JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

Informal Fallacies and the Development of Nigeria Ochulor, Chinenye Leo1 and Metuonu, Iheanacho Chukwuemeka2 1 2

Department of Philosophy, University of Calabar. E-mail: [email protected] Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Ikeji-Arakeji, Osun State. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This paper is a detailed study of informal fallacies with reference to the development of Nigeria. The paper argues in defense of the thesis that rational or logical arguments supported by evidence are of great importance to the overall development of Nigeria. This importance, the paper maintains, informed the decision of Nigerian Universities Commission to popularize logic through making “Philosophy and Logic” a compulsory General Studies Course in Nigerian Universities. All the informal fallacies discussed in this work have damaging effects on the Nigerian nation and should be avoided by all means. While not expecting Nigeria’s leaders of thought to register for courses in informal or material fallacies, this paper argues that leaders of thought in Nigeria, through the impact those who study informal or material fallacies make on them, must understand and use logical principles properly to guard against fallacies in the articulation of policies and be able to present their positions using valid and sound reasoning. Key words: Informal Fallacy; Development in Nigeria; Argumentum; Introduction A bad or invalid argumentation is called a fallacy. It has the deceptive appearance of being valid but is in reality fallacious. We have two major types of fallacies—namely, formal or logical fallacies and informal or material fallacies. Formal fallacies are associated with formalized arguments. As Uduigwomen correctly articulated, “Logic is primarily concerned with cases of formalized arguments. These formalized arguments are basically of two types, namely deductive and inductive” (p.43). Formal fallacies arise when the rules guiding the articulation and use of formalized arguments are violated. To ensure that a syllogism succeeds in establishing its conclusion, some rules have been formulated as guides in the formulation of syllogisms, to help the

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

reasoner to avoid mistakes, which if not avoided will make one’s argument a fallacy. These rules guide the formulation of Standard Form Syllogisms. (Ochulor, p.66) Such formal fallacies include, among others, the fallacy of four terms, which arises from a violation of the first rule of syllogism: the fallacy of undistributed middle, which arises from a violation of the second rule of syllogism; the fallacies of illicit major and illicit minor, which arise from a violation of the third rule of syllogism; the fallacy of exclusive premise, which arises from a violation of the fourth rule of syllogism; the fallacy of drawing an affirmative conclusion from a negative premise, which arises from a violation of the fifth rule of syllogism and the existential fallacy, which arises from a violation of the sixth rule of syllogism. The informal fallacies, on the other hand, are associated with informal

Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |17

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

arguments. Some people who have no business with formalized arguments have the natural ability to reason well. But no matter how gifted they are in this direction, they occasionally, in the course of their informal arguments; commit various types of informal fallacies which this paper sets out to study. As Uduigwomen rightly observed, “Most introductory courses in logic begin with a discussion of informal fallacies in ordinary discourse” (p.43). Informal fallacies are divided into two groups, namely the first group of thirteen fallacies known as fallacies of relevance and the second group of five fallacies known as fallacies of ambiguity. Clear and unambiguous thinking, as Egbeke opines, enables one to avoid fallacious statements. Also, as Onyeocha opines, the practice of thought and thinking about thought enables one to avoid fallacious statements. Alozie maintains that being critical and reflective in all our thinking will enable us to avoid fallacies. Fallacies of Relevance or Irrelevance These are fallacies which draw conclusions that are not relevant to the premises of the argument. Ucheaga puts it as “Their premises are logically irrelevant to their conclusions” (p.53). i) Argumentum ad Bacculum (Appeal to Force) Says His Excellency to the members of the State Executive Council: “You all can see that I have lived up to expectation as the Governor of this State. This administration is the best our State has ever had, since its creation many years ago. As a result of our numerous achievements in office, it is my intention to contest for a second term in office. All members of the State Executive Council are, therefore, expected to work hard to ensure my reelection in the forthcoming Governorship AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

