This document discusses several types of traditional logical fallacies: 1) Arguments from authority, such as using the Koran to prove itself or vouching for someone's trustworthiness based on an untrustworthy source. 2) Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, which are invalid deductive forms. 3) The false cause fallacy, which incorrectly infers that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. 4) Ad hominem arguments, which analyze the motives or background of the argument's supporters rather than addressing the argument itself.

1. GIOVANNI DAMELE
Traditional Fallacies
(Ch. Hamblin)

2. Traditional Fallacies
A fallacious argument, as almost every account from
Aristotle onwards tells you, is one that seems to be
valid but is not so.

3. Traditional Fallacies
«Cohen and Nagel (p. 379) say it would be arguing in a circle to
try to prove the infallibility of the Koran by the proposition that
it was composed by God’s prophet (Mahomet), if the truth about
Mahomet's being God’s prophet depends upon the authority of
the Koran. Black (p. 236) has, in essence, the same example in
the shape of a dialogue between a man and his bank manager:
'My friend Jones will vouch for me.' `How do we know he can be
trusted ?"0h, I assure you he can.' Copi refers to the argument
that Shakespeare is greater than Spillane because people with
good taste prefer him, the good taste being demonstrated by . . .
etc., etc. ; and Oesterle (pp. 2S7-8) has a partly similar example
concerning proving the existence of God from the idea of God as
existing in the human mind and arguing the reliability of human
powers of knowing from the existence of God. All these
arguments are at least partly arguments from authority»

4. Traditional Fallacies
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
One must not confuse the valid form modus ponens with the
clearly invalid form displayed by the following argument.
If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer.
Bacon was a great writer.
Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet.
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent.
If Bacon wrote Hamlet then Bacon was a great writer.
Bacon did not write Hamlet.
Therefore Bacon was not a great writer.

5. Traditional Fallacies
FALSE CAUSE
Copi, after explaining that various analyses have been
given to this Fallacy, says (p. 64) We shall regard any
argument that incorrectly attempts to establish a causal
connection as an instance of the fallacy of false cause.
Schipper and Schuh continue (p. 3 5 ) In practice, however,
the false-cause fallacy has come to mean a specific kind of
illicit argument, that is, one which involves an inference
from a merely temporal sequence of events to a causal
sequence. The Latin expression for this fallacy precisely
describes its nature: post hoc, ergo proper hoc — after this,
therefore because of this.

6. Traditional Fallacies
‘According to modern tradition an argument ad
hominem is committed when a case is argued not on
its merits but by analyzing (usually unfavourably) the
motives or background of its supporters or opponents.

7. Traditional Fallacies
`AD VERECUNDIAM'
Verecundia means 'shame' or 'shyness' or 'modesty'
but an argument ad verecundiam is usually, not quite
appropriately, regarded as an argument which rests on
respect for authority; what Bentham calls the 'wisdom
of our ancestors, or Chinese argument’. Presumably I
can respect authorities without being ashamed, shy or
(particularly) modest.

8. Traditional Fallacies
`AD MISERICORDIAM'
Copi (p. 5 8) quotes the speech of barrister Clarence
Darrow in the defence of a union member charged
with criminal conspiracy,,
Misericordia means 'pity', and this appeal to pity 'was
sufficiently moving to make the average juror want to
throw questions of evidence and of law out the
window'. The fallacious argument proceeds by
engaging the hearer's emotions to the detriment of his
good judgement.

9. Traditional Fallacies
`AD IGNORANTIAM'
`The argumentum ad ignorantiam is illustrated by
the argument that there must be ghosts because no
one has ever been able to prove that there aren't any.'
However, 'this mode of argument is not fallacious in a
court of law, because there the guiding principle is that
a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty’
(Copi, p. 57).

10. Traditional Fallacies
The other 'arguments ad' are more rarely mentioned.
Most of them are appeals to one or other specified
emotion. The argumentum ad populum is an appeal to
popular favour, which, to preserve uniformity, must be
purely emotional, though it is not clear from its name
that it does not consist of the purest valid reasoning,
and only an anti-democrat could unhesitatingly
assume the contrary.
The argumentum ad baculum is dignified with a
paragraph by Copi (p. 5 3): baculum means 'stick', so
this is argument by threat.