Logical Fallacies - Marifah Forums

Assalamu `Alaykum

Unfortunately, most educated people (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) do not have a significant understanding of what logical fallacies entail. Much more unfortunate even is that this lacking seems to also have become more of a norm than an exception amongst students of Islam and those involving themselves with argument and debate; especially those occupying themselves with `Ilm al-Kalam, philosophy and polemics. It is quite sad that much of the logical argumentation we do find in these kinds of debates has to come from the natural inclination towards logical thinking amongst the exceptionally intelligent, rather than from minimally required basic education in this field.

The study of logical fallacies is a fun and practical way of becoming more familiar with logic and improving your logical thinking, and there are numerous resources available in print and on the internet. A helpful basic resources available on the net may be Stephen Downes Guide to Logical Fallacies, which offers an extensive list of fallacies by category and with definitions, examples, proofs and references.

I think everyone on this forum who, like most people including myself, is not some kind of genius that naturally inclines to perfect logical thinking in advanced arguments and debates, should at least take a look into these fallacies and reflect upon their own arguments and those around them. Just start with this forum, and you might be surprised with how things work.

A kind brother posted the Dictionary of Islamic Philosophical Terms and if you search for mughalata you will find the definition of fallacy followed by a list of fallacies in their Mantiq terminology and with their definitions.

Wassalam

From the abovementioned dictionary:

Quote

mughalatah (pl. mughalatat)
A logical "fallacy", i.e. a piece of reasoning which appears to establish a conclusion without really doing so; the term applies equally to the legitimate deduction of a conclusion from false premises and to the illegitimate deduction of a conclusion from any premises. See below the various kinds of mughalatah [ mughalatat]

mughalatat al-’ibham
The fallacy of amphiboly, i.e. the fallacy arising from the grammatical structure of a proposition or statement rather than from the terms of which it is composed (as is the case with mughalatah ishtirak al-lafzi, q.v.). The classical example of this fallacy is the oracle given to Pyrrhus: "Pyrrhus the Romans shall, I say, subdue", which Pyrrhus, as the story goes, interpreted to mean that he could conquer the Romans whereas the oracle subsequently explained to that the real meaning was that the Romans could conquer him.

mughalatat al-as’ilat al-muta’addadah
The fallacy of many questions, i.e. a deceptive form of interrogation in which a single answer usually in the form of "Yes" or "No" is demanded to what is really not a single question but a combination of many questions which can be answered only variously, e.g. the question: "Have you left beating your mother yet?" the simple answer to which in "Yes" or "No", in either case, leads to an apparent admission of impiety; also called jam‘ al-masa’il fi mas’alat-in.

mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-asghar
The fallacy of ambiguous minor. It consists in using the minor term (al-hadd al-asghar, q.v.) in the minor premise (al-muqaddamat al-sughra, q.v.) in a sense different from the sense it is used as a subject in the conclusion as in the following syllogism:
Men are not made of paper.
Pages are men.
Therefore, pages are not made of paper.

mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-akbar
The fallacy of ambiguous major. It consists in using the major term (al-hadd al-akbar, q.v.) in the major premise (al-muqaddamat al-kubra, q.v.) in a sense different from the sense it is used as a predicate in the conclusion as in the following syllogism:
No courageous creature flies.
Eagle is a courageous creature.
Therefore, eagle does not fly.

mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-ausat
The fallacy of ambiguous middle. It consists in using the middle term (al-hadd al-ausat, q.v.) in the major premise (al-muqaddamat al-kubra, q.v.) in a sense different from the sense it is used in the minor premise (al-muqaddamat al-sughra, q.v.)as in the following syllogism:
Sound travels very fast.
His knowledge of law is sound.
Therefore, his knowledge of law travels very fast.

mughalatah ishtirak al-lafzi
The fallacy of equivocation. It consists in an ambiguous use of any of the three terms (major, minor, or middle) of a syllogism (qiyas, q.v.). It thus may assume any of the following three forms: (1) fallacy of ambiguous major (mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-akbar, q.v.); (2) fallacy of ambiguous minor (mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-asghar, q.v.); (3) fallacy of ambiguous middle (mughalatah ishtirak al-hadd al-ausat, q.v.).

