Archives for May 20, 2022

Also Known As: False Analogy, Fallacious Analogical Argument

Description:

This fallacy occurs when an analogical argument’s premises do not adequately support its conclusion. This is a fallacy of criteria rather than structure because a Weak Analogy and a strong argument by analogy will have the same logical form. As such, the fallacy occurs when an analogical argument fails to meet the conditions of a strong analogical argument. Analogical arguments are inductive arguments; so even a strong one with all true premises can still have a false conclusion. A related fallacy is Perfect Analogy. In this fallacy a person refuses to accept any analogy that is not perfect.

An analogical argument is an argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect because they are alike in other respects. An analogical argument will typically have three premises and a conclusion. The first two premises establish the analogy by showing that the things (X and Y) in question are similar in certain respects (properties P, Q, R, etc.).  The third premise establishes that X has an additional quality, Z. The conclusion asserts that Y has property or feature Z as well. Although people generally present analogical arguments in an informal manner, they have the following logical form:

 

Premise 1: X has properties P,Q, and R.

    Premise 2: Y has properties P,Q, and R.

Premise 3: X has property Z.

Conclusion: Y has property Z.

 

A more concise two premise version is also common:

 

Premise 1: X and Y have properties P,Q,R.

Premise 2: X has property Z.

Conclusion: Y has property Z.

 

X and Y are variables that stand for whatever is being compared, such as chimpanzees and humans or apples and oranges. P, Q, R, and are also variables, but they stand for properties or features that X and Y are known to possess, such as having a heart. Z is also a variable, and it stands for the property or feature that X is known to possess. The use of P, Q, and R is just for the sake of the illustration-the things being compared might have many more properties in common.

An example of a non-fallacious argument by analogy presented in strict form is as follows:

 

Premise 1: Rats are mammals and possess a nervous system that includes a developed brain.

Premise 2: Humans are mammals possess a nervous system that includes a developed brain.

Premise 3: When exposed to the neurotoxin being tested, 90% of the rats died.

Conclusion: If exposed to the neurotoxin, 90% of humans will die.

 

As noted above, False Analogy is not a structural fallacy but a fallacy of criteria. To determine if an analogical argument is strong or weak enough to be fallacious, you will need to apply the standards of assessment to the argument. There can be reasonable debate about the strength of an analogical argument, and you should not automatically assume that one you disagree with must be fallacious.

The strength of an analogical argument depends on three factors. To the degree that an analogical argument meets these standards it is a strong argument. To the degree that it does not meet them, it is weak. While these standards are objective, there is no exact line at which one can say for sure that an argument would become fallacious. Fortunately, no such exact line is needed (see the Line Drawing Fallacy under the False Dilemma). Here are the three criteria for assessing analogical arguments.

First, the more properties X and Y have in common, the stronger the argument. For example, in the example given above rats and humans have many properties in common. This standard is based on the commonsense notion that the more two things are alike in other ways, the more likely it is that they will be alike in some other way. It should be noted that even if the two things are very much alike in many respects, there is still the possibility that they are not alike regarding Z.

Second, the more relevant the shared properties are to property Z, the stronger the argument. A specific property, for example P, is relevant to property Z if the presence or absence of P affects the likelihood that Z will be present. Using the example, above, the shared properties are relevant. After all, since neurotoxins work on the nervous system, the presence of a nervous system makes it more likely that something will be killed by such agents. It should be kept in mind that it is possible for X and Y to share relevant properties while Y does not actually have property Z.

Third, it must be determined whether X and Y have relevant dissimilarities as well as similarities. The more dissimilarities and the more relevant they are, the weaker the argument. In the example above, humans and rats do have dissimilarities, but most of them are probably not particularly relevant to the effects of neurotoxins. However, it would be worth considering that the size difference might be relevant and thus a difference worth considering.

While it can be tempting to label any argument by analogy you think is weak as fallacious, this temptation should be resisted. While there is not an exact line that can be drawn, you should consider whether the argument is reasonable despite your disagreement or if it fails badly enough to warrant being considered fallacious reasoning.

As an example, the watchmaker argument from design is often presented as a Weak Analogy. Oversimplified, the reasoning is that because the world is analogous to a watch, it follows that because the watch was designed by an intelligent being, the same applies to the world. While this analogy has been ably criticized by David Hume and Charles Darwin, the debate appears to be a substantial one and not settled by asserting that the argument is a False Analogy. That said, it can also be argued that it is a False Analogy.

This fallacy can be committed in good faith by someone who believes that their analogy has meet the standards. It can also be committed in bad faith when the person using it believes that the analogy is weak but presents it as if they believe it is strong. For example, a person who agrees with vaccine choice but is anti-abortion might compare vaccine choice with abortion choice in a bad faith analogy aimed at persuading a pro-choice (abortion) person to accept the vaccine choice view. Or a pro-choice (abortion) person might use this tactic against a vaccine choice person. This tactic can be used in conjunction with False Agreement and False Allegiance.

