Editing Fallacy (section)

== <span id="Material fallacy"></span>Systems of classification ==
Fallacies are generally classified strictly by either their structure or their content, such as by classifying them as [[Formal fallacy|formal fallacies]] or [[Informal fallacy|informal fallacies]], respectively. The classification of informal fallacies may be subdivided into categories such as linguistic, relevance through omission, relevance through intrusion, and relevance through presumption.<ref name="Pirie2006">{{Cite book |last=Pirie |first=Madsen |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gh5UjNNc0v4C&pg=PA46 |title=How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic |publisher=A&C Black |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-8264-9006-3 |page=46 |author-link=Madsen Pirie |access-date=10 September 2015}}</ref> Alternatively, fallacies may be classified by the process by which they occur, such as [[Material fallacy|material fallacies]] (content), [[Verbal fallacy|verbal fallacies]] (linguistic), and formal fallacies (error in inference). In turn, material fallacies may be placed into the more general category of informal fallacies. Verbal fallacies may be placed in either formal or informal classifications: Compare [[equivocation]], which is a word- or phrase-based [[ambiguity]], to the [[fallacy of composition]], which is premise- and inference-based ambiguity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=fallacy |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/fallacy#toc280530 |access-date=13 June 2017 |website=|publisher=Encyclopedia Britannica}}</ref>

=== <span id="Verbal fallacy"></span>Greek logic ===
The Greek philosopher [[Aristotle]] (384–322 BC) was the first to systematize logical errors into a list to make it easier to refute an opponent's thesis and thus win an argument.<ref name="eem">{{Cite book |last1=van Eemeren |first1=Frans |title=Fallacies and judgements of reasonableness, Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules |last2=Garssen |first2=Bart |last3=Meuffels |first3=Bert |date=2009 |publisher=Springer Science+Business Media B.V. |isbn=978-90-481-2613-2 |location=Dordrecht |language=en |chapter=1}}</ref>{{rp|2}} Aristotle's ''[[Sophistical Refutations]]'' ({{transliteration|el|De Sophisticis Elenchis}}) identifies thirteen fallacies. He divided them up into two major types: linguistic fallacies and non-linguistic fallacies, some of which depend on language and others that do not.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 13, 2008 |title=Aristotle's original 13 fallacies |url=http://thenonsequitur.com/?page_id=621 |access-date=28 May 2013 |publisher=The Non Sequitur}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Aristotle's 13 fallacies |url=http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/Straker3.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180718072028/http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/Straker3.html |archive-date=2018-07-18 |access-date=2017-12-12 |website=www.logiclaw.co.uk}}</ref> These fallacies are called verbal fallacies and material fallacies, respectively. A [[material fallacy]] is an error in what the arguer is talking about, while a [[verbal fallacy]] is an error in how the arguer is talking. Verbal fallacies are those in which a conclusion is obtained by improper or ambiguous use of words.<ref>{{Cite web |title=PHIL 495: Philosophical Writing (Spring 2008), Texas A&M University |url=http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/PhilosophicalWriting/08a/fallacies.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080905215503/http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/PhilosophicalWriting/08a/fallacies.html |archive-date=2008-09-05 |access-date=2013-09-10}}</ref>
An example of a language dependent fallacy is given as a debate as to who in humanity are learners: the wise or the ignorant.{{r|eem|page1=3}} A language-independent fallacy is, for example:
# "[[Coriscus of Scepsis|Coriscus]] is different from [[Socrates]]."
# "Socrates is a man."
# "Therefore, Coriscus is different from a man."{{r|eem|page1=4}}

=== <span id="Verbal fallacy"></span>Indian logic ===
[[Indian logic|Indian logicians]] took great pains to identify fallacies in arguments. An influential collection of texts on logic and reason, the ''[[Nyāya Sūtras]]'', attributed to [[Aksapada Gautama]], variously estimated to have been composed between the 6th century BCE and the 2nd century CE, lists in its theory of inference five such reasons used in an argument that was further developed by later logicians.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/epistemology-india/ |access-date=2021-05-07 |last=Phillips |first=Stephen |date=2019 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Spring 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Mahamahopadhyaya Satisa Chandra Vidyabhushana |url=http://archive.org/details/NyayaSutrasOfGautama |title=The Nyaya Sutras Of Gautama (English)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=Analytic Philosophy in Early Modern India |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/early-modern-india/ |access-date=2021-05-07 |last=Ganeri |first=Jonardon |date=2019 |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Summer 2019}}</ref>

# ''Asiddha'': It is the unproved reason that results in this fallacy. [Paksadharmata]
# ''Savyabhichara'': This is the fallacy of irregular reason.
# ''Satpratipaksa'': Here the reason is contradicted by another reason. If both have equal force, then nothing follows. 'Sound is eternal, because it is audible', and 'Sound is non-eternal, because it is produced'. Here 'audible' is counterbalanced by 'produced' and both are of equal force.
# ''Badhita'': When another proof (as by perception) definitely contradicts and disproves the middle term (reason). 'Fire is cold because it is a substance'.
# ''Viruddha'': Instead of proving something it is proving the opposite. 'Sound is eternal because it is produced'.

=== Whately's grouping ===
English scholar and theologian [[Richard Whately]] (1787–1863) defines a fallacy broadly as, "any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at hand, while in reality it is not".{{r|eem|page1=8}}

Whately divided fallacies into two groups: ''logical'' and ''material''. According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Material fallacies are not logical errors because the conclusion follows from the premises. He then divided the logical group into two groups: purely logical and semi-logical. The semi-logical group included all of Aristotle's [[sophisms]] except ''[[ignoratio elenchi]]'', ''[[petitio principii]]'', and ''[[non causa pro causa]]'', which are in the material group.<ref name="Coffey1912">{{Cite book |last=Coffey |first=P. |url=https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft |title=The Science of Logic |publisher=Longmans, Green, and Co.|year=1912 |isbn=978-0371778951 |edition=1st |volume=1 |page=[https://archive.org/details/thescienceoflogi01coffuoft/page/302 302] |language=en-US |lccn=12018756 |oclc=797892247 |ol=7104938M |access-date=2016-02-22 |ol-access=free}}</ref>

=== Other systems of classification ===
Other famous methods of classifying fallacies are those of [[Francis Bacon (philosopher)|Francis Bacon]] and [[John Stuart Mill|J. S. Mill]]. Bacon (''[[Novum Organum]]'', Aph. 33, 38 sqq.) divided fallacies into four Idola (Idols, i.e. False Appearances), which summarize the various kinds of mistakes to which the human intellect is prone. J. S. Mill discussed the subject in book five of his Logic, and [[Jeremy Bentham]]'s ''Book of Fallacies'' (1824) contains valuable remarks.