'Oro Per Latin'
Arguing With Latin
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (The Argument To Antiquity)
Appeal to tradition, also known as proof from tradition, appeal to common practice, Argumentum ad antiquitatem, false induction, or the "is/ought" fallacy, is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."
Example:
An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:
The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.
In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.
In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue.
The opposite of an appeal to tradition is an appeal to novelty, claiming something is good because it is new.
Argumentum ad baculum (The Argument To The Stick)
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion. It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
Argumentum ad captandum (The Argument To Capturing)
In rhetoric an argument ad captandum, "for capturing" the gullibility of the naïve among the listeners or readers, is an unsound, specious argument, a kind of seductive casuistry. The longer form of the term is ad captandum vulgus (Latin, 'to win over the crowd'). The ad captandum argument may be painfully vivid in sound bites from politicians on TV news programs. Like most perceptions of logical transgressions, the ad captandum assessment may not be neutral and at the same time may be quite accurate.
Argumentum ad consequentiam (The Argument To Consequence)
Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.
Example:
Positive FormIf P, then Q will occur.Q is desirable.Therefore, P is true
Negative FormIf P, then Q will occur.Q is undesirable.Therefore, P is false
Argumentum ad crumenam (The Argument To The Purse)
An argumentum ad crumenam argument, also known as an argument to the purse, is a logical fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich (or that a statement is incorrect because the speaker is poor).
Example:
"This new law is a good idea. Most of the people against it are riff-raff who make less than $20,000 a year."
Argumentum ad feminam (The Argument To Women)
An ad feminam is an attempt, rooted in prejudice against women, to defeat an argument. An example would be the response "Is it your time of the month?" to a woman making an angry argument. The term is most frequently used in this sense in feminist philosophy, to note systemic tendencies to discredit opinions of women. As such, it is similar in nature and purpose to such feminist neologisms as "herstory". The term was coined in 1963 and is modeled on the much older ad hominem, but takes into account the genderised nature of the rhetorical and dismissive gesture.
Argumentum ad hominem (The Argument To The Person)
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.
Example:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
Common Misconception: Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (The Argument To Ignorance)
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
It is the refusal to admit that at a particular point in time when the momentum of individual or group opinion exists for a particular course of action or, for action without any particular preferred course; that there is in fact no justification to take any action. And what is being sought, is in fact merely a rationalization (based upon fallacy), that temporarily assuages justifiable doubt that proposed action(s) are auto de fe (act of faith) alone, with no justification in the knowledge that is at hand.
This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.
Recommend Reading More From Source.
Argumentum ad lazarum (The Appeal To Poverty)
Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the logical fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor, or it's incorrect because the speaker is rich. It is named after Lazarus, a beggar in a New Testament parable who receives his reward in the afterlife.
This is popularly exploited as the statement, "Poor, but honest."
Example:
"The homeless tell us it’s hard to find housing. Thus it must be."
"Family farms are struggling to get by so when they say we need to protect them, they must be on to something."
Argumentum ad logicam (The Argument To Logic)
Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy, or fallacist's fallacy.
Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.
Example:
If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.
Therefore, Q is false.
"All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger is a cat."
Argumentum ad metum (The Argument To Fear)
An appeal to fear (also called argumentum ad metum or argumentum in terrorem is a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for an idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics.
Example:
Either P or Q is true.Q is frightening.Therefore, P is true.
"If you continue to drink, you will die early as your father did."
"Voting for him is the same as voting for the terrorists."
"If you hate him, then you are no better than him."
Argumentum ad misericordiam (The Argument To Pity)
An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam) is a fallacy in which someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting his or her opponent's feelings of pity or guilt. The appeal to pity is a specific kind of appeal to emotion.
Example:
"What do you mean I can't get a job here? All my friends work here! This is unfair! You're going to make me cry. How could you do this to me?"
Argumentum ad nauseam (The Argument To Nausea)
Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea". For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam", signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.
Argumentum ad novitatem (The Argument To Novelty)
The appeal to novelty (also called argumentum ad novitatem) is a fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern. In a controversy between status quo and new inventions, an appeal to novelty argument isn't in itself a valid argument. The fallacy may take two forms: overestimating the new and modern, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be best-case, or underestimating status quo, prematurely and without investigation assuming it to be worst-case.
Example:
"If you want to lose weight, your best bet is to follow the latest diet."
"Upgrading all your software to the most recent versions will make your system more reliable."
"The department will become more profitable because it has been reorganized."
Argumentum ad odium (The Argument To Spite)
An appeal to spite (also called argumentum ad odium) is a fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party. It is an attempt to sway the audience emotionally by associating a hate-figure with opposition to the speaker's argument.
Example:
"I don't understand what you see in that person. They doesn't care about you at all."
"Why should a criminal be let free after 7 to 10 years if his victim is left to suffer for her whole life?"
Argumentum ad populum (The Argument To The Masses)
In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."
Example:
"Nine out of ten of my constituents oppose the bill, therefore it is a bad idea."
"Watch Show X - the #1 watched show on television!"
Argumentum ad temperantiam (The Argument To Moderation)
Argument to moderation (Latin: argumentum ad temperantiam, also known as middle ground, false compromise, gray fallacy and the golden mean fallacy) is a logical fallacy which asserts that any givencompromise between two positions must be correct.
Example:
"Bill owns a cake. Jake would like to have the entire cake. Bill wants to keep it all, however. Therefore, 1/2 of the cake should be given to Jake."
Argumentum ad verecundiam (The Argument To Authority)
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.
Example:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
"If Aristotle said it is so, therefore it is so."
"The pope said it was so, therefore it is so."
Argumentum ex silentio (The Argument From Silence)
The argument from silence (also called argumentum ex silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but an argument from silence can be a convincing form of abductive reasoning.
Example:
X: "I know where Z lives."
Y: "Where?"
X: "I'm not telling you!"
Y: "You're just saying that because you don't know!"
Argumentum e contrario (The Argument From/To The Opposition)
In logic, an argumentum e contrario (Latin: "appeal from the contrary" or "argument based on the contrary") denotes any proposition that is argued to be correct because it is not proven by a certain case. It the opposite of the analogy. Arguments "e contrario" are often used in the legal system, as a way to solve problems not currently covered by a certain system of laws. Although it might be used as a logical fallacy, arguments "e contrario" are not by definition fallacies.
Example:
"Section 1 of the X-Law says that green cars need to have blue tires. As such, red cars don't have to have blue tires."
Here the argument is based on the fact that red cars are not green cars and as such § 123 of the X-Law cannot be applied to them.
This requires the law to be interpreted to determine which solution would have been desired if the lawmaker had considered red cars.
In this case it's probably safe to assume that they only wanted to regulate green cars and not regulate cars of other colors.
|
|
Tweet |
|
|
