
What can you say about the statement below?
“See the false as false, the true as true. Look into your heart, follow your nature.”
Prepare a short argument about the statement below.
If it always observed that when quizzes are given every Wednesday, one tends to
get a higher score. Would you say that specific day to hold quiz matter in
garnering a high score? Why or why not?

Lesson Proper

A. The Bearers of Truth

We earlier noted that one of the essential traits of a wise person is that he/she is
aware of his/her ignorance. This means that he/she knows when he/she knows and when
he/she does not know. Now what is it that we know or do not know? The truth. Being
wise is therefore knowing when we know the truth and when we do not know it. This
explains why philosophy, being love of wisdom, is also sometimes described as the
search for truth. But what is the truth? How do we know it? When can we say that what
we know is the truth? What are the ways by which we can know the truth?

The first thing that we need to understand about truth is that it is a kind of property
whose opposite is falsity. Something that is said to be true, which we express as “the
truth or “a truth”, is said to have the property of truth or of being true. For instance, in

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
11
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

the sentence “Jose speaks the truth”, what is being asserted is that the things that Jose
speaks about are true or have the property of being true.

The things that can be properly said to be true, or to which we can properly attribute
the property of truth, are referred to by philosophers as the “bearers of truth.” And there
usually are three candidates for the bearers of truth; namely, 1.) Beliefs 2.) Statements
and 3.) Sentences. Thus, we say, for instance, that the sentence is true, the statement is
true, or the belief is true. For our purposes, however, we shall only consider beliefs and
statements as the bearers of truth. The reason is that not all sentences can be either
true or false. We do not say a question, an exclamation, or an imperative that is either
true or false.

What we call a statement, which philosophers are also call a “proposition”, refers to
a linguistic expression whose function is to advance a claim about the world. This claim
may be about things or events in the world or about relations of ideas. This claim can be
true or false; and hence statement is either true or false. Statements, as we have noted,
are truth-bearers because they make claims, either in terms of describing the world or
asserting relations of ideas. Since statements are linguistic expressions, statement
therefore are the linguistic expressions of our claims. We, however, can also make the
same claims mentally through our beliefs, in this regard, are the mental expressions of
our claims. The only difference between the statement “two and two are four” and the
belief that “two and two are four” is that the statement is expressed linguistically while
the belief is made in the mind.

B. Kinds of Truth
Statements and beliefs are either true or false. There are, however, certain
questions or considerations about certain aspects of the truth or falsity of statements
and beliefs, which have given rise to different kinds of truth. Not arranged in any
particular order, let us examine some of the questions and the different kinds of truth
that they have given rise to.
First is the question of whether the truth of a belief or statement is established or
arrived at by means of sense experience (experience through the five organs of sense)
or reason (through inference or analysis of the concepts. This question gives rise to the
difference between empirical truth and rational truth. Empirical truth is established by
means of sense experience; while rational truth is established by means of reason. For
example, the truth of observational statements such as “it is raining” is an empirical
truth; while the truth of definition such as “A triangle has three sides” is a rational truth.

Second is the question of whether or not knowing the truth of a statement or belief
extends our knowledge or adds to what we already know. This question is technically
expressed by some philosophers in terms of whether the predicate of a true belief or
statement is already contained in the information provided by its subject. In any case,
this question gives rise to the difference between synthetic truth and analytic truth.
Synthetic truth extends our knowledge (the information provided by the predicate is not
contained in the information provided by the subject) while analytic truth does not (the
information provided by the predicate is contained in the information provided by
subject).

Third is the question of whether or not a statement or belief is true in all possible
questions. This gives rise to the difference between contingent truth and necessary

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
12
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

truth. Contingent truth is not true in all possible situations, whereas necessary truth is.
Empirical truths are contingent truths; whereas rational truths are necessary truths.

Fourth is the question of whether the truth of a belief or statement can only be
known by the person who has the belief or makes the statement. This gives rise to the
difference between private truth and public truth. Private truth can only be known by the
person who has the belief or makes the statement considered to be true; while public
can, in principle, be known by everyone. For example, my skin is cut and bleeding is a
public truth; but that I feel great pain as a result is a private truth.

Fifth is the question whether or not the truth of a belief or statement is dependent
on the attitudes, preferences, or interests of a person or a group of persons. This gives
rise to the difference between subjective truth and objective truth. Subjective truth is
dependent on the attitudes, preferences, or interests of a person or a group of persons;
while objective truth is not. For instance, the truth of the statement or judgement that
rock music is the best kind of music is subjective for it will depend on one’s musical
preferences. But the truth of the statement that rock music is one of the major kinds of
music is objective.