mughalatat al-’atraf al-’arba‘ah
The fallacy of four terms. It consists in using four terms in a syllogism (qiyas, q.v.), while syllogism by definition has only three terms for it is "thinking together" or comparison of two terms (al-hadd al-akbar, q.v., and al-hadd al-asghar, q.v.) by means of the third term (al-hadd al-ausat, q.v.) -the result is either no syllogism or a combination of two syllogism (al-qiyas al-murakkab, q.v.). The significance of this fallacy is to avoid all ambiguity in the case of terms used in a syllogism. See also mughalatah ishtirak al-lafzi.

mughalatat al-takid
The fallacy of accent, i.e. the fallacy arising from the emphasis or stress laid upon the wrong part of a sentence, for example, the statement: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" may be differently interpreted (rather misinterpreted) by laying an undue stress on one of the words: "thou", "false", "witness", "against", "thy" and "neighbour".

mughalatah tarkib al-mufassal
The fallacy of composition. It consists in taking words together which ought to be taken separately as may be illustrated from the following piece of (false) reasoning:
l Is it possible for a man who is not writing to write?
l Of course it is.
l Then it is possible for a man to write without writing.

mughalatah tafsil al-murakkab
The fallacy of division. It consists in taking words separately which ought to be taken together as may be illustrated from the following example:
l All the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles.
l Therefore, each angle of the triangle is equal to two right angles.

mughalatah al-dalil al-murafa‘ah ila’l-shakhs
The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. It consists in diverting the argument from the point or thesis under discussion to an irrelevant or malicious observation about the personality of the opponent.

mughalatah raf‘ al-muqaddam
The fallacy of the denial of the antecedent. It consists in an abortive attempt to deny or exclude the antecedent in the minor premise of a hypothetical syllogism (al-qiyas al-sharti al-muttasil, q.v.) in order to establish the consequent (tali, q.v.) in the conclusion which in fact is logically unwarranted, e.g. from the major premise: "If he takes poison, he will die", and the minor: "He has not taken poison", we cannot conclude anything not even "He will not die", for death can be caused by a number of causes other than that of taking poison.

mughalatah su ’i‘tibar al-haml
The fallacy of secundum quid. It consists in the use of a general proposition or rule in a particular case without attention to its special circumstances which would invalidate the use made of it. It is as if one were to say that because it is always right to help a man in distress, it is right to rescue a criminal form the custody of police.

mughalatah ‘adm al-luzum bi’l-tab‘
The fallacy of non-sequitur, i.e. the one in which there is no logical connection whatsoever between the premises advanced and the conclusion drawn, for example, a speaker, in order to prove that a man is an adulterer, may argue that he is a showy dresser and has often been seen about at nights, which facts, however, do not establish the charge; sometimes the expression ‘adm luzum bi’l-tab‘ is used to denote the fallacy of the consequence which includes both the fallacy of the denial of antecedent (raf‘ al-muqaddam, q.v.) and the fallacy of the affirmation of the consequent (wad‘ al-tali, q.v.)

mughalatat al-lafziyah
The fallacy in dictione, i.e. the one arising from the misuse of language. This has many kinds, viz. fallacy of equivocation (mughalatah ishtirak al-lafzi, q.v.), fallacy of amphiboly (mughalatat al-’ibham, q.v.), fallacy of composition (mughalatah tarkib al-mufassal, q.v.), fallacy of division (mughalatah tafsil al-murakkab, q.v.), fallacy of accent (mughalatat al-takid, q.v.), etc.

mughalatat al-natijah ghair al-muta‘alliqah
The fallacy of ingoratio elenchi, i.e. the fallacy of irrelevance. It arises when by reasoning, which though valid in itself, one establishes a conclusion other than that required to refute the adversary’s thesis or assertion.

mughalatah wad‘ al-tali
The fallacy of affirmation of the consequent. It consists in an abortive attempt to affirm the consequent in the minor premise of a hypothetical syllogism (al-qiyas al-sharti al-muttassil, q.v.) in order to establish the antecedent (muqaddam, q.v.) in the conclusion, which in fact is logically unwarranted; e.g. form the major premise: "If he takes poison, he will die" and the minor: "He has died," we can not conclude anything, not even "He has taken poison", for death can be caused by a number of causes other than that of taking poison.

mughalatah wad‘ ma laisa bi‘illat-in ‘illat-an
The fallacy of non causa pro causa (assuming a cause what is not the cause). According to the Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, it consists in assigning a reason for some conclusion, which reason in fact is irrelevant to that conclusion. In other words, the fallacy lies in connecting a conclusion with a certain premise which premise, so far as that conclusion is concerned, could as well have been ignored.