Election for a second term in office as Governor of our dynamic State. Anyone who is not in support of this development should resign from the State Executive Council within two weeks from today.” In the above speech, His Excellency is appealing to force in his attempt to make all members of the Executive Council accept and support his reelection. Anyone who does not do so will be forced to resign. All those who want to continue as members of the Executive Council must accept and support the governor’s reelection, whether the reelection is justifiable or not. The governor’s speech, therefore, commits the fallacy of appealing to force (of making those who don’t accept it to resign) to make itself accepted. The threat or force of resignation appealed to here ignores the correctness or incorrectness of the governor’s argument for reelection and insists on its being accepted. The fallacy of appealing to force committed here is called argumentum ad bacculum (appeal to force). ii) Argumentum ad Hominem (Abusive) This abusive form of argumentum ad hominem uses abuse in an attempt to make its assertion acceptable. Mr. A says, “Dr. Richard Ugochukwu is a good and intelligent lecturer.” Mr. B responds, “Dr. Richard Ugochukwu was my classmate in the primary school, and he was a bad child, always failing in his examinations. Therefore, he cannot be an intelligent lecturer.” Here, Mr. B abuses Dr. Richard Ugochukwu by informing Mr. A that Dr. Richard Ugochukwu was a bad child and always failed in his examinations during his primary school days. Then Mr. B tries to convince Mr. A, on the strength of his abuse, that Dr. Richard Ugochukwu cannot be a good and intelligent lecturer. His Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |18

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

argument is merely supported by the above abuse and, therefore, commits the abusive form of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. Let us take another example. While working for a particular company, Okokon was convicted of stealing and was sacked by the company. A year later, Okokon published a book on public administration. On hearing about the book, Okokon’s former colleague in the company from which he was sacked asserted that Okokon’s book on public administration cannot be a good book because Okokon was convicted of stealing and was later sacked by his former company. Here, Okokon’s former colleague abuses Okokon by announcing that Okokon was convicted of stealing and later sacked by the company he was working for. Then, on the strength of this abuse, Okokon’s book on public administration cannot be good. Okokon’s former colleague’s argument is only supported by the above abuse and, therefore, commits the abusive form of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. iii) Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial) This is the second form of argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem (circumstantial) is committed when one insists that someone else should accept a given assertion as correct or incorrect because of that person’s circumstance or circumstantial situation or that person’s position in life. Take the case of Mr. and Mrs. Siluko, who refused to give beer to their guests the day they wedded. Their argument was that no born-again child of God should either drink or give beer to some other person. The only premise of their argument is that anyone whose AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

circumstantial situation is that of a bornagain child of God should accept the submission that “no born-again child of God should either drink or give beer to some other person.” Here, Mr. and Mrs. Siluko commit the circumstantial form of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. iv) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Argument from Ignorance) There are some statements or sentences that have yet not been proved or disproved in spite of all the attempts that have been made in this direction. An example is the sentence “God created the world.” Theists have made determined efforts to prove the above statement with the theory of creation. And they expect those who disagree with them to disprove the above statement. And nobody has been able to disapprove the statement. If the theists argue that the sentence “God created the world” must be true in view of the fact that no one has been able to disprove the sentence, then the theists make the mistake of thinking that because their statement has not been disproved by anyone, then it must be true. That would amount to committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Anybody who argues that because a particular proposition has not been proved wrong, then that proposition must (on that grounds of not having been proved wrong), be right, commits this fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This type of argument is wrong because it argues from people’s ignorance of how to disprove a given sentence to the correctness of the sentence. Here, people’s inability to disprove the sentence becomes the only reason for regarding it as correct. This is wrong. On the other hand, evolutionists (those who propound the theory of evolution) reject the theory of creation. Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |19

