Detecting logical fallacies: ad ignorantiam and false dilemma

¶ … fallacies and it is important to detect fallacious arguments and then form decisions. Below is an analysis of three such fallacies which have been described and examples are described to show why it is important to detect them.

FALLACIES

Ad Ignorantiam

This fallacy is on the principle that in the case there is a lack of evidence to prove it to be true, it is considered naturally to be false. An atheist might claim that as a creationist cannot prove that God exists therefore God does not exist. Similarly a creationist can say that because the atheist cannot prove that God does not exist, hence God exists. Basically this fallacy deals with the burden of proof and in the absence of any proof it labels the opposite to be absolutely true. This fallacy is used in the judicial systems that are based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Hence the burden of proof is not on the defendant but on the prosecutor to prove him to be guilty. If he fails to submit sufficient evidence then the defendant is assumed to be innocent and released. This type of fallacy compromises critical thinking because the absence of proof does not necessarily mean the opposite to be true. Disregarding every other argument because sufficient evidence was not put forward is certainly not critical thinking. It is important to detect such a fallacy and remove it from an argument that provides a conclusion based on the appeal to ignorance.

Senator Joe McCarthy used this type of fallacy to support his claim:

'I am only giving the Senate, cases in which it is clear there is a definite Communist connection ... persons whom I consider to be Communists in the State Department .... I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency ... that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections." (Richard H. Rovere, p.106-107)

The agency could not disprove Communist connection hence it was assumed that there were Communist connections. This assumption is not necessarily true and what he should have looked for was any evidence to prove Communist connections. This type of fallacy should not be used to make vital decisions as far as some cases are concerned. However in cases where the burden of proof is put on the prosecutor to prove the defendant to be guilty, this fallacy is well used otherwise the law and order system would get extremely corrupted. If the defendant was to prove his innocence then law enforcing agencies could put anyone in the trouble of proving themselves to be innocent for whatever alleged crime. It was wrong of Senator McCarthy to accuse anyone of having Communist connections or for Mahathir Mohammad to hold the former Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia as guilty (Interview of Mahathir Mohammad) based on the fact that they have not been able to prove their innocence.

Hasty Generalization

Hasty generalization is the formation of an opinion about a population based on a very small sample. If the sample would be large enough to logically form an opinion then it would not be considered fallacious. Stating that Muslims were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and therefore all Muslims are terrorists is nothing but fallacious. An example of this type of fallacy has been reported by Jerry White:

"In one incident a drunken 75-year-old man, screaming, 'You're destroying my country,' tried to run down a Pakistani woman in a Long Island parking lot." (Jerry White)

Was that woman trying to destroy his country? What was the evidence based upon? The old mad had not any evidence to say that the woman was trying to destroy his city let alone his country. His actions were based on the hasty generalization that because news media said that Muslims were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center, hence all Muslims are terrorists and as this woman was a Muslim therefore she was also a terrorist. If Muslims were involved, there were some few who were and it is a fact that black sheep exist in every society. This does not mean that every single Muslim is a terrorist.

Similarly when some Christians bombed abortion clinic, then to assume that all Christians are terrorist would again be hasty generalization rather than logical thinking. Basing any decision on hasty generalization would be wrong and unfair and should be avoided. A decision should be made by studying a larger sample and then applying it to the entire population. It is important to be able to detect hasty generalization as a fallacy if it is based on a small sample, because otherwise wrong assumptions would be made regarding the entire population. Decision making is a process where decisions should be established on hardcore evidence rather than hasty generalizations that are based on a very few. Hasty generalizations often lead to instances of racial profiling and thus injustices are often done to those innocent just because within them are a few who went wrong.

REFERENCES:

(1) Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960). Pages: 106-107.

(2) Interview of Mahathir Mohammad -- Fall of Anwar. [Online website] Available from: http://stoneforest.org/philosophy/anwar.html#innocence [Accessed on 17/9/2005]

(3) William Raspberry - 'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy [Online website] Available from: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1014-04.htm [Accessed on 17/9/2005]

(4) Jerry White - Arab-Americans and Muslims attacked in the U.S. 15 September 2001 [online website] Available from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/atta-s15.shtml [Accessed on 17/9/2005]