Sixth is the question of whether a belief or statement is acknowledged to be true by

everyone or only by some people. This gives rise to the difference between universal
truth and relative truth. Something is universally true if its truth is acknowledge by
everyone, while something is relatively true if its truth is acknowledge only by some
people.

Seventh is the question of whether the truth of a belief is arrived at through the
process of deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning. This gives rise to the difference
between certain truth and probable truth. Deductive truth, the truth of the statement
arrived through the process of deductive reasoning, is certain; whereas inductive truth,
the truth arrived at through the process of inductive reasoning, is merely probable. For
instance, the truth of the statement “Pedro is mortal”, which is deductively inferred from
the truth of the statements “All humans are mortal” and Pedro is human,” is certain. On
the other hand, the truth of the statement “Juan is hospitable,” which is inductively
inferred from the truth of the statements “Most Filipinos are hospitable” and “Juan is a
Filipino,” is merely probable.

Eight and last is the question of under what area of study does the topic or content
of a belief or statement that is held to be true falls. This gives rise to a number of kinds
of truth, as many as there are different areas of study. We may call these truths as
disciplinal kinds of truth. For instance, we have religious truth, scientific truth,
psychological truth etc.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
13
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Student
Activity 2

Reflect!
Directions:

 Research on Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave.”

 Draw the picture below (or you may search for Plato’s allegory of the cave picture) in
an Oslo paper (long), afterwards, analyze and reflect on what Plato is saying about
truth in the allegory.
 Write/print your reflection and analysis on a short bond paper and paste it at the back
of the Oslo paper.
 Drawing with right details is 30 points, reflection is 20 points.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
14
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Student Worksheet 3

Name: Date :

Strand/Grade&Sec: Score:

Directions: Give what is being asked. (make your hand written neat and clear)
1. Provide one example (a statement/belief) for each kind of truth. 2 points each.

Empirical truth

Rational truth

Synthetic truth

Analytic truth

Contingent truth

Necessary truth

Private truth

Public truth

Subjective truth

objective truth

Universal truth

Relative truth

2. Do you consider scientific truth as objective and universal? Explain your answer.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________

3. Do you consider religious truths as subjective and relative? Explain your answer.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
15
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Lesson 4: The Truth and Knowledge

At the end of the lesson, the learner should be able to:

1. Explain the differences among the correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic
theories or methods of truth.
2. Distinguish and explain the particular methods of observation, reasoning,
intuition, mystical experience, and the appeal to authority.
3. Distinguish between knowledge by acquaintance, practical knowledge, and
propositional knowledge.
4. Explain the nature of knowledge as justified true belief.
5. Explain the conditions of belief, truth, and justification for knowledge
6. Distinguish between knowledge and forms of non-knowledge (opinion and guess)
7. Distinguish between disagreements in belief, disagreements in attitude, and
merely verbal disagreements.

Pre-assessment
Directions: have relevant information on the topics below.
1. Covid 2019
2. Death Penalty
3. Anti-terror Bill
4. BARMM election extension
5. No corporal punishment for students

LESSON PROPER

A. Ways of Knowing
After knowing the bearers of truth and seeing how the truth takes different forms.
Let us now examine various way of knowing the truth, or, in particular, of determining
the truth of a given statement or belief. These ways of knowing, which we shall call
methods of truth, can be distinguished into the general and the particular kinds. The
general methods of truth refer to the methods of truth described in what philosophers
usually call theories of truth, mainly consisting of the correspondence, coherence, and
pragmatic theories. The particular methods of truth, on the other hand, refer to the
specific ways of applying of the general methods of truth. The particular methods of the
truth that we shall briefly examine are observation, reasoning, intuition, mystical
experience, and the appeal to authority.

According to the general method of correspondence, we can know whether a

statement/belief is true by examining whether the statement/belief corresponds to, or
represents, a fact in the world. If the statement/belief does correspond to a fact, then
the statement/belief is true; if it does not, then it is false. For example, the statement

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
16
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

“The sky is blue” is true because it represents or corresponds to the fact that the sky is
blue; while the statement “water is not wet” is false because it does not correspond to a
fact as there is no form of water that is not wet.