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

Evolutionists challenge theists to prove their sentence that “God created the world.” If the evolutionists argue that the sentence “God is the creator of the world” must be false in view of the fact that no one has been able to prove the sentence, then the evolutionists will be making the mistake of thinking that because the statement “God created the world” has not been proved by anyone, then the statement must be false. This again amounts to committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Anyone who argues that because a particular statement has not been proved right, then that proposition must, on that grounds (of not having been proved right), be wrong, commits the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. This argument is wrong because it argues from people’s ignorance of how to prove a given sentence right, to the wrongness of that sentence. Here, people’s inability to prove a sentence right becomes the only reason for regarding it as incorrect. This is wrong. Making people’s inability to prove or disprove a given proposition the only grounds for asserting the proposition as right or denying it as false amounts to committing this fallacy—known as the fallacy of arguing from people’s ignorance, to a conclusion (argumentum ad ignorantiam). Logic does not allow that. v) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) Here, one paints a picture that attracts someone’s or some people’s sympathy. On the grounds of the emotional state of being excited, one appeals to pity and for pity in an attempt to make one’s argument accepted. Here, one deliberately ignores the facts of the case and insists on weeping up the emotion of pity as a means of pushing through one’s conclusion.

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

Take the example of a man who is applying for a job. The proper thing is to convince his prospective employer that he is qualified for the job, wants the job, and will do well on the job and so get the job on grounds of competence. Instead, our prospective employee speaks in a manner that will, in his opinion, make it possible for him to get the job on grounds of pity or sympathy. Such a person commits the fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam. Often, we hear people talk of “tampering justice with mercy.” No fallacy is committed in that case. Take another example of one accused of an offence and who is to argue his case personally or through his lawyer and secure his release. If he fails to do so, but rather speaks in a manner that can, in his opinion, secure his discharge and release on grounds of pity, he commits the fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam. vi) Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to the Populace) For any appeal to the populace to be valid, it must appeal to the people’s rationality. An appeal to the people’s emotion, passion, or sentiment instead of their reason gives rise to the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Strangely enough, many religious leaders are often guilty of this fallacy. Many of them limit their religious appeals to the people’s emotions and sentiments. Many other religious leaders are, however, conscious of the damaging effect of appealing to the people’s emotions and sentiments and carefully warn against such. Thus Uduigwomen argues: Theologians and Christian preachers who are saddled with the responsibility of discussing, presenting and defending the Christian faith can only do without logical principles at the risk of destroying the Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |20

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

Christian faith. They must understand and use logical principles properly, to avoid logical fallacies and to present the truth by valid and sound reasoning (46). This timely warning should also go to politicians, advertisers, propagandists, public speakers, etc. They must guard against this fallacy and stop destroying Nigeria and Nigerians. vii) Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority) Appeal to authority is not the same thing as appeal to force. In argumentum ad bacculum, discussed above, one appeals to naked force or physical power. In argumentum ad verecundiam, which we are about to discuss, one appeals to expertise or intellectual power. With the compartmentalization of knowledge, the breaking of the subject matter of knowledge into compartments, different people now focus on different aspects of knowledge, and with time, they become experts in those aspects. For example, a professor of philosophy is an expert in philosophy. As an expert, he becomes an authority in the field of philosophy. When you appeal to him, in the area of philosophy, by quoting what he says to help you prove or support your own argument, you are appealing to an authority. An expert in any field of study is an authority in that field of study. When you quote an authority in the particular area in which he is an authority, you commit no fallacy but argue correctly. With the passage of time, the subject matter of knowledge continues to break into still smaller units. Today, no one person can be an expert in medicine, philosophy, law, geology, etc. Different people are now specializing in different aspects of medicine, philosophy, law, AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

