The Battle of Reasoning: Formal vs Informal Fallacy
Have you ever found yourself in a heated argument, unable to convince the other person no matter how much you argue? Chances are that one or both of you are committing logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that distorts arguments and leads to incorrect conclusions. In this article, we will discuss two types of logical fallacies: formal and informal fallacies.
Formal Fallacy
A formal fallacy is an argument in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. In other words, the argument may have a correct structure, but the premises are incorrect or do not support the conclusion. Some common examples of formal fallacies include:
Affirming the Consequent
This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true. For instance, “If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.” This is incorrect reasoning because there could be other reasons for the ground to be wet, such as a sprinkler system or a spilled drink.
Denying the Antecedent
This fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because the antecedent is not true, the consequent must also not be true. For instance, “If it’s raining, the ground is wet. It’s not raining, so the ground must not be wet.” This is incorrect reasoning because there could be other reasons for the ground to be wet, such as a recent rainstorm.
Informal Fallacy
An informal fallacy is an argument in which the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises due to a flaw in the reasoning itself. In other words, the argument may have the correct structure and the premises may be true, but the reasoning is invalid. Some common examples of informal fallacies include:
Ad Hominem
This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. For example: “I don’t believe what she said because she’s always lying.” This is incorrect reasoning because whether or not the person has a history of lying has no bearing on the truth of their argument.
Straw Man
This fallacy occurs when someone misrepresents their opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example: “You think we should just let anyone into the country? That’s insane.” This is incorrect reasoning because it misrepresents the opponent’s argument: they may not necessarily be advocating for open borders, but rather a more humane and reasonable immigration policy.
Conclusion
Logical fallacies can be deceiving, so it’s important to be aware of them and to avoid committing them when making arguments. Formal and informal fallacies, in particular, are two types of reasoning errors that can greatly affect the validity and soundness of arguments. By understanding the differences between them, we can become better reasoners and be more effective in our communication.