According to the general method of coherence, we can know whether a

statement/belief is true by examining whether the statement/belief coheres with the
rules of the relevant system. If the statement /belief coheres with these rules, then it is
true; if does not, then it is false. For example the statement “Three and three are six” is
true because it coheres with the rules of the mathematical system.
And according to the general method of pragmatism, we can know whether a
statement/belief is true by examining the consequences of holding or accepting the
statement/belief to be true. If holding that the statement/belief to be true results in
beneficial consequences, then it is true: If it does not then it is false. For instance, some
people who think that there are ghosts or vampires base their belief in the fact that they
find it useful to hold such as a belief – like explaining unusual phenomena and dealing
with their fears.

In sum, to know whether statements/beliefs are true is to generally examine

whether or not they correspond to facts, cohere with the rules of a system, and result in
beneficial consequences.

The question about the general methods of truth is, how does one know whether a
statement/belief one know whether a statement/belief does correspond to a fact,
coheres with the rules of a system, or results in beneficial consequences? To know this
requires some specific methods. The particular methods are thus the methods used to
determine whether the general methods of observation, reasoning, intuition, mystical
experience, and appeal to authority.
1. Observation (or perception) is the method used to check if an empirical statement,
a statement about an observable fact in the world, correctly represents a fact in
the world. Observation can be internal or external. Internal observation is
observation of our own thoughts and feelings. External observation is observation
of things “outside our mind or consciousness.

2. Reasoning, generally the process of knowing or establishing truth by means of our

reason, can be done in a variety of ways. It includes testing for coherence, whether
two statements are contradictory or cannot be held to be true at the same time.

3. Intuition is one that it is way by which we directly grasp the truth of something. By
direct grasping of the truth, we mean that we immediately know that something is
true without going through the processes of observation and reasoning.

4. A mystical experience provides the person having the experience some means of
knowing something which cannot be known using the usual methods of
observation by our sense organs and reasoning. A mystical experience is usually
spiritual and religious such as the experience of our union with God.

5. The appeal to authority may take the form of a testimony of a reliable eyewitness,
information provided by an appropriate expert, and reliable documents, among
others. The required observation or reasoning to know a truth may have already
been done and documented by someone else.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
17
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

B. Conditions of Knowledge
In the previous discussion, we examined the different ways or methods for knowing
the truth. In this discussion, we shall focus on conditions of knowledge, referring to the
things that should occur so that we can rightly say that we know something. We shall
first distinguish this kind of knowledge that deals with truth form other kinds, after which
we shall specify the conditions of knowledge.

Knowledge takes different forms as shown by how we use the word “know” in
different situations. We use the word “know” to mean acquaintance of familiarity with a
place or person. Philosophers call this kind of knowledge knowledge by acquaintance.
Another, we use the word “know” to mean knowledge of skills. When people for instance,
say I know how to cook chicken adobo. Philosophers call this kind of knowledge practical
knowledge (or knowledge –how).

Still we use the word “know” to mean knowledge of a fact, a situation or anything
that can be either true or false. When I say, for instance, that “I know that the library
close at 5 p.m., “I know that you like spicy food”, and “I know that two and five are
seven,” what I claim to know are things can be either true or false.

Now, when we speak of the difference between knowledge and opinion, we speak of
a difference that concerns the truth of what we claim to know. And so, in the following
discussions we shall be concerned only with propositional knowledge and shall
henceforth use “knowledge” to mean propositional knowledge.

To determine whether what we have is indeed knowledge and not something else
(an opinion or a guess), we need to specify the conditions for knowledge. According to
the standard account of knowledge, known as the JBT account. Knowledge is justified
true belief. That is to say, we can only correctly say that we know X if and only (or only
under the conditions of) : (1) we believe X to be true, (2) X is indeed true, and (3) we are
justified in believing X to be true. For instance, suppose Jose claims that he knows that
Manila is the capital of the Philippines. For Jose to really know that Manila is the capital of
the Philippines, the following should occur:

1. Jose believes that Manila is the capital of the Philippines.

2. It is true that Manila is the capital of the Philippines.
3. Jose is justified in believing that Manila is the capital of the Philippines.

There are thus three conditions for knowledge to occur; namely belief, truth, and
justification. First, if Jose does not believe that Manila is the capital of the Philippines,
then either Jose doubts it or he has other reasons for saying that he knows it. If Jose
doubts that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, then he does not really know whether
Manila is the capital of the Philippines. If he has other reasons for saying that he knows
it, like to express a joke or to deceive his listeners.