geology, etc. So one is an expert and authority only in that tiny aspect of medicine, philosophy, law, geology, etc., in which he or she specializes. If one appeals to an authority in an area where he is not an authority, one commits the fallacy of argumentatum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). For example, Einstein and Newton are experts or authorities in physics. During their time, in the modern period of philosophy, it was possible for one person to be an expert in the whole of physics because the study of physics had not developed then as much as it has developed now. If you go outside the field of physics where they are experts or authorities and begin to treat them as experts in other fields, you, by so doing, commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). If you refer to their views in other fields as mere opinions, you commit no fallacy. But as soon as you begin to treat their views in other fields as authoritative statements of experts, then you commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. Argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy is also committed when one adopts the view that whatever an expert says is correct. No one is above a mistake. An expert can still make a mistake, particularly outside his field of expertise. So when you accept a statement as correct merely because an authority or expert asserted it, you run the risk of committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), when he may not be speaking as an authority or expert. So to avoid this fallacy, whenever an expert speaks, find out whether what he says is an expert statement or a mere opinion. viii) Accident It is commonly said that every rule has an exception. Rules are usually not Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |21

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

made for an individual alone but for a group or groups of individuals. The rule that students should not come late to a lecture applies equally to all students. But an accidental situation that develops around a student can make that general rule inapplicable in the case of a particular or some particular students. For example, if one of the students, for whom the law was made, suddenly became sick and had to see his doctor and later comes late to the lecture with a note from the doctor, informing the lecturer of the student’s sickness as a reason for his lateness to class, that student’s accidental situation automatically prevents the general law, on lateness, from applying to him. If the lecturer in question insists on appealing to the general rule (that no student should come late to class) while arguing about the student’s particularly unique case, then that lecturer makes the mistake of forcing the general law on a situation that now makes it inapplicable. This mistake is called the fallacy of accident. It is given this name because the person who commits it ignores the accident or accidental situation that now makes the general rule inapplicable to the now particular situation in question. ix) False Cause This fallacy has two versions referred to by the following two Latin names: i) Non causa pro causa (mistaking what is not cause as cause) ii) Post hoc ergo propter hoc (this one follows that, not as from a cause). In the first version of this fallacy, one makes the mistake of ascribing a wrong cause to something that is identifying that which is not the cause as the cause. For example, AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

when someone is drunk, the cause of the drunkenness is not the mere drinking of beer, but the drinking of beer in excess, that is, drinking beyond the limit of what one’s body can carry. The actual cause of the drunkenness is the quantity of beer taken and not just merely the drinking of beer. If one ignores the real cause (which is quantity of beer taken) and attributes the drunkenness to the mere drinking of beer, one commits the first version of the false cause fallacy, where one identifies a false cause as the cause of an event. The second version of the fallacy is committed when someone or something is identified as the cause of something else merely because it only temporally follows the other. Many have identified lightning as the cause of thunder because thunder almost always follows lightning. But here, the fact that thunder follows lightning does not establish any causal connection between them. Identifying one as the cause of the other, merely on grounds of temporal succession, amounts to committing the second version of the fallacy of false cause. x) Petitio Principii (Begging the Question) Occasionally, some people make the mistake of formulating argument in such a way that what appears as a conclusion is repeated in the premise in different words. For example, “I accepted Dr. Emmanula’s advice because it is acceptable.” This type of argument commits the fallacy of begging the question. In the above argument, the conclusion is “I accepted Dr. Emmanuela’s advice.” The premise is that “it is acceptable” which is a reformulation of the conclusion. Any argument where the conclusion is reformulated in other words to form the premise(s) as basis for stating that conclusion commits this fallacy. It is a Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |22

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

fallacy because a proposition cannot be derived from itself, no matter how we reformulate it. A premise usually provides the basis for asserting a conclusion. The question is always how to formulate a basis for one’s conclusion. When one fails to do this but gives a reformulated version of the conclusion as the premise for the conclusion, one commits a fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question). xi) Complex Questions Some questions, by their nature, create the impression that certain other implied and related questions had earlier been asked and answered in the affirmative. For example, have you stopped smoking? This question presumes that another implied and related question, namely, Were you smoking before? had been asked and answered in the affirmative. Because this question includes, within it, another implied question, whose affirmative answer is also presumed, we refer to it as a complex question. Because they are complex questions, by their nature, a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer cannot be given to them. Going on to give “yes” answer commits you to saying, “I was smoking before, but I have stopped now.” If you give a “no” answer to the complex question, you are committing yourself to saying, “No, I have not stopped smoking. I was smoking, and am still smoking.” The only way to avoid implicating yourself is to avoid and reject complex questions totally as inappropriate questions. In logic and in life generally, complex questions are rejected as fallacious questions, and anyone who asks complex questions, in an attempt to examine or cross-examine someone, commits the fallacy of complex questions. So complex or loaded questions must be identified and rejected as fallacious.

