Logical Fallacies

This is the text of an article that I wrote on August 2, 1990
and a few weeks later had published in the [out of print]
magazine 'Socialist Republic', then the periodical of the
Industrial Union Party. The title of the article as originally
published was 'Logical Fallacies.' The version below is
my first draft, prior to the editor's 'improvements.'
--
Mike Lepore
29 Redmond Way
Stanfordville, NY 12581 USA
deleonism.org
__________________________________________________________

"You want socialism? But the experts say it wouldn't work! Besides, it would infringe on the rights of the rich! Why don't you go live in Russia?"

Does that sound familiar?

When you wish to refute someone else's argument, first ask yourself whether you think they are wrong about reported facts, or wrong in their thinking process. If facts, such as unemployment statistics, are the issue, an almanac or newspaper may give you the ammunition you need. But how can you refute someone's illogical thought process?

To do this, you may need to tell them exactly what sort of logical fallacy is causing them to stumble.

Think about the many ways in which people who are perfectly sane may reason incorrectly. We all do it subconsciously. After all, nobody's perfect. But laywers, politicians, lobbyists and employers use fallacies intentionally, to direct the thinking of others. No defense of class-divided society is possible without a resort to these tricks.

AMBIGUITY

There is a system of classifying fallacies, which helps us to recognize them. Let's look first at fallacies of ambiguity. These are all the errors caused by unclearly expressed meaning. We may consider two types of ambiguity:

1. EQUIVOCATION

This is confusion due to the fact that words are used differently in different circumstances, or by different people. For example, "Animals are kept in a pen. But a pen is also an instrument used for writing. Therefore, animals are kept in a writing instrument."

This is the sort of error we make whenever we assume that two things are the same merely because someone has applied the same name to them. I'm sure you have heard this version: "The Soviet bureaucrats call their regime 'socialism.' The writer of this article also calls his goal 'socialism.' Therefore, if the goal of this writer were achieved, it would be similar to the Soviet system."

Of course, this reasoning is false. We can easily identify the type of error made here as equivocation, but supporters of capitalism resort to it constantly.

2. COMPOSITION AND DIVISION

This is where we assume that a property of a part must be a property of the whole (the fallacy of composition) or vice versa (the fallacy of division). An example of composition would be, "The parts of a particular machine are small, therefore the machine must be small." For an example of division, "Tigers are disappearing. This animal is a tiger; therefore, this animal is disappearing."

We make this sort of error quite frequently in the analysis of society. We have often heard this composition: "According to the capitalist idea of individualism, each person seeks only personal gain. If everyone does this, the system works in the best interest of all the people."

Such logic is faulty. It neglects the fact that a whole is a particular arrangement or structure of its parts, not merely the collection of the parts.

RELEVANCE

In addition to the group of ambiguous fallacies, there is another major group - fallacies of relevance. In these cases, an argument, intended to prove a point, doesn't prove it at all. The argument is irrelevant. (Most fallacies of relevance are also known by Latin names.)

1. THE APPEAL TO FORCE (Argumentum ad baculum)

This is the claim that "might makes right." An individual to takes this approach seems very childish. "It's my turn to decide what to watch on TV. Why is it my turn? Because I own the TV!"

This is how every class-divided society makes use of this fallacy: "The ruling class has the moral right to enjoy all sorts of economic and political privilege. What gives it the right? The fact that it controls the army, the police, the legislature and the courts."

2. ARGUMENT DIRECTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL (Argumentum ad hominem)

This has two cases:

The abusive case -- an attempt to discredit an idea by criticizing the individuals who propose it. For example: "The economic system proposed by the socialists is unworkable. Why? Just look at them! Some of them have hot tempers. Some of them need haircuts. What a bunch!"

The circumstantial case -- an attempt to discredit an idea by citing the circumstances of individuals who propose it. "I'll tell you why socialism is impractical. Even while you speak in favor of socialism, you are driving this capitalist-made car!"

3. ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)

This is where people act as though they know something, precisely because they don't know. For example, "Ghosts must exist, because you can't prove that they don't exist."

Opponents of socialism resort to this fallacy when they say, "Self-management by the workers can't possibly be established. Why? Because it hasn't been tried yet."