Second, suppose what Jose claims instead is that he knows that Quezon City is the
capital of the Philippines. Let us assume that Jose believes that Quezon City is the capital
of the Philippines that he is convinced of the truth of what he claims to know. But we
know that what Jose claims to know is false. In other words, Jose is actually mistaken in
believing that Quezon City is the capital of the Philippines. And because Jose is mistaken
in belief, then he does not really know what he claims.

Third, let us maintain that Jose claims that Manila is the capital of the Philippines
and that he believes it, which happens to be true. Isn’t this enough to say that indeed

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
18
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Jose knows that Manila is the capital of the Philippines. But suppose we ask Jose what is
his evidence for saying that he knows that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, or
what led him to think that he knows it. If Jose got it from reading a history, or from his
history teacher, or from some other reliable means, then we can say that Jose really
means it. So, for Jose to really know that Manila is the capital of the Philippines, he must
be justified (by having sufficient evidence) in believing that Manila is the capital of the
Philippines.

The condition of justification is what distinguishes knowledge from an opinion, and

also from a guess. An opinion is simply an unjustified belief that may turn out to be true.
But an opinion must also be distinguished from a guess. An opinion is actually in
between a guess and knowledge. In a guess, a person claims to know something without
any evidence at all; but in an opinion, a person claims to know a certain event based on
little or insufficient evidence.

Now, there obviously can be disagreements or disputes about beliefs or of what we

believe to be true or false. How do we resolve these disagreements? But first, how does
this type of disagreements differ from other types? Disagreements are generally
classified into the following kinds: disagreements in belief, disagreements in attitude,
and merely verbal disagreements. Disagreements in belief are disagreements about
facts, which are properly resolved by verifying the facts at issue. The verification of facts
can be done either by directly observing the facts, by examining relevant documents, or
by appealing to appropriate authorities. An example of disagreement of this kind is the
one over whether a certain politician stole money from the government.

Disagreements in attitude, on the other hand, are disagreements over preferences:

and they are usually resolved by persuasion, if not by compromise. In the case of
persuasion, it can be done either logically, such as when one’s arguments are consistent
with the valid rules of deduction, or illogically, such as when one’s arguments commit
the so-called informal fallacies. An example of a disagreement of this kind is the one
over whether divorce and same-sex marriage should be legalized in our country.

Lastly, merely verbal disagreements are disagreements that arise out of the
misunderstanding of the meanings of our linguistic expressions; and they are properly
resolved by clarifying meanings of the misunderstood linguistic expressions.
Disagreements in belief and attitude are considered genuine or real disagreements,
while the merely verbal ones are not. This is so because, strictly speaking, there are no
disagreements in the merely verbal disagreements; it is just thought that there are. As
such, merely verbal disagreements are needless and a waste of time and energy.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
19
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Student Worksheet 4

Name: Date :

Strand/Grade&Sec: Score:

Directions: Supply relevant information on the topics below. (Choose 1 only). Prepare 2
paragraphs essay for each topic. Make sure that you include your resources and you
have read the article thoroughly. Be resourceful in order to complete this task. Paste it
below.
1. Covid 2019
2. Death Penalty
3. Anti-terror Bill
4. BARMM election postponement

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
20
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Lesson 5: Reasoning and Fallacies

At the end of the lesson, the learner should be able to:

1. Explain the nature of reasoning as a method for establishing or justifying truth.
2. Distinguish between premises and conclusion.
3. Distinguish between inductive and deductive forms of reasoning.
4. Distinguish between valid, invalid, sound, and unsound deductive arguments.
5. Distinguish between weak, strong, cogent, and uncogent inductive arguments.
6. Distinguish between formal and informal fallacies
7. Identify the different informal fallacies and explain how they are committed.

Pre-assessment
Based on your point of view explain the following questions.
1. What is reasoning?
2. Why is it important to reason out every time we express our ideas?
3. How can you justify/establish truth?

Lesson Proper

A. Types of Reasoning

From truths that we already know there is a way or process by which we can know
(derive, infer, or generate) new truths. This process enables us to justify or prove the
truth of a statement or belief on the basis of the truth of another statement or belief. For
instance, knowing that the statements “ All Carabaos are mammals” and “all mammals
have mammary glands “ are both true, we will also know, on the basis of the truth of
these two statements, that the statement “all Carabaos have mammary glands” is true.
What justifies or proves the truth of the third statement is the truth of the first two
statements.