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

xii)

Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion) If one sets out to formulate an argument in support of a particular conclusion but ends up constructing an argument that supports a totally different conclusion, such a one makes the mistake of arguing in a manner which suggests that one has become ignorant of what conclusion one set out to establish or support. Whoever makes this mistake commits a fallacy called ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). For example, if one makes the submission that “Dr. Emmanuela is a good lecturer” but goes on to prove that “Dr. Emmanuela is very kind,” this conclusion is quite different from that which one originally set out to prove. The arguments put forth are, therefore, logically irrelevant to the conclusion: “Dr. Emmanuela is a good lecturer,” which one set out initially to prove. The fallacy here is ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). xiii)

Converse Accident (Hasty Generalization) Consider this statement, “He is drunk because he drank too much beer.” If one focuses on the effect of beer on those who drink it to excess and from those abnormal or accidental cases argues that the drinking of beer should be totally banned, then such arguments judge only abnormal and accidental cases. So the general law that beer should be totally banned, based on these abnormal cases, is false, and the fallacy it commits is called fallacy of converse accident or hasty generalization. It is a hasty generalization because one implies, when one attributes the drunkenness to the mere drinking of beer, that mere drinking of beer makes one drunk. This is an unstudied and wrong generalization because the samples taken Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |23

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

were abnormal samples. Obviously, there were people who drank beer but were not drunk. Fallacies of Ambiguity Some informal fallacies are traditionally referred to as “fallacies of clearness.” There are some words or phrases whose meanings are not definite but vary from context to context, either because such words or phrases have more than one acceptable meaning or are words and expressions whose meanings change with emphasis. When such words and phrases are used without indicating the meaning intended, such argument would most likely commit one form of the ambiguity fallacy or the other. Here, we shall discuss five fallacies of ambiguity. (i) Equivocation Some words have more than one acceptable meaning, like the word bank which can mean the side of a river or a finance house where people deposit and withdraw money. When our argument is formulated in a manner that clearly shows our intended meaning, then no difficulty or fallacy arises. But when we use such words that have more than one literal meaning in a manner that implies different meanings or senses of the word within the same context, then we are using such words equivocally. If such a word or words are used equivocally within the context of an argument, then that argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. (ii) Amphiboly “If Nigeria, under Jonathan, goes to war against Obama of America, then Jonathan would destroy a populous nation.” This is an example of an amphibolous statement, and what makes it amphibolous is the fact that its meaning is not easy to determine. It does not tell us what populous nation Jonathan would destroy if AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

he goes to war against Obama of America. If such a war were gone into, would Jonathan destroy the populous nation of Nigeria or the populous nation of America? If the above statement is stated as a premise with the interpretation that makes it true (that Jonathan would destroy the populous nation of Nigeria, if he goes to war against Obama of America) and a conclusion is drawn from it on the interpretation which makes it false (that Jonathan would destroy the populous nation of America, if he goes to war against Obama), then the fallacy committed is the fallacy of amphiboly. (iii) Accent The way a word is stressed in a sentence often changes the entire meaning of the statement. For example, “We should be kind to our neighbor.” When this statement is read without undue accent, the expression is, on the whole, acceptable. When one, however, decides to accent the statement, to infer the statement with one accent from that statement accented differently, it would be an instance of the fallacy of accent. That is to say, when a statement stands with no part of it accented, it has a specific meaning. Then when you accent any part of the statement, its meaning changes—even if slightly. If you state the unaccented statement as premise and draw from it a conclusion that adopts the meaning of the accented statement, then you commit the fallacy of accent. (iv) Composition The fallacy of composition is of two kinds. When one, in the formulation of his or her arguments, attributes to a whole entity the qualities that belong only to individual parts of the whole entity, such a one commits the fallacy of composition. For example, to argue that since every part of a car engine is light in weight, then the car Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |24