4. APPEAL TO PITY (argumentum ad miseracordiam)

Pity and compassion are wonderful, but sometimes they are irrelevant when brought up in an argument. No defense lawyer could get away with, "My client must be innocent! Look at those big brown eyes!" However, apologists for capitalism are often allowed to get away with this - "It would be cruel to take away the privileges of the ruling class. Suppose you were wealthy and never had to work, but then a lot of revolutionaries ruined everything for you. You would have to go to work, like everyone else. You wouldn't like that, would you?"

The appeal to pity usually omits a relevant fact. It this case, it is the fact that pampering the whims of the richest one percent of the population cannot possibly be a greater goal than securing the survival and health of the other 99 percent.

5. APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE (Argumentum ad populum)

This is the claim that being part of a larger group makes one right. "Don't miss out"; "Do the 'cool' thing"; "Everyone's doing it"; etc.

Here's how defenders of capitalism use this gimmick: "The economic theory of these socialists cannot be reasonable. Just look at the small size of their membership!"

6. ARGUMENT BY AUTHORITY (Argumentum ad verecundiam)

If you have a question about the planets, it makes sense to ask an astronomer. However, in many cases, the credentials of a supposed expert tell us nothing about the validity of an idea. Advertisers frequently ask us to believe that a particular brand of soap is superior because some movie star endorses it.

Here's how this trick is used in social matters: "What could you possibly know about economics? You're just a truck driver. But that fellow featured in the news headlines must be a real expert in economics. He was born into a wealthy family, and has inherited an oil refinery!"

7. THE FALLACY OF ACCIDENT

This is where we state that a principle is true "in general", and then apply it to inappropriate cases. Prohibition is often cited as an example: "We want to encourage healthy behavior. Therefore, anyone who has a drink of beer should be thrown into prison."

The fallacy of accident allows capitalists to disguise industrial facilities as their "personal belongings." The argument goes like this: "You wouldn't want someone to steal your wedding ring, would you? So you cherish the institution of private property! Therefore, it would be terribly wrong for society as a whole to assume ownership of the railroads, factories and mines."

They are conveniently ignoring the fact that your personal belongings are important to nobody but you, while the industries are needed for the survival of the entire population.

8. BEGGING THE QUESTION (Petitio principii)

This is circular reasoning. The very thing you're trying to prove is assumed to be true, so, naturally, you arrive at the conclusion you want. This is probably the most often cited example: "The book must contain the truth because it is the word of the Creator. How do we know it is the word of the Creator? Because it says so in the book."

Use of circular reasoning by the ruling class is very subtle. It is based on the gradual formation of an idea of what is "normal" in each of us. The class-divided system is defined as the norm, and then, inevitably, the system is defended as being normal. It goes like this - "Why do you socialists complain that the capitalists keep most of the wealth? They have a right to keep it, because they are the bosses. What makes the members of that social class the bosses? The fact that they own most of the wealth!"

9. FALSE CAUSE

This is the assumption that one thing is the cause of another merely because it precedes it in time. For example: "The birds begin to sing before sunrise. Therefore, the appearance of the sun must have been caused by the singing of the birds."

Capitalism makes use of this fallacy in ways that are disguised by the complexity of the system. Unemployed workers very much want access to the tools of production, which may be sitting idle under lock and key. Only after the capitalists give their consent, and sign certain contracts, will the system permit the workers to be productive. Pointing to this chronological sequence, the faithful ones proclaim, "Thank the employers for all the blessings of life! They made industrial production possible!"

**********

We can't list all of the phony arguments which have been given in defense of injustice, by emperors, kings, slave-owners -- and now capitalists. The classifications discussed here are sufficient to expose much of their trickery.

Sincere individuals also use fallacies, when we are emotional, distracted or tired. When we socialists review our own speech and writing to eliminate these pitfalls, we are making sure that our program deserves to be studied by the working class, and making that study more probable.

For example, we may quote Marx because his concise phrases are very expressive, as long as we argue our case by raising relevant points. However, if we were to quote Marx because he was "brilliant", then a critic could show that we are engaging in the fallacy of argument by authority, and the socialist movement would be harmed.

The revolutionary labor movement cannot win through advertising, peer pressure or other persuasive methods which the conservative forces use. The only channel available to us is effective debate at every opportunity. It is going to take some discipline on our part, but we have to improve our preparation, so that our communications will work effectively.

_____________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic; New York: Macmillan, 1972