This process is called reasoning or inference, whose end-result is called an

argument. For our purposes, we shall, however, use the terms “reasoning” and
“argument” interchangeably. Since arguments concern truth, an argument can only
consist of statements (or beliefs – but for this lesson we shall only refer to statements). A
mere collection of statements, however, will not form an argument. For instance, the
statements “The table is brown,” do not form an argument. To from an argument, the
statements should be related in a certain way, in which there is a part that functions as a
premise and a part that functions as a conclusion. The premise (or set of premises)

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
21
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

provides a justification for the conclusion; while the conclusion is what follows from or is
proven by the premise.

All carabaos are mammals.

All mammals have mammary glands.
Therefore, all carabaos have mammary glands.

The fundamental goal of reasoning is to prove the truth of the conclusion by means
of the truth of its premises. An argument is thus correct or incorrect based on whether
this goal is achieved or not. If the truth of the premises does prove the truth of the
conclusion, the argument is correct; if it does not, the argument is incorrect. Now the
truth of the conclusion can either be certain (or necessary), meaning, we are sure about
its truth for there is no possibility that it is false; merely probable, meaning, it is likely to
be true but there is possibility that is false. This consideration has given rise to
distinction between two general types of reasoning, namely, the inductive and deductive
types of reasoning.

In a deductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed to prove that the
truth of the conclusion is certain. A deductive argument is consequently either valid or
invalid. It is valid if the truth of the premises really (or successfully) proves that the truth
of the conclusion is certain: while it is invalid if it does not do so (or fails to do so). For
example, for the valid deductive argument form, we can have the following argument:

“If the rain falls, then the ground is wet.

The rain falls.
Therefore, the ground is wet. “

For example, for the invalid deductive argument form we can say the following
argument:

“If the rain falls, then the ground is wet.

The ground is wet.
Therefore, the rain falls.”

A deductive argument, however, is also either sound or unsound. And here the
content of a deductive argument makes a difference. A sound deductive argument is a
deductive that is valid and that contains premises that are all true; while an unsound
deductive argument is a deductive argument that is valid and that contains at least one
premise that is false. For example, for valid deductive argument form, we can have the
following sound deductive argument form, we can have the following sound deductive
argument:

“If German shepherds are dogs, then German shepherds are animals.
German shepherds are dog.
Therefore, German shepherds are animals.”

For the same valid deductive argument, we can have the following unsound
deductive argument:

“If elephants are birds, then elephants can fly.

Elephants are birds.
Therefore, elephants can fly.”

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
22
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

On the other hand, in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises is supposed
to prove that the truth of the conclusions is probable. An inductive argument is
consequently either strong or weak. It is strong if the truth of its premises really (or
successfully) proves that the truth of its conclusion is probable: It is weak if it does not
do so. When do we say that an inductive argument is strong or weak? In general, if the
probability for the conclusion to be true is above 50%, the inductive argument is
considered strong; but if it is 50% or less, the inductive argument is considered weak.
Some fallacies (errors in reasoning) are actually cases of weak inductive reasoning. Let
us now have some examples for inductive arguments. For the strong inductive
arguments, we can have one cogent and one uncogent inductive argument. An example
of a cogent inductive argument (a strong inductive argument in which all the premises
are true) is as follows: “Most Filipino boys like to play basketball. Mario is a Filipino boy.
Therefore, Mario likes to play basketball.” An example of an uncogent inductive
argument (a strong inductive in which at least one premises is false) is as follows: “Most
Filipino boys like to play basketball. Justin Bieber is a Filipino boy. Therefore, Justin
Bieber likes to play basketball.”

B. Some Common Fallacies

Fallacies are errors or mistakes in reasoning. Fallacies are of two kinds: the formal
and the informal. Formal fallacies are errors in reasoning due solely to an incorrect form
or structure of an argument. Formal fallacies thus correspond to the invalid deductive
arguments. On the other hand, informal fallacies, also known as material fallacies, are
errors in reasoning due solely to an anomaly or defect in the content (or in the meaning
of the words or sentences) of an argument. The informal fallacies are usually
psychologically persuasive and that is why they are the ones commonly committed.