As with any fallacy, the conclusion of a Weak Analogy could be true. The error is one of reasoning and not one of fact.

 

Defense: The main defense against committing or falling for this fallacy is to careful apply the three standards to the argument by analogy in question. Due care should be taken before accusing someone of committing this fallacy. While you might consider their analogy weak, saying that is fallacious implies that they have made an error of reasoning that is serious enough to be called a fallacy.

If someone is committing this fallacy in bad faith, it can be useful to determine this. While the fallacy is not committed because of the bad faith, exposing it can be useful in reducing the psychological force of the fallacy. For example, if someone who is pro-choice (abortion) makes a bad faith comparison between abortion choice and vaccine choice to convince a vaccine choice person to become pro-choice (abortion), revealing the bad faith could reduce the psychological appeal of the fallacy.

 

Example #1

“The flow of electricity through wires is like the flowing of water through pipes. Water flows faster downhill, so electricity does, too. This, by the way, is why electrical wires are run on poles. That way the electricity can flow quickly into your house.”

 

Example #2

Glenn: “Biden is going to do the same things to America that Hitler did to Germany!”

Bill: “What?”

Glenn: “Biden was democratically elected. So was Hitler. Do I need to bust out some chalk and draw it out for you?”

Bill: “Yes.”

Glenn: “I’m out of chalk.”

Bill: “Too bad.”

 

Example #3

Steve: “Those darn Republicans!”

Lena: “How have they hurt your liberal sensibilities this time?”

Steve: “They are saying that the health care plan is a big government takeover. They are making a big lie, just like Goebbels did. It is just like blood libel.”

Lena: “That seems to be a bit much.”

Steve: “Not at all. You know, that is how the Holocaust got started. With a big lie. The Republicans are going to cause a Holocaust because they are just like the Nazis!”

Lena: “That is quite a comparison.”

Steve: “I know!”

 

Example #4

Ted: “While I think ghosts are cool, I don’t believe they really exist.”

Sam: “Why not?”

Ted: “Well, I have never seen one.”

Sam: “Do you believe in atoms?”

Ted: “Yeah.”

Sam: “Well, you have never seen one of them. So you should believe in ghosts if you believe in atoms.”

 

Example #5

Ed: “So, you are for banning guns?”

Fiona: “Yes.”

Ed: “Even for the police?”

Fiona: “Especially for the police.”

Ed: “Why ban them?”

Fiona: “Guns make it so easy to kill. Banning guns would reduce deaths.”

Ed: “So we should also ban cars?”

Fiona: “What?”

Ed: “More people are killed by people with cars than by people with guns. So, if you think we should ban guns, then you must think we should ban cars.”

 

Example #5

Ed: “So, you are for banning abortion?”

Fiona: “Yes.”

Ed: “Why ban them?”

Fiona: “Abortion is killing. If we banned abortion, there would be fewer deaths.”

Ed: “So we should also ban cars, guns, war, and capital punishment?”

Fiona: “What?”

Ed: “If we banned them, there would be less death. So, if you against abortion you must be against guns, car, war, and capital punishment.”

Description:

This fallacy occurs when a person uncritically assumes that the cause of a perceived mistreatment (such as not being hired or receiving a poor grade) is due to prejudice (such as sexism or racism) on the part of the person or persons involved in the perceived mistreatment. The reasoning is as follows:

 

Premise 1: Person P claims they are being mistreated by person/group M.

Premise 2: P is in group G and believes G is subject to prejudice or P believes that M thinks they are a member of G.

Conclusion:  P’s mistreatment is the result of M’s prejudice against G.

 

This is a fallacy because merely being mistreated does not, by itself, prove that the mistreatment must be due to prejudice. This is because the mistreatment might have no connection to the alleged prejudice.

For example, suppose that Jane is taking a chemistry class and always comes to class late and is very disruptive about finding her seat. She spends the class on her phone, reacting loudly to whatever she sees. While she does earn a B in the class, the angry professor downgrades her to a C because of her behavior.  While Jane would be right to conclude that she has been mistreated, she would not be justified in concluding that she was downgraded “just because she is a woman” and the professor is a sexist. Without any evidence of sexism, this would be poor reasoning.

This mistake is reasoning is like the various causal fallacies. In these fallacies an uncritical leap is made from insufficient evidence to conclude that one thing caused another. In this case, a leap is being made without sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged mistreatment was caused by prejudice.