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

engine, as a whole, is light in weight amounts to committing the fallacy of composition. As is often the case, a very heavy engine may consist of very large number of light parts. When all the light parts are put together, the engine becomes very heavy. The second kind of composition fallacy usually arises from confusion between the “distributive” and the “collective” use of general terms. We make a distributive use of a general term (like Imo University students) when we speak of the general term singly or severally. But when we speak of members of the general term taken together— as a collectivity, then we make a collective use of the general term in question. When we reason from the attributes of individual elements or members of the collection (like Imo University students who individually or distributively are not allowed to register for more than eight different courses per semester) to attributes of the collection or totality of Imo University students, who collectively register for hundreds of different courses each semester, we commit the fallacy of composition. So it would be a fallacy of composition to argue that because an Imo University student registers for only eight courses per semester, therefore all Imo University students register for only eight courses per semester. It is true that Imo University students register for only eight courses per semester individually, severally, or distributively. But it is also true of Imo University students collectively that they register for hundreds of courses per semester. (v) Division The fallacy of division is simply the opposite of the fallacy of composition. As was the case with the fallacy of AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

composition, the fallacy of division has two varieties. The first version of division fallacy is committed when one argues thus: Since Imo University is very famous, and Dr. Emmanuel is a staff of Imo University, therefore, Dr. Emmanuel is very famous. Arguing that since a certain machine is heavy, therefore every individual part of the machine is heavy commits the fallacy of division. To argue that since a particular student lives in a large hostel, therefore he must be living in a large room commits that first version of the division fallacy. The second version of the division fallacy is committed when one argues from the attributes of a group of people or collection of things to the attributes of the individual members. For example, to argue that since Imo University students study medicine, law, philosophy, and engineering, therefore each and every Imo University student studies medicine, law, philosophy, and engineering is fallacious, and the fallacy committed is the second variety of the division fallacy. To argue that since Imo University College of Law football team is an excellent team, therefore every member of the College of Law team is an excellent player commits the fallacy of division. Critical Evaluation In the words of Thomas Jefferson, according to Copi, “In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance” (vii). We have presented in this paper a detailed study of informal fallacies. Of what use is it to the Nigerian society in particular and humanity in general? According to Ochulor Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |25

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

The beginner in logic especially those who are not majoring in philosophy, often wonder why logic has to be included in the programme of studies for non-philosophy students. Does a non- philosophy student actually need logic as to justify the decision of the Nigerian Universities Commission to make “Philosophy and Logic” a Compulsory General Studies Course? (16). That the Nigerian Universities Commission has a carefully designed syllabus on “Philosophy and Logic” and decided to make it a Compulsory General Studies Course for all first year students of Nigerian Universities emphasizes the importance of “philosophy and logic” not only to the students of “philosophy and logic” but to the general public. Informal fallacies, which this paper discusses, are among the primary concerns of logic, and “since logic puts forth the laws of thought and argument, and since logic is part of the parent discipline philosophy which is a rational inquiry, logic is sometimes regarded as the most fundamental branch of philosophy” (Uduigwomen 43). The importance of this paper on informal fallacies, therefore, becomes obvious. As Mesembe Ita Edet rightly argues: We must note that the overall purpose of the study of philosophy for the non-major philosophers at the General Studies level and philosophy “majors” is to try and develop in the students the actual facility and skill by engaging in philosophical argumentation, analysis and criticism (18). The above passage implies that humanity at large and Nigerians in particular must of necessity understand and use logical

