- "The reason why most bachelors are timid is that their mothers were domineering." (The illogical reasoner attempts to explain why most bachelors are timid, but it can be shown that his generalization is based on two bachelors he once knew, both of whom were timid. This form of evidence is often called "anecdotal evidence".)
- "The reason why I get four or better on my evaluations is that my students love me." (This is a fallacy if the evaluations which score four or less are discarded on the grounds that the students did not understand the question.)
- "The reason why Alberta has the lowest tuition in Canada is that tuition hikes have lagged behind other provinces." (Lower tuitions in three other provinces - Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia - were dismissed as "special cases" [again this is an actual example])
Fallacies of Explanation
An explanation is a form of reasoning which attempts to answer the question "why?" For example, it is with an explanation that we answer questions such as, "Why is the sky blue?" Explanation can be based on a scientific theory, on agency, or purpose (teleology). In this case, the explanation of why the sky is blue might begin in terms of the composition of the sky and theories of reflection. Of course, blue, as we commonly refer to it, does not refer to a wavelength of light but to that color we see in our mind's eye (qualia) when we look at the sky, a blueberry, or iodine. And the phenomenelogical answer to why the sky appears blue to our minds will be of a different sort. If one is open to the idea that the universe was created or designed for a purpose or with intentionality, one might also venture an answer in terms of teological or aesthetics.
An explanation is intended to explain why some phenomenon happens. In this case, there is evidence that the phenomenon occurred, but it is trumped up, biased or ad hoc evidence.
Examples:
Proof: Identify the term being defined. Identify the conditions in the definition. Find an item which is an instance of the term but does not meet the conditions.
An explanation is intended to explain who some phenomenon happens. The explanation is fallacious if the phenomenon does not actually happen or if there is no evidence that it does happen.
Examples:
- The reason why most bachelors are timid is that their mothers were domineering. (This attempts to explain why most bachelors are timid. However, it is not the case that most bachelors are timid.)
- John went to the store because he wanted to see Maria. (This is a fallacy if, in fact, John went to the library.)
- The reason why most people oppose the strike is that they are afraid of losing their jobs. (This attempts to explain why workers oppose the strike. But suppose they just voted to continue the strike, Then in fact, they don't oppose the strike. [This sounds made up, but it actually happened.])
Proof: Identify the phenomenon which is being explained. Show that the evidence advanced to support the existence of the phenomenon was manipulated in some way.
The theory advanced to explain why some phenomen occurs cannot be tested. We test a theory by means of its predictions. For example, a theory may predict that light bends under certain conditions, or that a liquid will change colour if sprayed with acid, or that a psychotic person will respond badly to particular stimuli. If the predicted event fails to occur, then this is evidence against the theory. A thoery cannot be tested when it makes no predictions. It is also untestable when it predicts events which would occur whether or not the theory were true.
Examples:
- Aircraft in the mid-Atlantic disappear because of the effect of the Bermuda Triangle, a force so subtle it cannot be measured on any instrument. (The force of the Bermuda Triangle has no effect other than the occasional downing of aircraft. The only possible prediction is that more aircraft will be lost. But this is likely to happen whether or not the theory is true.)
- I won the lottery because my psychic aura made me win. (The way to test this theory to try it again. But the person responds that her aura worked for that one case only. There is thus no way to determine whether the win was the result of an aura of of luck.)
- NyQuil makes you go to sleep because it has a dormative formula. (When pressed, the manufacturers define a "dormative formula" as "something which makes you sleep". To test this theory, we would find something else which contains the domative formular and see if makes you go to sleep. But how do we find something else which contains the dormative formula? We look for things which make you go to sleep. But we could predict that things which make you sleep will make you sleep, no matter what the theory says. The theory is empty.)
Proof: Identify the theory. Show that it makes no predictions, or that the predictions it does make cannot ever be wrong, even if the theory is false.
The theory doesn't explain anything other than the phenomenon it explains.
Examples:
- My cat likes tuna because she's a cat. (This theory asserts only that cats like tuna, without explaining why cats like tuna. It thus does not explain why my cat likes tuna.)
- Ronald Reagan was militaristic because he was American. (True, he was American, but what was it about being American that made him militaristic? What caused him to act in this way? The theory does not tell us, and hence, does not offer a good explanation.
- You're just saying that because you belong to the union. (This attempt at dismissal tries to explain your behaviour as frivolous. However, it fails because it is not an explanation at all. Suppose everyone in the union were to say that. Then what? We have to get deeper - we have to ask why they would say that - before we can decide that what they are saying is frivolous.)
Proof: Identify the theory and the phenomenon it explains. Show that the theory does not explain anything else. Argue that theories which explain only one phenomenon are likely to be incomplete, at best.
Theories explain phenomena by appealing to some underlying cause or phenomena. Theories which do not appeal to an underlying cause, and instead simply appeal to membership in a category, commit the fallacy of limited depth.
Examples:
- A society is free if and only if liberty is maximized and people are required to take responsibility for their actions. (Definitions of this sort are fairly common, especially on the internet. However, if a person is required to do something, then that person's liberty is not maximized.)
- People are eligible to apply for a learner's permit (to drive) if they have (a) no previous driving experience, (b) access to a vehicle, and (c) experience operating a motor vehicle. (A person cannot have experience operating a motor vehicle if they have no previous driving experience.)
Proof: Theories of this sort attempt to explain a phenomenon by showing that it is part of a category of similar phenomenon. Accept this, then press for an explanation of the wider category of phenomenon. Argue that a theory refers to a cause, not a classification.