Online Reading: Fallacies of Language - Week #05

INTRODUCTION

This week you'll continue fine-tuning your ability to identify Fallacies of Language.  It's a good time to review our online reading. 

 

FALLACIES

An argument is a poor argument when it commits a fallacy.  A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning.  That's worth repeating.  An argument commits a fallacy when its reasoning contains a mistake or flaw.  As such, to call an argument fallacious is not to disagree with its conclusion.  That's important to stress, especially when considering controversial arguments.  Take the following examples.  Each argument is fallacious:

1. 1. 1. You haven't given any good reasons to believe in God; so God doesn't exist. 
      2. Lots of people believe in God; so God probably exists. 
      3. SRJC should require Covid-19 vaccinations; since it hasn't tried that yet. 
      4. It's okay for students to be unvaccinated; for it's not like they're making people sick on purpose. 

Each of the above arguments is fallacious.  However, to say #1 is fallacious is not to say I disagree with its conclusions (i.e., God doesn't exist).  Similarly, to say that #2 is fallacious is not to say I disagree with its conclusions (i.e., God probably exists).  To say that these arguments are fallacious is to say that their premises are flawed.  "You haven't given any good reasons to believe in God" doesn't address whether or not God exists.  To think it does is fallacious.  "Lots of people believe in God" doesn't address whether or not God exists.  To think it does is fallacious.  Similarly, #3 is fallacious because its premise doesn't address whether or not SRJC should require Covid-19 vaccinations; and #4 is fallacious because its premise doesn't address whether or not it's okay for students to be unvaccinated. 

 

TYPES OF FALLACIES

To call an argument fallacious is to recognize its flawed reasoning.  It is to note that a premise fails to address its conclusion.  There are different types of fallacies.  There are different ways that a premise can fail to address its conclusion.  During our semester, we will learn about Fallacies of Language, Fallacies of Relevance, and Fallacies of Evidence. 

 

FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE

A Fallacy of Language is a premise that fails to address its conclusion because the premise's meaning is problematic.   That is, its meaning gets in the way or prevents it from reliably addressing the conclusion.  Let's consider some examples. 

There are three general ways that a premise's meaning can be problematic.  It is can be Overgeneral, Vague, or Ambiguous. 

 

OVERGENERAL

Overgeneral language is clear.  That is, one can understand what it means.  But its meaning is too broad to address the conclusion.  Consider the following argument: 

Of course, the Gonzalez family got a Poodle; for we know they got a dog. 

A Poodle is a specific breed of dog.  But there are many breeds.  As such, knowing that they got a dog isn't a good reason to conclude that they got a Poodle.  If we know only that they got a dog, that information is too broad, too general, to conclude the specific breed that they got.  The problem is not that it's unclear what a dog is.  The problem is that this is too broad to establish that they got a Poodle.  It's Overgeneral. 

 

VAGUE

In contrast, vague language is unclear.  It is unclear because its meaning is open-ended.  One can not reliably say one knows what the language means.  There is no reliable meaning to the claim. Consider the following argument: 

Of course, the Gonzalez family got a Poodle; for I might have seen them walking a Poodle around the block.

A casual read could mistakenly lead you to believe that this person saw the Gonzalez family walking a Poodle around the block. However, the argument actually says this person might have seen that.  Did they see it or not?  Based on this premise, we can't say that they did or they didn't.  It's not clear. It's vague.  So is this similarly worded argument: 

Of course, Greg cheated on his math test; for I might have seen him looking at another student's answers.

Did this person see Greg look at another student's answers?  It's not clear.   I wouldn't conclude that Greg cheated based on this evidence; for its premise is vague. 

While language can simply be vague, there also are specific ways of being vague.  This semester we will be learning about four specific ways that language can be vague:

1. 1. 1. Weasel Words
      2. Vague Comparisons
      3. Hyperbole 
      4. Euphemism

 

WEASEL WORDS

A Weasel Word is a word or phrase that allows one to back out of a claim, to insist that one didn't actually claim it.  It allows one to "weasel out" of the claim.  Common weasel words include "might," "may," "could," and "try."  But people often come up with new and creative ways of expressing a weasel word.  For example: 

1. 1. 1. I'm pretty sure I got an A on this week's quiz; for I might have got every question right. 
      2. I'm pretty sure I got an A on this week's quiz; for I may have got every question right.
      3. I'm pretty sure I got an A on this week's quiz; for I could have got every question right.
      4. I'm pretty sure I got an A on this week's quiz; for I think I got every question right.
      5. I'm pretty sure I submitted the quiz on time; for I tried to do it before midnight. 
      6. I'm pretty sure I submitted the quiz on time; for I possibly did it before midnight. 
      7. I'm pretty sure I submitted the quiz on time; for I believe I did it before midnight.