The informal fallacies can be grouped into three. First are the fallacies of ambiguity
referring to the fallacies in which the error in reasoning is brought about by the
occurrence of ambiguous terms whose meanings are confused in an argument. Second
are the fallacies of relevance, referring to fallacies in which the error in reasoning is
brought by the irrelevance of the premise or premises to the conclusion of an argument.
And third are the fallacies of presumption, referring to fallacies in which the error in
reasoning is brought about by the occurrence of complex or loaded expressions whose
assumptions are questionable or have not yet been proved to be true.

Fallacies of Ambiguity:

1.) The fallacy of equivocation is committed when several meanings of a word or

phrase become confused in the context of one argument.
Example: “All laws should be respected and obeyed. The law of gravity is a law.
Therefore, the law of gravity should be respected and obeyed.”

2.) The fallacy of composition is committed when one reasons from the qualities of the
parts of a whole to the qualities of the whole itself.
Example: “Every part of this machine is light in weight. Therefore, the whole
machine is light in weight.

3.) The fallacy of division, which is the reverse of composition. It is committed when
one reasons from the qualities of a whole to the qualities of the parts of the whole.
Example: “Filipino cultural minorities are disappearing. Juan is a Filipino cultural
minority. Therefore, Juan is disappearing.”

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
23
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Fallacies of Relevance:

1.) The fallacy of argument form ignorance is committed when it is argued that a
proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is
false because it has not proven true.
For example: “Mental Telepathy must be accepted as a fact; for nobody has
proven that it is impossible.”

2.) The fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority is committed when one appeals to
an authority whose field of expertise does not include the nature of the conclusion
being established.
Example: “We should vote for this candidate for he is endorsed by our favourite
basketball player.”

3.) The fallacy of appeal to the person is committed when one evaluates an argument
by means of citing something about the person who asserts the said argument.
Example: “She cannot be a good president for she comes from a broken family.”

4.) The fallacy of appeal to pity is committed when one appeals to pity to cause the
acceptance of a conclusion.
Example: “This man certainly deserves a promotion, for he can hardly feed his
starving family.”

5.) The fallacy of appeal to popular will is committed when one appeals to general,
common, popular, or stereotypical prejudices or beliefs to cause the acceptance of
some conclusion.
Example: “We should drink this brand of beer, for it is the regular drink of
successful men after a hard day’s work.”

6.) The fallacy of appeal to force is committed when one appeals to force, often with
subtlety, to cause the acceptance of a conclusion.
Example: “It is your duty to pledge allegiance to this constitution, for otherwise
rebellion charges will be filed against you.”

Fallacies of Presumption:

1.) The fallacy of complex question is committed when one asks a question that
contains unproved assumptions.
Example: “A lawyer who wants to establish that person A is beating his child asks
this question: Have you stopped beating your child?”

2.) The fallacy of false cause is committed when one attributes a wrong cause to
something, which is often due to mere temporal succession of two events.
Example: “Edgar Allan Poe’s literary genius must have been caused by drinking
liquor, for it is said that before he would write he would first drink some liquor.”

3.) The fallacy of begging the question is committed when reasoning is circular in that
the conclusion is already assumed in the premises.
Example: “The soul is immortal, for it never dies.”

4.) The fallacy of accident is committed when one applies a general rule to individual
cases, which, because of their special or accidental nature, the general rule does
not properly apply.

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
24
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Example: “Running is good for the heart. Therefore, running will be good for Pedro
who is suffering from a heart disease.

5.) The fallacy of hasty generalization (or converse accident) is committed when one
makes a generalization from a special or accidental case, or simply from
insufficient number of cases. Converse accident is a case of weak inductive
reasoning.
Example: “While running, Mario had a heart attack. Therefore, running is bad for
the heart.

Student Worksheet 5

Name: Date :

Strand/Grade&Sec: Score:

Directions: Have 2 samples of fallacies found in newspapers/magazines, T.V., internet

containing informal fallacies. Clip, cut or take a photo of it then paste it below. Explain
why they are instances of certain kinds of informal fallacies. All explanations will only be
limited to three (3) sentences maximum.

Fallacy 1: _________________________________

Photo

Explanation:

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
25
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION
 MODULE 2
1 QUARTER
st

Fallacy 2: ___________________________________

Photo

Explanation:

INTRODUCTION TO THE PHLOSOPHY OF THE HUMAN

PERSON
GRADE 12 – SHS MODULE
26
IBN SIENA INTEGRATED SCHOOL FOUNDATION