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

principles properly. The above view of Edet agrees with Russell’s position that if the study of philosophy has any value at all for others than students of philosophy, it must be only indirectly, through its effect upon the lives of those who study it. It is in these effects, therefore, if anywhere, that the value of philosophy must be primarily sought (89). Some people, who have no direct business with informal fallacies, have the natural ability to reason well. But no matter how gifted they are in this direction, they occasionally, in the course of their informal arguments; commit various types of informal fallacies which have great damaging effects not only on the Nigerian nation but also on humanity at large. While not expecting Nigeria’s leaders of thought to register for courses in informal fallacies, this paper argues that leaders of thought in Nigeria, through the impact those who study informal fallacies make on them, must understand and use logical principles properly, to guard against informal fallacies in the articulation of policies. Such indirect influence of the study of informal fallacies on Nigeria’s leaders of thought will make it possible for them to present their views and positions using valid and sound arguments. This indirect impact can only be a reality if Nigerian undergraduates—irrespective of their major areas of study in Nigerian universities—who study informal fallacies at the general studies level will accept to apply themselves to the study of “Philosophy and Logic.” As Mesembe Ita Edet rightly observes: as a teacher of “philosophy and logic” at the general studies level to non-philosophy Nigerian undergraduates of various disciplines, I have noticed that most of the Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |26

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

students consider the course an unnecessary extra burden which has been imposed on them in addition to their major courses (p.3). We call on Nigerian undergraduates in particular and the Nigerian society in general to appreciate the importance of rational or logically valid arguments, supported by evidence, to the overall development of the Nigerian nation. This importance informed the decision of the Nigerian Universities Commission to popularize logic through making “Philosophy and Logic” a compulsory General Studies Course for all first year students in all Nigerian universities. On the other hand, we call on teachers of philosophy and logic to please handle the thorny problems of logic, most especially to non-philosophy students, from a unique and very refreshing perspective. As Copi and Cohen opine, logic should equip us with methods and principles that enable us to distinguish correct from incorrect reasoning. With numerous concrete examples drawn from everyday life, the logic lecturers at the general studies level should shed much light on the nature, scope, and application of logic. They should stimulate students’ interests in a manner that makes higher contact with logic a refreshing experience. Conclusion The damaging effects of the above informal fallacies, particularly argumentum ad bacculum and argumentum ad populum, cannot be overemphasized. Talking about corruption in Nigeria, Ochulor, Metuonu, and Asuo argue, in line with Kant, for a common moral rallying point in the rational abilities of all men which enable them to determine for themselves what is right or

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

wrong. Such rational abilities must guard against fallacies (p.146). When there is a need to mobilize the public in order to make them pursue or oppose a course, the rational or logical thing to do is to present arguments in support of or against the course in question and provide evidence in support of one’s arguments. When faced with the above situation, one may fail to present rational or logical arguments, supported by evidence, but go on to arouse the people to emotional actions on sentimental grounds, especially, if one is a gifted and passionate speaker like Marc Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. When one succeeds in stirring up public sentiment for or against a particular course, we say that the person is appealing “to the people” or “to the gallery” without appealing to argument and evidence. Any such move is fallacious, and the fallacy committed here is called appeal to the populace, to the people, to the gallery. This regrettable fallacy has, through the ages, been committed by eminent world figures, including propagandists, advertisers, religious leaders, and many public speakers—people who, instead of appealing to their listeners’ power of reason and encouraging them to build up arguments based on evidence, rather prefer to appeal to their listeners’ power of imagination, making them imagine things that amount to building castles in the air and end up committing the ad populum fallacy. As Schofield indicates, this fallacious method of making one’s conclusion accepted was effectively used by Marc Antony in his speech after the assassination of Julius Caesar by a group that included eminent Brutus, Caesar’s most trusted friend. Marc Antony, whose submission was that the assassination of Caesar was to the disadvantage of Rome and the Romans, Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |27

