Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FOUR TERMS
What is FALLACY?
A "fallacy" is what we consider a
mistake, and a "logical fallacy on
spot and understand signs of fallacies and thus make corrections to these mistakes through the knowledge of what has been done wrong convincingly and correctly.
gain understanding of which ones are really the correct reasoning that leads you from the ideas of point A to point B .
For example:
Valid Syllogism:
Invalid Syllogism:
Major premise: All fish have fins. Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.
More examples
Example 1:
All dogs are animals, and all cats are mammals, so all dogs are mammals. The four terms are: dogs, animals, cats and mammals.
Note: In many cases, the fallacy of four terms is a special case of equivocation. While the same word is used, the word has different meanings, and hence the word is treated as two different terms.
Example 2:
Only man is born free, and no women are men, therefore, no women are born free.
The four terms are: man (in the sense of 'humanity'), man (in the sense of 'male'), and women and born free. Proof: Identify the four terms and where necessary state the meaning of each term. This is the easiest way to identify the fallacy.
Example 3: Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; it has allowed us to develop technology, and even to put men on the moon. So why would people deny the science of evolution?
The argument equivocates on the word science which can either mean operational science or origins science. Operation science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for technology. Origins science is an attempt to understand past events in light of present evidence; its much more easily tainted by historical bias than operation science and is not directly testable or repeatable. The two types of science should not be mixed within an argument.
Example 4:
Fallacy of Equivocation
The Four Term Fallacy is otherwise known
because a poor lesson is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a good lesson. Note how in the following argument we have an uncomfortable feeling that the argument seems good with true premises, but the conclusion is obviously false. Often, we smile at arguments like these because we know something is drastically wrong, but it is not initially intuitively obvious what it is. Knowing that a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion, and yet the argument appears to be perfectly valid, is a tip-off for the presence of the fallacy of equivocation.
Nothing is better than a good lesson. A poor lesson is better than nothing. A poor lesson is better than a good lesson. Obviously, there is something wrong with this syllogism; this is evident from its humorous appearance. When we sketch a diagram, without attending to the meaning of the classes, it is clear that the diagram would appear valid. How is this possible?
Although the argument does not translate very well into standard form categorical propositions, if we attempt to do so, we can see that the classes do not match. The word "nothing" is being used in two different senses. One attempt at translation yields:
No [lessons] are [things better than good lessons.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than no lessons at all.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than good lessons.]
Notice that we have more than three terms--our middle term does not match. Hence, we cannot get a valid diagram.
Major premise: The pen touches the paper. Minor premise: The hand touches the pen. Conclusion: The hand touches the paper.
This is more clear if you use "is touching" instead of "touches". It then becomes clear that "touching the pen" is not the same as "the pen", thus creating four terms: "the hand", "touching the pen", "the pen", "touching the paper". A correct form of this statement would be:
Major premise: All that touches the pen, touches the paper.
Reducing Terms
Sometimes a syllogism that is apparently fallacious because it is stated with more than three terms can be translated into an equivalent, valid three term syllogism.
For example:
Major premise: No humans are immortal. Minor premise: All Greeks are people. Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.
This EAE-1 syllogism apparently has five terms: "humans", "people", "immortal", "mortal", and "Greeks". However it can be rewritten as a standard form AAA-1 syllogism by first substituting the synonymous term "humans" for "people" and then by reducing the complementary term "immortal" in the first premise using the inference known as obversion (that is, "No humans are immortal." is equivalent to "All humans are mortal.").
Presented by: Longares, Michelle Legaspi, Raquel Armas, Joylie Soriano, Daisyrie Baylon, Rochelle
References:
PHI1 Workbook 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-anargument/deductive-logic-arguments/fallacy-of-four-terms http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html