Last month, I posted on attorneys who create accidents with contextomy. Sounds weird, I know, without defining the terms.
“Accident,” in this sense, is a logical fallacy in which one advocates a general rule without acknowledging any exceptions. Contextomy means taking something out of context. The post noted that the two often go together. Continue reading
Ever had opposing counsel misrepresent your argument? This post ends a series on logical fallacies that I have faced handling South Carolina appeals. Misrepresenting an opposing argument falls in a family of fallacies known as “ignoratio elenchi,” literally meaning “ignorance of refutation.” Continue reading
Mark Twain once said, “All generalizations are false, including this one.” This aphorism highlights some of the continuing fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. This post covers three fallacies over generalizations. Continue reading
(Sony Pictures 1989)
This post continues the series on fallacies that I have faced while handling South Carolina appeals. The last one discussed ad hominem or personal attacks and suggested how to deflate them. This one covers a particular type of personal attack and when it may properly work.
In the “tu quoque” attack, one charges the opposing party with hypocrisy. The argument is “Yeah, you’re another” or “you’re one to talk.” It is fallacious because two wrongs do not make a right. Continue reading
This post is one of a series on logical fallacies that I have faced in South Carolina appeals. This one covers the ad hominem fallacy in which one attacks the message by personally attacking the messenger. Continue reading
This post is one in a series on the logical fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. This one is on circular reasoning and begins with petitio principii, literally meaning “assuming the initial point.” It is better known as begging the question. Continue reading
This post is one of a series on fallacies that I have run across in handling South Carolina appeals. One of these is the “bandwagon” argument in which one argues that the majority view is correct simply because it is the majority view. But majorities, even a majority of appellate courts, may be wrong. Continue reading