Christian Cotton

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: definist fallacy. The definist fallacy consists of (1) defining one concept in terms of another concept with which it is not clearly synonymous, (2) as the persuasive definition fallacy, defining a concept in terms of another concept in an infelicitous way that is favorable to one's position, or (3) the insistence that a term be defined before it can be used in discussion. The simplest way to not commit any version of this fallacy is to define one's terms credibly! He/she needs to avoid using definitions that are laden with emotion or those that are idiosyncratic. That is, he/she may use more neutral and accepted definitions. If those definitions seem inadequate for his/her purposes, then he/she may argue for his/her definition.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ' if by whiskey'. The if by whiskey fallacy is a kind of deception by double talk in which one supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. The name derives from a 1952 speech made by Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr., a legislator from the state of Mississippi, on the issue of whether Mississippi should continue its prohibition on alcohol. One could argue that this fallacy is a special case of the appeal to emotion fallacy. However, because of its particular use, to avoid answering a question on a controversial matter in a clear and decisive manner, it certainly warrants its own label. The trick to avoiding this fallacy is to take a stand.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called hedging. Hedging is that error in reasoning involving the systematic weakening of a claim so as to avoid refutation. The defining characteristic of the hedge is the use of understatement. To understate a claim is to use words which diminish the force or content of the claim. Hedging uses understatement the way slippery slope uses vagueness, begging the question uses latency, and the straw man uses overstatement. With the hedge, detensifiers are used to weaken the claim in order to avoid refutation without admitting the weakened claim is different from the original. As with most informal fallacies, hedging can easily be avoided by accepting the counter‐evidence against the initial claim and revising the claim in light of that evidence.

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, argument from fallacy. Also known as argumentum ad logicam, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, and fallacist's fallacy, the argument from fallacy occurs when one reasons that because the argument for some conclusion is fallacious, the conclusion of that argument is false. Truth and falsity are features of claims. Fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors about truth or falsity. That is, if someone has committed a fallacy, then he has made an error in reasoning; but it does not follow that he has made a factual error. As a deductive argument, fallacy of affirming the consequent is invalid ‐ one cannot draw/infer the conclusion from the premises ‐ and yet the conclusion is true. As such, it should be clear that poor reasoning (committing a fallacy) does not entail a false conclusion.