Archives for April 13, 2022

Also Known as: Appeal to the New, Newer is Better, Novelty

Description:

Appeal to Novelty is a fallacy that occurs when it is inferred that something is better or correct because it is new. This sort of reasoning has the following form:

 

Premise 1: X is new(er).

Conclusion: Therefore, X is correct or better.

 

This is fallacious because the novelty or newness of something does not make it correct or better than something older. That this is true is shown by this absurd example: Joe has proposed that 1+1 should now be equal to 3. When asked why people should accept this, he says that he just came up with the idea. Since it is newer than the idea that 1+1=2, it must be better.

This sort of reasoning is appealing for many reasons. First, many cultures include the belief that new things must be better than old things. Second, the notion of progress (which seems to have come, in part, from the notion of evolution) appears to imply that newer things will be superior to older things. Third, advertising often sends the message that newer must be better. Because of these three factors (and others) people often accept that a new thing (idea, product, concept, etc.) must be better because it is new. Hence, Novelty is a common fallacy, especially in advertising.

It should not be assumed that old things must be better than new things (see the fallacy Appeal to Tradition) any more than it should be assumed that new things are better than old things. The age of a thing does not, in general, have any bearing on its quality or correctness (in this context).

Obviously, age does have a bearing in some contexts. For example, if a person concluded that his day-old milk was better than his two-month-old milk, he would not be committing an Appeal to Novelty. This is because in such cases the newness of the thing is relevant to its quality. Thus, the fallacy is committed only when the newness is not, in and of itself, relevant to the claim. While it might be tempting to think that this fallacy would not occur when it comes to something like technological products, it can still occur. While newer technology can be better, it would be better for reasons other than simply being new.

 

Defense: The defense is to keep in mind that in most cases the newness of a thing has no bearing on it being true or correct. While something new can be better, more is needed than simply how new it is. This fallacy can be self-inflicted, although it is often used against others.

 

Example #1:

The Sadisike 900 pump-up glow shoe. It’s better because it’s new.

 

Example #2:

James: “So, what is this new plan?”

Biff: “Well, the latest thing in marketing techniques is the GK method. It is the latest thing out of the think tank. It is so new that the ink on the reports is still drying.”

James: “Well, our old marketing method has been quite effective. I don’t like the idea of jumping to a new method without a good reason.”

Biff: “Well, we know that we must stay on the cutting edge. That means new ideas and new techniques must be used. The GK method is new, so it will do better than that old, dusty method.”

 

 

Example #3:

Prof: “So you can see that a new and better morality is sweeping the nation. No longer are people with alternative lifestyles ashamed. No longer are people caught up in the outmoded moralities of the past.”

Student: “Well, what about the ideas of the great thinkers of the past? Don’t they have some valid points?”

Prof: “A good question. The answer is that they had some valid points in their own, barbaric times. But those are old, moldy moralities from a time long gone. Now is a time for new moralities. Progress and all that, you know.”

Student: “So would you say that the new moralities are better because they are newer?”

Prof: “Exactly. Just as the dinosaurs died off to make way for new animals, the old ideas must give way for the new ones. And just as humans are better than dinosaurs, the new ideas are better than the old. So newer is literally better.”

Student: “I see.”

Also Known As: Guilt trip

An appeal to guilt is a fallacy in which a person substitutes something intended to create guilt for evidence. The form of the reasoning  is as follows:

 

Premise 1: G is presented, with the intent to create a feeling of guilt in person P.

Conclusion:  Therefore, claim C is true.

 

This is fallacious because a feeling of guilt is not evidence for a claim.  The emotion of guilt, like all emotions, is not itself fallacious. However, to accept a claim as true based on the “evidence” of feeling guilt would be an error.

This fallacy is often used to get a person to do something (to accept a claim that they should do something as being true) by trying to invoke a feeling of guilt. While it can be appropriate to feel guilt when one has done something wrong, the fact that a person has been caused to feel guilty does not show that the person should feel guilty.  The question of when a person should or should not feel guilt is a matter for ethics rather than logic, which takes it beyond the scope of this book.

There are cases in which claims that logically serve as evidence can also cause a feeling of guilt.  In these cases, the feeling of guilt is still not evidence. The following shows a situation in which a person should probably feel guilty but in which there is also evidence for the claim being made:

 

Jane: “You really should help Sally move.”

Hilda: “Moving is a drag. Besides, the game is on then.”

