Part 20 (1/2)
B. Argument from effect to effect.
1. Do the combined tests of argument from effect to cause and from cause to effect hold?
V. Example.
A. Is there any fundamental difference between the case in hand and the case cited as an example?
FALLACIES.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. The preceding part of this chapter has already suggested tests that will expose many such faults, but there are a few errors which, because of their frequency or their inadaptability to other cla.s.sification, demand separate treatment.
This book follows the plan of most other texts on argumentation, and treats these errors under a separate head marked fallacies. To detect a fallacy in another's argument is to weaken, if not to destroy, his case; to avoid making a fallacy in one's own argument means escape from humiliation and defeat. Hence, a knowledge of fallacies is one of the most essential parts of a debater's equipment.
The cla.s.sification given here does not pretend to be exhaustive; it does, however, consider the most common and insidious breaches of reasoning that are likely to occur, and the following pages should be studied with great care.
I. BEGGING THE QUESTION. (PEt.i.tIO PRINCIPII.)
1. MERE a.s.sUMPTION. Begging the question means a.s.suming the truth of that which needs proof. This fallacy is found in its simplest form in epithets and appellations. The lawyer who speaks of ”the criminal on trial for his life,” begs the question in that he a.s.sumes the prisoner to be a criminal before the court has rendered a verdict. Those writers who have recently discussed ”the brutal game of football”
without having first adduced a particle of proof to show that the game is brutal, fall into the same error. An unpardonable instance of question-begging lies in the following introduction, once given by a debater who was attacking the proposition, ”_Resolved_, That the federal government should own and operate the railroads in the United States”:--
”We of the negative will show that the efficient and highly beneficial system of private owners.h.i.+p should be maintained, and that the impracticable system of government owners.h.i.+p can never succeed in the United States or in any similarly governed country.”
Private owners.h.i.+p and government owners.h.i.+p may possess these qualities attributed to them, but the debater has no right to make such an a.s.sumption; he must _prove_ that they have these qualities.
2. a.s.sUMPTION USED AS PROOF. Such barefaced a.s.sumptions as the preceding usually do little damage except to the one who makes them.
They are not likely to lead astray an audience of average intelligence; on the other hand, they do stamp the arguer as prejudiced and illogical. But when a.s.sumptions are used as proof, hidden in the midst of quant.i.ties of other material, they may produce an unwarranted effect upon one who is not a clear thinker, or who is off his guard. If, without showing that football is brutal, one calls it an extremely brutal game, and then urges its abolishment on the ground of its brutality, he has used an a.s.sumption as proof, and has, therefore, begged the question. The debater who stated, without proving, that vast numbers of unskilled laborers were needed in the United States, and then urged this as a reason why no educational test should be applied to immigrants coming to this country, furnished an example of the same fallacy.
3. UNWARRANTED a.s.sUMPTION OF THE TRUTH OF A SUPPRESSED PREMISE. The student is already familiar with the enthymeme. The enthymeme const.i.tutes a valid form of reasoning only when the suppressed premise is recognized as true. Therefore, whenever an arguer makes use of the enthymeme without attempting to establish a suppressed premise whose truth is not admitted, he has argued fallaciously. This is a third method of begging the question. To ill.u.s.trate: In advocating the abolishment of football from the list of college athletic sports, one might reason, ”Football should be abolished because it obviously exposes a player to possible injury.” The suppressed premise in this case would be: All sports which expose a player to possible injury should be abolished. Failure to prove the truth of this unadmitted statement const.i.tutes the fallacy.
4. a.s.sUMPTION EQUIVALENT TO THE PROPOSITION TO BE PROVED. It is not surprising that a man carried away with excitement or prejudice should make a.s.sumptions that he does not even try to substantiate, but that anyone should a.s.sume the truth of the very conclusion that he has set out to establish seems incredible. Such a form of begging the question, however, does frequently occur. Sometimes the fallacy is so hidden in a ma.s.s of ill.u.s.tration and rhetorical embellishment that at first it is not apparent; but stripped of its verbal finery, it stands out very plainly. The following pa.s.sage written on the affirmative side of the proposition, ”_Resolved_, That the college course should be shortened to three years,” will serve as a particularly flagrant ill.u.s.tration:--
It is a well-known fact that in the world of to-day time is an essential factor in the race for success. No young man can afford to dawdle for four long years in acquiring a so-called ”higher”
education. Three-fourths of that time is, if anything, more than sufficient in which to attain all the graces and culture that the progressive man needs.
It is evident that the ”argument” in this case consists of nothing more than a repet.i.tion of the proposition.
5. ARGUING IN A CIRCLE. Another phase of begging the question consists of using an a.s.sumption as proof of a proposition and of then quoting the proposition as proof of the a.s.sumption. Two a.s.sertions are made, neither of which is substantiated by any real proof, but each of which is used to prove the other. This fallacy probably occurs most frequently in conversation. Consider the following :--
A. ”The proposed system of taxation is an excellent one.”
B. ”What makes you think so?”
A. ”Because it will be adopted by the legislature.”
B. ”How do you know it will?”
A. ”Because it is a good system and our legislators are men of sense.”
This fallacy occurs when one proves the authority of the church from the testimony of the scriptures, and then establishes the authenticity of the scriptures by the testimony of the church. A similar fallacy has been pointed out in the works of Plato. In _Phaedo_, he demonstrates the immortality of the soul from its simplicity, and in the _Republic_, he demonstrates the simplicity of the soul from its immortality. The following fragment of a brief argues in a circle:--