For one, communication is a double-sided thing and it entails more than just speaking. In effective communication, it is not enough to just speak but the meaning of what is spoken should be understood. Also, when communicating, we should always make sure that what we say is understood by the person or people we are communicating with. Essentially, then, communication has to do with passing our views and information to the other person or people.
Man has been known to have divergent views about certain issues. This is because we come from different background and belong to different cultural background. Thus, it becomes natural for our views to be different from each other. We want to make our views known and we want the other person believe that what we are saying is credible and true. We give reasons why we think “A” is true. This process is involves using our reason to give arguments which we consider to be true. However, our reasoning could be either right or wrong and our argument valid or invalid. One of such problems encountered during communication is fallacy.
In its general sense, a fallacy is a defect in an argument that makes such an argument to be invalid, weak or unsound. There are different types of fallacies, in fact over 40 have been identified but for the purpose of this essay, I will attempt to explain ten of these fallacies that we fall into daily.
The first fallacy to be discussed is the hasty generalization. This form of fallacy involves drawing universal claims from few examples. It is an inductive argument where the observed instances given for the universal claim is too few. It happens when we leap into conclusions with insufficient evidence to support our claim. Hasty generalization becomes a fallacy because the evidence is weak and too few to hold the conclusion. An example of hasty generalization is the claim that all the frat boy I know, which is three, drink, so all frats drink.
Furthermore, another fallacy that we fall in is Ad Hominem or argumentum ad hominem which means direct to or against the person. In it general sense, ad hominem involves attacking the person's character without considering the validity of their arguments. Oftentimes, politicians fall into this trap. This fallacy happens when we reject a person's argument not because the arguments are wrong but because of some irrelevant facts about the person that makes the argument. Apart from these, we have argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance. As it name implies it is the drawing of a claim from lack o information. It follows two patterns. The first is that a person can claim that “A” is true because “A” has not been proven false. The second form is that “A” is false because it has not been conclusively proven the “A” is true.
In addition to this, there is the fallacy of begging the question. In this form of fallacy, the premise already contains the idea that the conclusion is true. It is also referred to as reasoning in circles or circular reasoning. In begging the question, no additional information is contained in the conclusion. It follows that pattern that I believe that “A” because “A” is true. A good example is; “illegal actions are not accepted by the law” Also, we have the fallacies that Appeal to pity or Ad Misericordiam. This is a kind of fallacy where we claim that certain condition old because of some pitiful situation. Appeal to pity happens when an appeal is made because of a sympathetic gesture. For instance, I am appealing to pity if I say - I should be given the job because I need money to take care of my sick mother.
Furthermore, there is the fallacy of appealing to authority. We fall into this argument when we seek to add more weight to our arguments and so attach our claim to an authority in such field. Appeal to authority does not seek to examine the validity of information but places the truth of the issue being discussed on the big names in such a field. For example, it follows the pattern that “A” claim that “B” is true, since “A” is an authority in field “C” then “A” must be right in his assertion of “B”. In addition, there is the fallacy of two wrongs makes a right. In this fallacy, it is believed that because “A” does something “B” should do it too.
Another fallacy is tu quoque. It is an incoherent reasoning that says that I can not be blamed because your actions are not different. It is what about you kind of fallacy. The person providing the arguments claims that the other person can not question his belief because he too is guilty. Also, there is fallacy of guilt by association. Here that arguer faults the other person's arguments simply because the claim is given by the other person. It bases approval or disapproval of claims to the group that such a person belongs to.
Finally, there is red herring fallacy. This fallacy involves the use of an irrelevant argument to divert the attention of the arguer. The aim of red herring is using garbage to win a prior debate. It happens when “A” and “B” are talking about “C”. If “A” introduces “F” in order to win “C”.
Summarily, these fallacies are there so that our thoughts can be well organized, devoid of logical incoherences.