 

VAGUE COMPARISON

A Vague Comparison occurs when a claim makes an open-ended comparison.  A key to identifying vague comparison is recognizing comparative terms.  For example:

1. 1. 1. Better 
      2. Faster
      3. Cheaper 
      4. More 
      5. Greater

Such terms are used to compare two or more things. A vague comparison occurs when a claim contains a comparative term without identifying what is being compared.  For example: 

1. 1. 1. You should get an iPhone; it's better. 
      2. You should buy a Tesla; it's faster. 
      3. You should get SlignTV; it's cheaper. 
      4. You shouldn't take Critical Thinker; it has more homework. 
      5. You should listen to The Beatles' Abbey Road; it's greater. 

Each of the above premises is vague.  They contain a comparative term without identifying what it's comparing.  Better than what?  Faster than what?  Cheaper than what?  More than what?  Greater than what? Each comparison is open-ended.  It's vague. It's a vague comparison. 

 

HYPERBOLE

Hyperbole stands for hype.  Hyperbole is strong language that is vague.  A key to identifying hyperbole is recognizing strong connotations. 

Sometimes a hyperbolic claim employs positive connotations. For example: 

You should go on a date with Denise; for she's out of this world.

Other times a hyperbolic claim employs negative connotations. For example: 

Chuck should go to prison; for he's an animal. 

In addition, sometimes hyperbolic language has a potential meaning, only it's not clear what it means in this context: 

I have to pass my Critical Thinking class; for, if I don't, I'll die. 

Other times, hyperbolic language is metaphorical or simply has no definitive meaning: 

I think I deserve to pass my Critical Thinking class; for I did outrageously on the practice examples. 

What all hyperbolic examples have in common is they employ strong language that's vague.

 

EUPHEMISM

Euphemism is the opposite of hyperbole.  Whereas hyperbole uses strong language, an euphemism contains mild language that's vague. Consider the following examples: 

1. 1. 1. I didn't cheat.  Think about it, I just fudged on the rules. 
      2. I didn't lie; since I just twisted the facts.
      3. I didn't steal money; I just borrowed it without asking. 
      4. I didn't have an affair.  After all, I only strayed from my marriage. 
      5. I didn't get fired.  For the company is just adjusting human resources.

In each of the above, the premise uses mild language that's vague.  Saying one "fudged on the rules" is milder than admitting you cheated, but it's not clear what the person did.  Admitting that one "twisted the facts" is milder than confessing one lied; but it's vague, too.  Acknowledging one borrowed money without asking is milder than saying one stole it, but it's not clear what it means.  Straying from one's marriage doesn't sound as bad as admitting one had an affair, but it's vague.  Lastly, adjusting human resources doesn't seem as bad as firing someone; but it, too, is vague. Each is an euphemism, mild language that's vague. 

 

AMBIGUOUS

In addition, to be Overgeneral and vague, language can be ambiguous. 

Ambiguous language is unclear because it has multiple, plausible meanings.  Imagine Fran has two friends named Liz.  There's Liz Gonzalez and Liz Fulton.  Given this info, imagine I share the following argument:

I'm pretty sure Liz Gonzalez got a Poodle; for I know Fran's friend, Liz got one.

The problem with this premise is that it's unclear.  But it's not vague.  The meaning isn't open-ended.  Rather, there are two plausible things that it could mean.  It could mean that Fran's friend, Liz Gonzalez, got a Poodle or Fran's friend, Liz Fulton, got a Poodle.  It's ambiguous. 

 

FALLACIES OF LANGUAGE

A fallacy of language is a premise that fails to address its issue because its meaning is problematic.  There are three general ways that a premise's meaning can be problematic.  It is can be Overgeneral, Vague, or Ambiguous.  Importantly, there are different ways a premise's meaning can be vague.  It can contain a weasel word, make a vague comparison, be hyperbolic, or contain a euphemism.  It also can simply be vague.  Beginning this week, you'll be fine-tuning your ability to recognize these different ways a premise can fail to address its conclusion.  These Fallacies of Language.