RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3680Goal: $6000

Formal fallacy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic
Not to be confused with non sequitur -- when an argument may be valid but the conclusion does not follow because of weak premises.
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Formal fallacy could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

A formal fallacy is a logical fallacy that violates a particular rule of propositional calculus, such as modus ponens. These fallacies can be determined to be invalid simply by the inspection of the form or structure of the argument - at heart, a formal fallacy contains some sort of non sequitur. This doesn't necessarily mean that a conclusion is wrong, but it does mean that we will need a better reason or argument to derive the conclusion.

Formal fallacies are propositional, quantificational, syllogistical, modal, or fallacy fallacy.

Examples[edit]

For example, given the syllogism of A -> B, B -> C, A therefore C, it doesn't matter what A, B and C actually are. If the statement is incorrect because of the content of A, B or C, it would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy because the logic works out. The difference can often be difficult to spot because we may have trouble splitting the content of an argument from its form.

Consider the following proposition:

  1. Some men are doctors.
  2. Some doctors are tall.
  3. Therefore, some men are tall.

Some people immediately want to say "yes" in response to this, and take the proposition to be correct because this is what reality reflects. However, this is actually an inference beyond what the logical set up allows us to make. For all we know, the only male doctors are short, and tall doctors all women. Saying that "some men are tall" given the first two premises is a formal logical fallacy. Why this is so can be more easily highlighted by replacing "tall" with a different property, such as "are women" to yield:

  1. Some men are doctors.
  2. Some doctors are women.
  3. Therefore, some men are women.

This doesn't change the logical structure of the argument, but the fallacy is easier to spot because the content changes it to a more obvious absurdity.

More formally, this is not a valid rule of inference in predicate logic:

\cfrac{\exists x (P(x) \implies Q(x)) \qquad \exists x (Q(x) \implies R(x))}{\exists x (P(x) \implies R(x))}

because the first and second x are different bound variables.

Subfallacies[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Logical fallacy § Formal

See also[edit]

External links[edit]