Page 53 - Žagar, Igor Ž. 2021. Four Critical Essays on Argumentation. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 53
fallacies: do we ‘use’ them or ‘commit’ them? ...
idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there
is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: ‘If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we
will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be
NO traffic whatsoever.’
First, there is no reason or justification to label this ‘fallacy’ a ‘logical
error’, it is purely circumstantial. Secondly, even if criteria for detecting fal-
lacies are not very clear, it is rather obvious that ‘Nirvana fallacy’ could be
analysed as Ad Consequentiam7 or/and Ad Ignorantiam8 (leaving aside at
least the ubiquitous Secundum Quid or the obvious Ignoratio Elenchi).
(c) Argumentum ad Hitlerum
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) Reduc
tio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for ‘reduction to
Hitler’ or ‘argument to Hitler’, respectively) is an ad hominem or ad miser-
icordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance
where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s or-
igin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any differ-
ence to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive
or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to ex-
amine the claim on its merit.
Example: Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong.
As, surprisingly, already mentioned in the ‘definition’ this is an Ad
Hominem argument (or an Ad Misericordiam one), so why create a new
one? Maybe because it could also be interpreted as Ignoratio Elenchi and
Secundum Quid, even as Ad Populum or/and Ad Baculum.9 And in or-
der to avoid ambiguity, another fallacy is created, which paradoxically
7 Ad Consequentiam ‘is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief)
to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or unde-
sirable consequences’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Ad
Consequentiam can, of course, be a logical fallacy as well, just the case in question is
not.
8 Ad Ignorantiam, ‘also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents ‘a
lack of contrary evidence’) is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition
is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has
not yet been proven true’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
9 Ad Baculum ‘is the fallacy committed when one makes appeal to force or threat of
force to bring about the acceptance of the conclusion. One participates in argumen-
tum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the con-
trary position’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum.
53
idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there
is a perfect solution to a particular problem.
Example: ‘If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we
will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be
NO traffic whatsoever.’
First, there is no reason or justification to label this ‘fallacy’ a ‘logical
error’, it is purely circumstantial. Secondly, even if criteria for detecting fal-
lacies are not very clear, it is rather obvious that ‘Nirvana fallacy’ could be
analysed as Ad Consequentiam7 or/and Ad Ignorantiam8 (leaving aside at
least the ubiquitous Secundum Quid or the obvious Ignoratio Elenchi).
(c) Argumentum ad Hitlerum
(Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum) Reduc
tio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for ‘reduction to
Hitler’ or ‘argument to Hitler’, respectively) is an ad hominem or ad miser-
icordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance
where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s or-
igin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any differ-
ence to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive
or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to ex-
amine the claim on its merit.
Example: Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong.
As, surprisingly, already mentioned in the ‘definition’ this is an Ad
Hominem argument (or an Ad Misericordiam one), so why create a new
one? Maybe because it could also be interpreted as Ignoratio Elenchi and
Secundum Quid, even as Ad Populum or/and Ad Baculum.9 And in or-
der to avoid ambiguity, another fallacy is created, which paradoxically
7 Ad Consequentiam ‘is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief)
to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or unde-
sirable consequences’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Ad
Consequentiam can, of course, be a logical fallacy as well, just the case in question is
not.
8 Ad Ignorantiam, ‘also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents ‘a
lack of contrary evidence’) is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition
is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has
not yet been proven true’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
9 Ad Baculum ‘is the fallacy committed when one makes appeal to force or threat of
force to bring about the acceptance of the conclusion. One participates in argumen-
tum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the con-
trary position’. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum.
53
