Fallacies are flaws in reasoning that are
not easily noticed, or anyway aren’t noticed at first sight. However, some are
easier to discover than others. Some are even quite silly, so Aristotle, and
some are even clear “to the man in the street”, especially those that play with
the double meanings of words. Many jokes are like that, “e.g. ‘Where are you
bound?’ ‘To the yard arm’; and ‘Which cow will calve afore?’ ‘Neither, but both
behind’ ”. (182 b 15)
Here is a type of reasoning that seems to
have been used often by Sophists (travelling teachers). It has been constructed
by me:
1) Carl wrote a history of American capital
2) Washington (D.C.) is the American
capital
3) So Carl wrote a history of Washington
(D.C.)
Or one that Aristotle ascribes to the
Sophists:
1) John has ten
2) John gives one to Pete
3) John no longer has ten, so he has
nothing.
I admit that the last one is a bit
difficult to understand, because it is based on a weird twist of the mind, but
it seems that the Sophists often reasoned that way. Since many people fell into
such traps or didn’t understand what was wrong with them, Aristotle decided to
write his Sophistical Refutations.
As I see it, the book has two main themes.
One theme is an analysis of fallacies. The other theme is how to debate and how
to defend yourself against fallacies. The themes are mixed together in the book,
though. I think that for a current reader the analysis of fallacies is more
interesting than what Aristotle tells us about the technique of debating. The
reason is that Aristotle supposes a type of discussion that is currently seldom
performed. Aristotle supposes that there is a questioner (the Sophist) and
someone who defends a thesis. The former holds then the opposite thesis and tries
to refute the thesis upheld by the latter by asking all kinds of questions and
producing all kinds of reasons why the defender is wrong. Of course, the
defender tries to make clear why s/he is right. Sophists often used fallacies
to win the debate. However, nowadays discussions are usually of another kind.
They are often debates between two or more advocates of different points of
views that are not necessarily the opposite of what the other participants in
the debate say (political debates are a case in point). A participant tries to
convince the other participant(s) that his or her views are the best. And if
s/he cannot convince the other participant(s), s/he hopes at least to convince
the public that her or his view is preferable. Discussions as supposed by Aristotle
do occur but not so often, but if you are interested in debating techniques, anyhow,
you should certainly read Aristotle’s treatise.
In the Sophistical Refutations Aristotle analyzes thirteen fallacies. I’ll
not give a description of the fallacies, let alone an analysis, but the main
flaws are double meanings, weak or incorrect conclusions and circular
arguments. Above I gave already examples of the double meanings of words. Also
questions can be confusing in this way. For example, a question like “Did you
stop smoking every day?”, can mean to ask whether you stopped smoking, or
whether you smoke now less than before, for example one cigarette every other
day, or one once a week. An example of a false conclusion is: “Plato is
different from Aristotle. Aristotle is a man. So Plato is not a man.” Maybe you’ll
not fall into this trap, but one that often happens is the so-called “post hoc
- propter hoc” fallacy: “If p is the case then q is the case. q is the case, so
p is the case.” An example: If it has rained, the street is wet. Now the street
is wet, so it has rained. Of course this need not be true, for it’s possible
that a leaking tank lorry has just passed. This fallacy happens more often that
you think, for instance in political discussions! The last main flaw I
mentioned, the circular argument, is also called petitio principi or
begging the question. A circular argument is often hidden in a long chain of
reasoning, in which the conclusion is the same as the point of departure of the
reasoning. This makes it difficult to give an example here. I know that it is
weak to say so, but my excuse is that also Aristotle doesn’t give an example
but simply says that the flaw often happens (see 181 a 15).
All this
can give only an impression of Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations. The
book is a rather detailed treatise of argumentative reasoning and the first one
ever written. Aristotle was aware of this and thought that without a doubt the
book would need improvement. Nevertheless, the book was used as a guide to
argumentative reasoning till far in the 20th century. Can
there be a better proof of the quality of the Sophistical Refutations?
Note
on the sources of this blog
The numbers in the text refer to the standard
system for referring to passages in the Sophistical Refutations. The quotes are from the online edition
mentioned in my blog last week. For writing this blog I have used the introduction
to the Dutch edition: Aristoteles, Over drogredenen. Translated and
annotated by Pieter Sjoerd Haspers and Eric C.W. Krabbe. Historische
Uitgeverij, Groningen; 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment