FALLACYof

FOUR TERMS

What is FALLACY?
A "fallacy" is what we consider a
mistake, and a "logical fallacy on

that note is a mistake in reasoning.

Importance of Identifying and Understanding Fallacies

Identifying and understanding sings of Fallacies of Reasoning allows one to.

spot and understand signs of fallacies and thus make corrections to these mistakes through the knowledge of what has been done wrong convincingly and correctly.
gain understanding of which ones are really the correct reasoning that leads you from the ideas of point A to point B .

The Four Term Fallacy

(Latin quaternio terminorum) ..is a formal logical fallacy that occurs when a syllogism has four (or more) terms rather than the requisite three. This form of argument is thus invalid.

Syllogistic Rule Violated

All valid categorical syllogisms have exactly three terms, each of which is used in the same sense throughout the argument.

For example:
Valid Syllogism:

Major premise: All fish have fins.

Minor premise: All goldfish are fish. Conclusion: All goldfish have fins.

Here, the three terms are: "goldfish", "fish", and "fins".

Invalid Syllogism:

Major premise: All fish have fins. Minor premise: All goldfish are fish.

Conclusion: All humans have fins.

The premises don't connect "humans" with "fins", so the reasoning is invalid. Notice that there are

four terms: "fish", "fins", "goldfish" and "humans".

Two premises aren't enough to connect four different terms, since in order to establish connection, there must be one term common to both premises.

More examples

Example 1:

All dogs are animals, and all cats are mammals, so all dogs are mammals. The four terms are: dogs, animals, cats and mammals.
Note: In many cases, the fallacy of four terms is a special case of equivocation. While the same word is used, the word has different meanings, and hence the word is treated as two different terms.

Example 2:

Only man is born free, and no women are men, therefore, no women are born free.
The four terms are: man (in the sense of 'humanity'), man (in the sense of 'male'), and women and born free. Proof: Identify the four terms and where necessary state the meaning of each term. This is the easiest way to identify the fallacy.

Example 3: Science is a very powerful and reliable tool; it has allowed us to develop technology, and even to put men on the moon. So why would people deny the science of evolution?
The argument equivocates on the word science which can either mean operational science or origins science. Operation science is the reliable, trustworthy tool that is responsible for technology. Origins science is an attempt to understand past events in light of present evidence; its much more easily tainted by historical bias than operation science and is not directly testable or repeatable. The two types of science should not be mixed within an argument.

Example 4:

Evolution is a fact, we see it in animals as they adapt to their environment!

The first part of this statement is referring to allegedly idea where animals change from one kind to another (common descent) whilst the 2nd part is referring to the observable small variation within the kind. This is also known as the bait-andswitch fallacy. Evolutionists use a known scientific observation and then later switch to another meaning to promote common descent. This kind of argument is usually presented due to ignorance of the theory or just a dirty trick. Unfortunately, in my experience its usually the latter.

Fallacy of Equivocation
The Four Term Fallacy is otherwise known

as the Fallacy of Equivocation as a point of

view of informal logic. It is because the Equivocation of the middle term is a frequently cited source of a fourth term being added to a syllogism. And this common error is what we call the Ambiguous Middle.

For example: (Fallacy of Equivocation)

"A poor lesson is better than a good lesson

because a poor lesson is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a good lesson. Note how in the following argument we have an uncomfortable feeling that the argument seems good with true premises, but the conclusion is obviously false. Often, we smile at arguments like these because we know something is drastically wrong, but it is not initially intuitively obvious what it is. Knowing that a valid argument cannot have true premises and a false conclusion, and yet the argument appears to be perfectly valid, is a tip-off for the presence of the fallacy of equivocation.

Nothing is better than a good lesson. A poor lesson is better than nothing. A poor lesson is better than a good lesson. Obviously, there is something wrong with this syllogism; this is evident from its humorous appearance. When we sketch a diagram, without attending to the meaning of the classes, it is clear that the diagram would appear valid. How is this possible?

Although the argument does not translate very well into standard form categorical propositions, if we attempt to do so, we can see that the classes do not match. The word "nothing" is being used in two different senses. One attempt at translation yields:
No [lessons] are [things better than good lessons.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than no lessons at all.] All [poor lessons] are [things better than good lessons.]

Notice that we have more than three terms--our middle term does not match. Hence, we cannot get a valid diagram.

Another example of equivocation, a more tricky one:

Major premise: The pen touches the paper. Minor premise: The hand touches the pen. Conclusion: The hand touches the paper.

This is more clear if you use "is touching" instead of "touches". It then becomes clear that "touching the pen" is not the same as "the pen", thus creating four terms: "the hand", "touching the pen", "the pen", "touching the paper". A correct form of this statement would be:
Major premise: All that touches the pen, touches the paper.

Minor premise: The hand touches the pen.

Conclusion: The hand touches the paper.

Reducing Terms

Sometimes a syllogism that is apparently fallacious because it is stated with more than three terms can be translated into an equivalent, valid three term syllogism.

For example:

Major premise: No humans are immortal. Minor premise: All Greeks are people. Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

This EAE-1 syllogism apparently has five terms: "humans", "people", "immortal", "mortal", and "Greeks". However it can be rewritten as a standard form AAA-1 syllogism by first substituting the synonymous term "humans" for "people" and then by reducing the complementary term "immortal" in the first premise using the inference known as obversion (that is, "No humans are immortal." is equivalent to "All humans are mortal.").

Presented by: Longares, Michelle Legaspi, Raquel Armas, Joylie Soriano, Daisyrie Baylon, Rochelle

References:
PHI1 Workbook 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-anargument/deductive-logic-arguments/fallacy-of-four-terms http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/four_fall.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html