Jane: “Sally helped you move. In fact, she spent all day helping you because no one else would.”

Hilda: “Are you trying to guilt me into helping her?”

Jane: “Yeah, a bit. But you owe her. She helped you move, and you really should feel bad if you don’t lend her a hand.”

Hilda: “She’ll be fine. A lot of her friends are helping her out.”

Jane: “And they are helping her because she helped them. That is what friends do. If you value her friendship, then you should go with me.”

The above example is not fallacious. While Jane does hope Hilda will feel guilt and be motivated to help Sally, the fact that Sally helped Hilda does provide a reason why Hilda should help her. While it could be argued that helping people does not create a debt, this would be a matter for ethical debate rather than proof Jane has made a logical error.

 

Defense: While being incapable of feeling guilt would provide a perfect defense against this fallacy, the better option is to be on guard against attempts to misuse guilt to persuade you to accept claims. For people who have a conscience, care should be taken to not overcorrect. This is because, on some moral theories, there are occasions when guilt should be felt.

 

Example #1

Child: “I’m full.”

Parent: “You need to finish all your food. There are children starving in Africa.”

Child: “But broccoli is awful!”

Parent: “Those kids in Africa would love to have even a single piece of broccoli. Shame on you for not eating it.”

Child: “Okay, I’ll send them this broccoli!”

Parent: “No, you’ll eat it.”

Child: “But how does that help the starving kids?”

Parent: “Finish the broccoli!”

 

Example #2

Eric: “I need an iPad!”

Mother: “Don’t you already have one?”

Eric: “That was the old iPad. I need a new iPad.”

Mother: “You barely use the iPad you have now.”

Eric: “If you love me, you’ll get me one!”

Mother: “I don’t think you need a new one now.”

Eric: “How can you treat me like this? What sort of mother would let her son go to school without the latest iPad? You hate me!”

Mother: “Okay, I’ll get you one.”

Eric: “I need a new iPhone, too.”

Mother: “I just bought you one!”

Eric: “The new one is a different color. That changes everything.”

Mother: “Fine.”

 

Example #3

Bill: “You’re late. I planned dinner for when you were supposed to get home, so yours is cold now.”

Kelly: “I’m sorry. The meeting ran a little longer than I expected. But the boss had good news for me—I got a raise!”

Bill: “Oh sure, show up late for dinner and throw a raise in my face, now that I’m not working!”

Kelly: “I didn’t throw it in your face, I just…”

Bill: “You’re robbing me of my manhood!”

Kelly: “I’m sorry!”

Bill: “Well, you can make it up to me by buying me a motorcycle.”

Kelly: “Okay. I’m sorry about dinner and getting a raise.”

Bill: “That’s okay. You can use the raise to get me a really good motorcycle.”

Also Known As: Group Think fallacy

Description:

This fallacy occurs when an appeal to a person’s identification with a group is offered as a substitute for evidence. It has the following form:

 

Premise 1: An appeal is made to a person’s identification with group G.

Conclusion: Therefore, claim C is true.

 

While the type of appeal varies, it most often appeals to the pride the group member feels about being in the group.  While feeling pride and identifying with a group are not fallacious, to accept a claim based on group pride or identity is an error. This is because feelings of pride and a feeling of group identity are not evidence for a claim. A person can make this appeal to others or can make such an appeal to themselves.

This fallacy can be used with any sort of group identity, such as political groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, and so on. One variant makes use of nationalism (pride in one’s country) when attempting to get people to accept a claim (or reject a claim). Since a person can convince themselves that a claim is true (or false) based on their feeling of group identity or pride, this fallacy can be self-inflicted.

That group identity does not serve as proof is easily shown by the following example: “I am proud of being a Flat-Earther, therefore the earth is flat.”

This fallacy might seem like Peer Pressure, Appeal to Belief, and Common Practice. However, the logical errors made are different in each fallacy. While the Peer Pressure fallacy does involve a group, the mistake being made is that a claim is accepted based on fear of rejection by the group rather than because of pride in that group. In the case of Appeal to Belief, the error is accepting a claim because many believe it. Common Practice, as the name indicates, involves accepting that a practice is correct/good because it is common, rather than because one identifies with a group that engages in that practice. People can commit multiple fallacies, so someone might Appeal to Group Identity while also Appealing to Belief and to Common Practice.