Reasonably concluding that an alleged mistreatment is the result of prejudice involves establishing that the mistreatment is, in fact, a mistreatment and a plausible explanation for the mistreatment is prejudice. Without taking these steps, the person is engaging in poor reasoning and is not justified in their conclusion. As with any fallacy, the conclusion might be true but this is because good reasoning is not just about getting a correct conclusion (this could be done accidentally by guessing) but by getting it in the right way.

If a person has reason to believe that the mistreatment is is a result of prejudice, then the reasoning would not be fallacious. For example, if Jane was aware that she earned a B and was intentionally assigned a C, she would be justified in believing she was mistreated. If the professor made sexist remarks throughout the course and Jane knew he downgraded other women in the class and none of the men, then Jane would be justified in concluding that the mistreatment stemmed from prejudice.

Not surprisingly, the main factor that leads people to commit this fallacy in good faith is because the group in question has been subject to prejudice. From a psychological standpoint, it makes sense for someone who knows about prejudices against their group to suspect mistreatment as arising from that prejudice. People can also have a sincere false belief that they are victims of prejudice. This might arise from their view of what counts as being mistreated. For example, a group might think that being restricted in their ability to freely harm other groups they dislike is a form of mistreatment. Such a false belief could result from a fallacy, but the Victim fallacy does not require that the person be mistaken in their claims.

When considering a perceived mistreatment, it is certainly reasonable to consider the possibility of prejudice. However, until there is adequate evidence it remains just that, a possibility.

In addition to cases in which the fallacy is committed as an honest mistake, there are cases in which this reasoning is exploited as an excuse or even used as revenge. As an example of an excuse, a person who has done poorly in a class because of a lack of effort might tell his parents that “the feminist professor has this thing against men.”

The fallacy is often used as a bad faith tool in politics. The tactic is for a person or group to claim, in bad faith, that they are victims and then accuse those who disagree with them or oppose them of mistreating them because of their alleged prejudices. The fallacy can be misused by accusing people who are mistreated because of their group membership of committing it. This can take the form of falsely accusing them of “playing the victim card” or similar thing.

In addition to the fact that this fallacy is a mistake in reasoning, there are other reasons to avoid it. First, uncritically assuming that other people must be acting from prejudice is itself a prejudice. For example, to uncritically assume that all whites must be racists is as racist as assuming that all Jewish people must be covetous, or all blacks must be criminals. Unfortunately, people do exploit this and assert, in bad faith, that accusing someone of prejudice proves that the person is prejudiced. See the You’re the Racist! Fallacy.

Second, use of this fallacy, especially as the “reasoning” behind an excuse can have serious consequences. For example, if a student who did poorly in a class because of a lack of effort concludes that his grade was the result of racism and tells his parents, they might consider a lawsuit against the professor. As another example, if a person becomes accustomed to being able to fall back on this line of “reasoning” they might be less motivated in their efforts since they can “explain” their failures through prejudice.

Third, exploiting this fallacy in bad faith makes it difficult to have a good faith discussion of mistreatment and prejudice (which is often the intention behind using it in this way).

It must be emphasized that it is not being claimed that prejudice does not really exist or that people are not victims of prejudice. It is being claimed that people need to be carefully in their reasoning when it comes to prejudice and accusations of prejudice.

Assessing this fallacy can get complicated because of debates over what counts as mistreatment, what counts as prejudice and what serves as evidence of prejudice. For example, some might think that a loss of advantages and privileges counts as mistreatment. As another example, some might think that being denied equal access to health care and education are not mistreatment.

As would be expected, there are often bad faith attempts to define these terms. And bad faith accusations that others are defining them in bad faith.

 

Defense: The main defense against this fallacy is considering whether there is evidence for prejudice beyond the (alleged) mistreatment. If there is not, then the inference that it is due to prejudice is not warranted. But you need to be careful to not “overcorrect” and ignore evidence of prejudice.

While the fallacy does not require that the claims in the argument be made in bad faith, exposing bad faith claims can sometimes decrease the psychological force of the fallacy and make it easier to expose it as poor reasoning.

 

Example #1

Sam: “Can you believe this! I got a C in that class.”

Jane: “Well, your work was average, and you didn’t put much effort into the class. How often did you show up, anyway?”

Sam: “That has nothing to do with it. I deserve at least a B. That chick teaching the class just hates men. That’s why I did badly.”

Bill: “Hey, I earned an ‘A’, man.”

Sam: “She just likes you because you’re not a real man like me. I was raised to be a monster and now I am a victim. A victim because of how manly I am. Like the Frankenstein.”

Bill: “You mean Frankenstein’s monster. Frankenstein is the guy who created the monster.”

Sam: “Whatever.”

 

Example #2

Ricardo: “I applied for six jobs and got turned down six times!”

Ann: “Where did you apply?”

Ricardo: “Six different software companies.”

Ann: “What did you apply for?”

