Argumentation: Validity and Fallacy I & II

Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning

Commentary: This is a series on effective reasoning as it applies to project management. Using proper argumentation in a project while vetting risk, options, objectives, strategies, and workaround solutions can strengthen a project's performance, improve communications, and develop a sense of unity. Effective argumentations comes down to building the strongest case for a claim. In this series I will be summarizing points made by David Zarefsky in his Teaching Company coursework as well as drawing on other resources.   This series of posts may be reviewed at the Argumentation Series Posts link.

I have been compressing the several sessions in order to move through the content more quickly. This  post is two sessions on Validity and Fallacies. Informal argumentation is dramatically different than formal argumetnation. Informal is more about expediency than properly structuring an argument. In the interest of expediency, arguers often make errors that can defeat thier efforts. This post speaks to those errors.

Validity and Fallacy I

What Makes a Good Argument?

In conventional thinking, a good argument is founded upon validity. In formal reasoning validity is independent of the argument and a matter of structure. Informally, validity is a matter of patterns and experience that leads to good results while avoiding fallacies. In short, the valid argument does not goes astray.

Formal Logic

Validity is a concept that is derived from formal logic constructs as a matter of form. The content and truth of an argument are independent of the validity. A valid argument is then one in which the claim is directly supported by the evidence. The form for investigating validity is the syllogism which is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. An argument will also be invalid if it fails specific rules for the inference patterns. The inference patterns are:

1. Categorical syllogisms will be invalid if the middle terms are not distributed and the end terms are distributed more than once. No more than one premise may be negative.
2. Conditional syllogisms will be invalid if it affirms the consequent or denies the antecedent.
3. Disjunctive syllogisms will be invalid if the exclusive and no exclusive senses of or are confused.

Invalidity is also called fallacious indicating that something is wrong with the argument. More precisely, a fallacy is a deficiency in form and may not be immediately apparent.

Applying the concept of validity beyond formal logic is more of a challenge. The problem is that the inference between the claim and evidence is not certain. Informal reasoning attempts to conduct a content free check on the process by focusing on experience rather than form.

Informal Reasoning

Experience rather than form matters to informal reasoning based on standards for each pattern of inference that are present. These patterns follow:

1. Inferences from example. Valid arguments avoid key pitfalls such as hasty generalizations, unrepresentative samples, fallacy of compositions, and fallacy of division.
2. Inferences from analogy or reasoning from parallel cases. Valid arguments have more essential similarities than differences.
3. Inferences from sign. Valid argument meet specific conditions.
4. Inferences from cause. Valid arguments avoid several errors such as confusing sign with cause, failure to find a common cause, confusing the temporary with causality, and confusing cause with effect. Additionally, valid arguments will account for multiple causes and/or effects as well as will not ignore intervening and counteracting causes.
5. Inferences from commonplaces or any bit of knowledge that is commonly shared among a given audience or a community. Valid arguments using commonplaces show that the commonplace has greater application than competing commonplaces.
6. Inferences from form. Valid arguments differentiate between deductive form and probabilistic form.

Fallacies are also deficiencies in clarity and vacuity. Clarity faults result from inexactness in language. Whereas, vacuity is the outcome of missing proof or holes in the argument. Use of language concerns center equivocation, ambiguity, vagueness, heaps and slippery slopes, and amphiboles. Vacuity concerns are outcroppings from circular reasoning, begging the question, ignoring the question, non-sequitur, straw man, and self-sealing.

Validity and Fallacy II

Deficiencies in relevance that involve inferences from factors that have nothing to do with the relationship between the evidence and claims were looked at in the last session. In this session we will look at the context that casts an argument as valid or fallacious. Fallacies, in this case, are viewed as errors in procedure rather form.

When information, factors, or evidence is introduced that has nothing to do with the relationship between the claim and the evidence, this is a deficiency in relevance. For example, an ad hominem argument shifts the attack from the argument to a person in order to redirect the conversation. Appeals to authority may also be fallacies if they become a substitute for the argument, the authority is outside the area of expertise, or has no basis for the conclusion. Appeals to popularity or the bandwagon effect replace the argument with popular support. Appeals to ignorance assume that a claim must be true or false if opposite cannot be proven. Appeals to tradition can e used to block consideration of change. Appeals to inappropriate emotion prevent an argument through emotion disruption. Finally, threats coerce conclusions in avoidance of force.

Although the patterns discussed are described as fallacies, they can also be perfectly valid. For example, the appeal from ignorance can demonstrate this quality. They are fallacies if the decisions are made based on ignorance. However, they are circumstances when decisions are made without complete information. For instance, Colin Powell argued that since we had no information whether or not Iraq had destroyed it's weapons of mass destruction, the prudent assumption is that they still exist.

Another example is the ad hominem argument is always fallacious. There are several types of these arguments such as the bad character, circumstantial type, or the bias asserts. All make the claim that there is some defect with the person redirecting the argument to the person rather than the topic. Each of these could be appropriate for a given circumstance. If the claim depends on the sound judgement of the authority source, then questioning it is appropriate. Likewise, if the person making the claim is inconsistent then challenging the confidence in them should occur.

Another approach is to reconsider the fallacies function and not structure. Arguments occur in discourse to resolve a dispute. Violations in this argument, fallacies, seek to undermine efforts to resolve the disagreement. This is procedural rather than a formal violation. There are not rules that test for this condition. Instead, there are principles that may be used to identify these fallacies.

• Declaring a position as sacrosanct removes the necessity to defend it.
• Placing pressure on the opponent, may stifle any demands on a defensive response.
• Introducing irrelevant matters causes the discussion to loose focus.
• Falsely presenting a premise as self-evident makes it appear not open to challenge
• Exposing a prejudice of the opponent resists the discussion
• Obfuscation violates the concept to be clear.

In general, an argument is fallacious not because of structure but because it violates one of these principles. In the end, arguments are appraised by impartial analyst and arguers alike. The impartial analyst can assess the arguments in relation to the principles. Meanwhile, the Arguers can present their arguments with a greater likelihood of validity by exploiting the circumstances in favor of their position.

References:

Spence, G (1995) How to argue and win everytime. 1st Ed. St Martin's Griffin, NY.

Zarefsky, D. (2005) Argumentation: the study of effective reasoning. 2nd Ed. the Teaching Company. Chantilly, VA