Some might be tempted to think that this fallacy shows that people identifying as a member of a group they dislike are making an error. This is not the case; the mistake is not identifying with a group but taking that identity as evidence for a claim.

 

Defense: If the fallacy is being used against you, the defense is to recognize that no reasons are being offered. Instead, there is an attempt to appeal to your group identity to persuade you to accept a claim. Defending against inflicting this fallacy on yourself can be more difficult. Ceasing to identify with groups is not a requirement for the defense but being critical about this identification is.  If a matter is important, you should ask whether you accept a belief based on reasons or merely because of group identity.

 

Example #1

“Your blog post is truly awful. Your criticism of America’s Middle East policy shows that you are not a real American. Me, I love America and I am proud to be an American. Since you obviously do not love America or have any pride in her greatness, you should pack up and move to Iran. I think this takes care of your criticisms and reveals the falsehoods you are spreading.”

 

Example #2

Fred: “America is responsible for global warming.”

Sally: “Well, we do contribute more than our fair share to the problem.”

Fred: “No, it is not just that Americans contribute more. American corporations and the American politicians set the world agenda and thus America is to blame for global warming.”

Sally: “That seems a bit much. Surely other nations contribute as well. Look at China, for example. China is hardly an American puppet, and they are cranking out cars and coal plants.”

Fred: “You just don’t get it. America is the cause of the world’s problems.”

Sally: “Wait; are you one of those ‘blame America first’ people?”

Fred: “That phrase is loaded, but I am proud to be on the left. We are the vanguard against America’s misdeeds and will make the world a better place. I know we are right because I can feel it in my heart.”

Sally: “So, you know you are right because you are proud of your elite group?”

Fred: “Yes. Maybe someday you will join us.”

Sally: “Will I have to buy a Prius and an iPad?”

Fred: “Of course.”

 

Example #3

“Sure, there are people who criticize the government. But, as the guy said, ‘my country, wrong or right.’ So, those critics need to shut up and accept that they are wrong. Or maybe someone should shut them up with some Second Amendment remedies.”

 

Example #4

“I’ve seen a lot of debate about faith, but I know that my faith is the correct one. Every time that I think of my relationship with God and my fellow believers, my heart swells with pride at our true and pure faith. I cannot help but feel sorry for those who blindly refuse to accept what we thus know to be true, but perhaps they will realize the foolishness of their error before it is too late.”

 

Example #5

George: “Wow, that Mal Mart seems bad. Lawsuits from women and minorities and so on, that shows they have some real problems going on.”

Gerald: “You shut your Twinkie hole! I work at Mal Mart and I won’t listen to you say anything bad about us!”

George: “Easy, I’m not attacking you!”

Gerald: “When you attack Mal Mart, you attack me. Now admit you are wrong!”

George: “What, just because you work there and think you are part of the big Mal Mart family? That has nothing to do with me being right or wrong about the company.”

Gerald: “Shut up or I’ll lower your prices.”

George: “What?”

Also known as: Apple Polishing

Description:

An Appeal to Flattery is a fallacy of the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person A flatters person B.

Premise 2:  Person A makes claim X.

Conclusion: Therefore, X is true.

 

In this fallacy, flattery is presented in the place of evidence for a claim. This is fallacious because flattery is not evidence for a claim. To illustrate with an obviously absurd example: “Bill, that is a truly magnificent tie. By the way, I know that you’ll agree that 1+1=41.”

The claim the fallacy is intended to “support” is often that the target should take some action, such as giving the person some extra points on a paper or granting a favor.

People generally enjoy being flattered and effective use of this fallacy can have great psychological force. Too much praise, or the wrong sort of praise, can have the opposite of the intended effect. After all, one way to mock people is with excessive sarcastic praise.

Flattery by itself is not a fallacy, it is only when it is used as a substitute for evidence that the fallacy occurs. Praise, due or not, is also not a fallacy.

 

Defense: The defense against this fallacy is to be on guard against attempts to influence you to accept a claim through praise rather than evidence.

 

Example #1:

Might I say that this is the best philosophy class I’ve ever taken. By the way, about those two points I need to get an A…

 

Example #2:

That was a wonderful joke about AIDS boss, and I agree with you that the darn liberals are wrecking the country. Now about my raise…

 

Example #3:

That was a singularly brilliant idea. I have never seen such a clear and eloquent defense of Plato’s position. If you do not mind, I’ll base my paper on it. Provided that you allow me a little extra time past the deadline to work on it.