Ricardo: “Programming jobs to develop apps for Android.

Ann: “But you majored in philosophy and haven’t programmed anything. Is that why you didn’t get the jobs?”

Ricardo: “No. All the people interviewing me were white or Asian. A person like me just can’t get a job in the white and yellow world of technology.”

 

Example #3

Dave: “Can you believe that those people laughed at me when I gave my speech.”

Will: “Well, that was cruel. But you really should make sure that you have your facts right before giving a speech. As two examples, Plato is not a Disney dog and Descartes did not actually say ‘I drink, therefore I am.’”

Dave: “They wouldn’t have laughed if a straight guy had said those things!”

Will: “Really?”

Dave: “Yeah! They laughed just because I’m gay!”

Will: “Well, they didn’t laugh at me, but I actually did my research.”

Dave: “Maybe they just don’t know you’re gay.”

Will: “Yeah, that must be it.”

 

Example #4

Bill: “Christians are the real victims in America!”

Jesus: “What? America is mostly Christian.”

Bill: “Look, there is a war against Christmas. Some cities don’t let people put up nativity scenes on government land unless other religions get to put up stuff! Also, people say “happy holidays” sometimes! This is all obviously because Christians are victims of prejudice. They hate us!”

Jesus: “Who are they?”

Bill: “They. You know.”

Jesus: “But Christmas is a federal holiday. You can start buying Christmas stuff in September in almost any store.”

Bill: “Yes, almost any store! More proof of the war on Christmas and Christians.”

Jesus: “Gotta go, need to talk to my dad.”

Description:

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which person A attempts to justify an action against person B by asserting that B would do the same thing to them, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern:

 

Premise 1:  Person B would do X to person A.

Premise 2: A’s doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A.

Conclusion: It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B

 

This reasoning is fallacious because even if B would do X to A, it does not follow from this that it is acceptable for A to do X to B.

In general, it would not be wrong for A to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done in justified retribution. For example, if Biff attacks Sally while she is out for a run, Sally would be justified in attacking Biff to defend herself.

A variant of this fallacy is Two Bad. It has the following pattern:

 

Premises 1: A did X, which is bad.

Premise 2: B has also done X.

Conclusion: A doing X was not bad.

 

Alternatively,

 

Premises 1: A did X to B, which is bad.

Premise 2: B has also done X.

Conclusion: A doing X to B was not bad.

 

This reasoning is fallacious because it does not follow that something bad is not bad because someone else has also done the bad thing. Many legal systems recognize that this is fallacy; doing something illegal because someone else did something illegal does not (usually) transform the illegal into the legal. For example, if Sally breaks Ted’s window with a rock, this does not make it good or legal for Ted to throw a rock through Sally’s window. But, of course, things can get complicated. Reasoning about self-defense, retribution, revenge, and retaliation would quickly move away from “pure” logic into the realm of moral reasoning (and legal reasoning).

This fallacy can be self-inflicted or used against others. When self-inflicted, it can often be used in conjunction with Rationalization. When used against others, it is often combined with fallacies such as Appeal to Fear and Appeal to Spite.

 

Defense: To avoid this fallacy, the main defense is remembering that even if a person would do wrong to someone else, it does not follow that it would be acceptable to do wrong to them. For the Two Bad fallacy, the defense is remembering that the wrongdoing of one does not automatically transform the wrongdoing of another into not being wrong. That said, you will need to consider if the situation is one of self defense or if the matter has been complicated by other aspects of moral (or legal) reasoning.

 

Example #1:

Bill: “Can I borrow your pen, Jane.”

Jane: “Well…it was a gift and is quite expensive…”

Bill: “I just need to sign this form.”

Jane: “Okay.”

Hugh: “Jane, can you come to my office?”

Jane: “Yes.”

Bill: “Hmm, I never gave her pen back. But she has a bad attitude, and I am sure she would have taken my pen. So free pen for me!”

 

Example #2:

Jane: “Did you hear about those terrorists killing those poor people? That sort of killing is just wrong.”

Sue: “Those terrorists are justified. After all, their land was taken from them. It is morally right for them to do what they do.”

Jane: “Even when they blow up busloads of children?”

Sue: “Yes.”

 

Example #3:

Jill: “Huh, the store undercharged me. That video card was supposed to be $399, but they just charged be $39. I should go back and pay the right price.”

Larry: “Don’t do that. If they overcharged you and you didn’t catch it, it is not like they would send you a check.”

Jill: “Well, I guess you are right.”

 

Example #4:

Jill: “Capital punishment is awful.”

Bill: “I must disagree. Capital punishment is harsh, but just.”

Jill: “It is just murder by the state.”

Bill: “Look, the state is killing people who didn’t have any qualms about killing other people. So, it is justice. Final justice.”