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

introduced the issue of Caesar’s will when there was actually no will left by Caesar. He made the people to imagine wonderful treasures Caesar would have brought their way. The people’s imagination went wild, and they imagined how much Romans had lost individually and collectively as a result of Caesar’s assassination, and so they accepted Marc Antony’s submission or conclusion. They became terribly angry with those who assassinated Caesar and resolved to avenge Caesar’s death, which they did under the leadership of Marc Antony. So Marc Antony used the ad populum fallacy, to push across his illogical conclusion. If the Romans of Caesar’s time had been more logical, they would have insisted on evidence by reading the much advertised Caesar’s will themselves. They would have discovered that Caesar left no will and would have uncovered the ad populum fallacy, on which Marc Antony’s conclusion stood. The acceptance of that conclusion by the illogical Romans of Caesar’s time sparked off a civil war between the Romans opposed to the assassination of Caesar and those that assassinated Caesar. The Romans opposed to the assassination of Caesar won in the civil war that followed Julius Caesar’s assassination. Brutus, in his assassination of Caesar, was pursuing a patriotic course, which was unfortunately cut short by the Romans’ illogical acceptance of Marc Antony’s fallacious submission. The administration of Rome after the civil war went into the hands of Julius Caesar’s nephew, Octavian. Julius Caesar had no child, and Octavian was the son of Julius Caesar’s sister. Octavian subsequently became the Emperor Augustus. He was born in 63 BC and died in AD 14 and was the Caesar Augustus of the Gospel narrative of the birth of Christ, when he issued a AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

decree that all the world should be taxed. The corruption Brutus wanted to check was allowed, by this illogical acceptance, to grow from within and became a major factor that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 410. Truth never builds on falsehood. This paper calls on the Nigerian nation to learn from the mistakes of the Roman Empire of old. References 1. Aja Egbeke (1992). Logic & clear thought: An introduction to good reasoning. Enugu: Oak Publishers . 2. Alozie Princewill (ed). (2000). Logic, Philosophy and Computer Science. Calabar: Elerof Pub. Co. . 3. Copi, I.M (1978). Introduction to logic. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co. Inc. 4. Copi, I.M and Cohen, C (1998). Introduction to Logic. 10th Edition New York: Prentice-Hall Inc. 5. Mesembe Ita Edet (2002). “How to teach philosophy to make it relevant to Nigerian students”. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 5 (1) 1-26. 6. Ochulor, C.L., Metuonu, I.C and Asuo, O.O (2012). Corruption in contemporary Nigeria: The way out. Ochulor C.L (ed) The Philosophical Foundation of Society, Religion and Other Disciplines. Calabar: Focus Prints & Publishers, pp 133-160. 7. Ochulor, C.L (2010). “Failure of leadership in Nigeria”. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol 12 (2) 1-7. 8. Ochulor, C.L (2009). Strategic planning. Ochulor, C.L (ed). Logical Thinking and Strategic Planning. Calabar: Focus Prints and Publishers, pp 16-22. Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |28

JOURNAL AMERICAN

OPEN

ACCESS

9. Ochulor, C.L (2009). Types of arguments. Ochulor, C.L (ed). Logical Thinking and Strategic Planning. Calabar: Focus Prints and Publishers,pp 56-76. 10. Onyeocha, I.M (1998). A Brief on Philosophy and Logic. Owerri: Clacon Publishers 11. Russell, B (1980). The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.

AJSIH | ISSN: 2276 – 6928

OF SOCIAL ISSUES AND HUMANITIES

12. Schofield, H (1992). The Philosophy of Education: An Introduction. London: George Allen & Unwin, 13. Ucheaga, D.N (2001). Rudiments of Logic. Calabar: University of Calabar Press, 14. Uduigwomen, A.F (2009). A Companion of Christian Philosophy & Apologetics. Calabar: Ultimate Index Book Publishers Limited .

Vol. 3 | Iss.1 | January 2013 |29