Thread: Distinguish formal and material fallacies
View Single Post
  #4  
Old Thursday, August 29, 2013
abdulmoqeet abdulmoqeet is offline
Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Lahore & Hafizabad
Posts: 47
Thanks: 35
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
abdulmoqeet is on a distinguished road
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topper View Post
You will get a clear exposition of this concept from Copi's "Introduction to Logic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilal Hassan View Post
Informal Fallacies:

These are such fallacies which are not the result of any inconsistency in the form of an argument, rather these are committed when we use ambiguous language or propositions are not directly supporting the conclusion.

For example consider the following argument which commits the fallacy of Ad Hominem:

His argument about Ms Hina's involvement in an embezzlement of gratuity funds must not be taken into consideration because he himself has been an accused of such a crime.

Now let me try to put into a syllogistic form:

All persons who have been convicted for a crime in his past, his argument for such a crime against someone else must not be taken into consideration.

Aslam has been convicted in the gratuity embezzlement funds.

Therefore, Aslam's argument against Ms Hina in embezzlement funds must not be taken into consideration.

Now friend here we see that there is no fallacy in the form of the argument as if we do standard translation of that argument according to which a person who is unique belongs to a class or category that has only one object, that person. So this is valid form of categorical Syllogism with mood and figure AAA-1 Barbara. Valid form and true conclusion but here fallacy is committed which is that the argument from such a person must not be accepted.

Formal Fallacy:

This fallacy is the result of inconsistency in the form of an argument.

Example:

All mammals are animals.
All Parrots are animals.

Therefore, all parrots are mammals.

Now this is a formal fallacy called "Fallacy of Undistributed Middle", We have to distribute the middle term in at least one premise. This is a syllogistic rule, in that argument middle term is not distributed so it is not among the 15 valid syllogistic forms. So that fallacy is in the form of the argument.

Dear please refer to my question again, i have asked the difference between material and formal fallacies? the main confusion to me in this question is that what are "material fallacies"?

I look forward for your answer
Reply With Quote