Logical Fallacies: Omission and Ambiguity

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can invalidate an otherwise good discussion, formal argument, or debate. The fallacies discussed here have to do with misdirection or misinformation. Fallacies of Omission occur when important or even necessary information is left out of an argument. Fallacies of Ambiguity create confusion by using unclear or poorly defined words or phrases in order to misdirect the argument from the evidence supporting the other side. This is the final part in a series of episodes on logical fallacies. Already we have discussed Fallacies of Relevance and Component Fallacies. There are a lot of logical fallacies out there, enough to have entire college classes on them. These episodes only covered a few of the more common ones in each category. This concludes the series on logical fallacies. At first glance these appear overwhelming and overly academic. However as you learn them you will start to see people using them. This will help you to better understand the reasons for certain decisions or how management has been influenced to keep using a deprecated technology that hasn’t been supported in years. Study them, re-listen to the series if need, so that you will not only be able to recognize when you or others are using them but also know how to defend against fallacious arguments. Episode Breakdown Fallacies of Omission Fallacies of Omission are logical errors where necessary information is omitted. It often results in the argument being directed away from the missing information. Argumentum Ad Ignorantium Literally translated it means “Argument from Ignorance” or it can be called the Appeal to a Lack of Evidence. This is the idea that because the other person cannot disprove a premise or idea that it must be true. You will run into the lack of evidence fallacy a lot when trying to get older managers or leads to try newer technology, they will come up with something that the newer tech was never designed to do or that there is no information about. The tricky part of overcoming this fallacy is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim so if they something isn’t possible the burden is on them to prove it, not on you. This is why scientific research uses a null hypothesis (opposite of what they are trying to prove) because the lack of evidence doesn’t disprove their hypothesis it only fails to disprove the null hypothesis. Argumentum Ad Speculum Also known as Hypothesis Contrary to Fact, this fallacy tries to proves something in reality using examples from a fantasy or made up world. The idea is that hypothetically if A happened, then B would be the result of it. The problem is that all of the examples and evidence supporting the argument are hypothetical, or based on accepting a hypothetical premise. This is the other side of the “What if this happens” of the previous fallacy, instead you’ll see this happen after the fact, “Well if we’d changed platforms back when I suggested we wouldn’t have these problems”. While fun to play time-travel/butterfly effect mental games, these hypotheses are typically irrelevant and do not actually provide evidence for or against an argument in the real world. To overcome this you have to politely point out that talking about what could be doesn’t solve the problem a hand, also you don’t know what issues you would have faced had a different decision been made. Stacking the Deck The name comes from cheating in card games where a person will place cards in the deck while shuffling to benefit them in the game. In this fallacy, the person making the argument ignores evidence or examples that disagree or disprove their conclusion and only provide evidence in support of their case. The ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy is a specific type of Stack...