{"id":4971,"date":"2021-10-20T16:22:31","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T14:22:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4971"},"modified":"2025-07-03T11:29:10","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T09:29:10","slug":"fallacies-iii-from-logic-and-dialectic-to-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/fallacies-iii-from-logic-and-dialectic-to-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Fallacies 3: From Logic and Dialectic to Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

FALLACIES 3:
\nFROM LOGIC AND DIALECTIC TO SCIENCE<\/span><\/h1>\n

1.\u2002Francis Bacon, Novum Organum<\/em>, 1620.<\/span><\/h2>\n

Hamblin considers Francis Bacon’s New Organon<\/em> as a psychological turning point in the conception of fallacies (Hamblin 1970, p. 146; Walton, 1999). Bacon presents his concept of \u00ab\u00a0idol\u00a0\u00bb as the scientific counterpart to logical or dialectical fallacies. An idol is an obstacle to the (inductive) edification of scientific knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n

The word idol<\/em> comes from a Greek term meaning \u201csimulacrum, phantom\u201d (Bailly, [eidolon<\/em>]). According to Bacon, a fallacy is a simulacrum<\/em>, or phantom of an argument, produced under the influence of exalted idols, defined as false gods that alter human reasoning:<\/p>\n

XXXIX. Four species of idols beset the human mind, to which (for distinction’s sake) we have assigned names, calling the first Idols of the Tribe<\/span>, the second Idols of the Den<\/span>, the third Idols of the Market<\/span>, the fourth Idols of the Theater<\/span>. ([1620], p. 20)<\/p>\n

\u2014 The idols of the tribe<\/em>, <\/strong>are the idols of all mankind. These idols are the distortions imposed on reality by the innate structure of the human mind, which is not a tabula rasa<\/em> but rather an \u201cuneven mirror\u201d (ibid<\/em>.). Its a priori<\/em> categories distort reality.<\/p>\n

\u2014 The idols of the<\/em> den<\/em><\/strong> are the product of each individual’s upbringing and history\u2013i.e., prejudices or other evidence, that exercise their powers through \u201cauthority\u201d (ibid.,<\/em> p. 21).<\/p>\n

\u2014 The idols of the marketplace<\/em> <\/strong>are words in general, that \u201cmanifestly force understanding, throw everything into confusion, and lead mankind into vain and innumerable controversies and fallacies\u201d (ibid.<\/em>, p. 21).<\/p>\n

\u2014 The idols of the theater<\/em> <\/strong>correspond to \u201cthe various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also to the perverted rules of demonstration\u201d (ibd.<\/em>, p. 22).i<\/p>\n

These idols include fallacious inferences as well as substantial fallacies.<\/p>\n

2.\u2002John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding<\/em>, 1690.<\/span><\/h2>\n

In a brief section of his Essay<\/em>, Locke reflects \u201con four sorts of arguments<\/em>, that men in their reasonings with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent or at least so to awe them as to silence their opposition\u201d ([1690], p. 410). This definition of an argument aligns with the concept of a rhetorical argument: a pressure exerted on the audience, see logos \u2013 ethos \u2013 pathos<\/a>. These four types of arguments are (id<\/em>., pp. 410-412):<\/p>\n

\u201cThe argumentum ad verecundiam<\/em>\u201d, see modesty<\/a><\/span>
\n\u201cThe argumentum ad ignorantiam<\/em>\u201d, see Ignorance<\/a><\/span>
\n\u201cThe argumentum<\/em> ad hominem<\/em>\u201d, see ad hominem<\/a>
\n<\/em> \u201cThe argumentum ad judicium<\/em>\u201d, see matter<\/a>.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Locke rejects the first three arguments because, at best, they \u201cmay dispose me, perhaps, for the reception of truth, but help me not to it\u201d:<\/p>\n

For, 1. It [ad verecundiam<\/em>] argues not another man’s opinion to be right because I, out of respect, or any other consideration but that of conviction, will not contradict him. 2. It [ad ignorantiam<\/em>] proves not another man to be in the right way, nor that I ought to take the same way, because I know not a better. 3. Nor does it follow that another man is in the right way because he has shown me that I am in the wrong. I may be modest, and therefore not oppose another man’s persuasion; I may be ignorant, and not be able to produce a better; I may be in error, and another may show me that I am so. This may dispose me, perhaps, for the reception of truth, but helps me not to it\u00a0(id<\/em>., 411).<\/span><\/p>\n

The concept of fallacy is redefined independently of any Aristotelian consideration. The only valid arguments are arguments ad judicium<\/em>, that is to say \u201cproofs drawn from any of the foundations of knowledge or probability\u201d (ibid<\/em>.). Truth \u201cmust come from proofs and arguments and light arising from the nature of things themselves\u201d (ibid<\/em>., 412).<\/p>\n

Note that while the first three fallacious arguments correspond to argument schemes, the argument ad judicium<\/em> does not correspond to an argument scheme but to any kind of argument recognized as scientifically valid.<\/p>\n

Leibniz ([1765]) nuanced this strict view of fallacious arguments (see the entries above).<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FALLACIES 3: FROM LOGIC AND DIALECTIC TO SCIENCE 1.\u2002Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620. Hamblin considers Francis Bacon’s New Organon as a psychological turning point in the conception of fallacies (Hamblin 1970, p. 146; Walton, 1999). Bacon presents his concept of \u00ab\u00a0idol\u00a0\u00bb as the scientific counterpart to logical or dialectical fallacies. An idol is an obstacle […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4971"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4971\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14565,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4971\/revisions\/14565"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}