Fallacies of Evading the Facts

In this family of fallacies, the arguer appears to be dealing with the relevant facts but is actually evading them — either by distorting the opponent’s view, smuggling the conclusion into the premises, using loaded language, asking a trick question, or applying a double standard. These fallacies give the semblance of correctness (Walton’s condition 4) — the arguer seems to be engaging, but the actual facts and arguments are avoided.

How It Appears Per Course

PHIL 252

Introduced in Ch. 19 (Unit 9). The five fallacies here all fail the support relationship of a cogent argument — either premises don’t support the conclusion (circularity), or the dialogue partner’s actual position is never addressed (straw person, complex question, special pleading).

---

The Five Fallacies

1. Straw Person

In the straw person fallacy, an arguer constructs their dialogue partner’s view out of “straw” (to make it easy to knock down), which effectively creates a new person — the “straw person” — who is refuted rather than the original dialogue partner.

• The fallacy is neutral about intent — it may be unintentional. The arguer may have genuinely misunderstood.
• The arguer does knock down an argument (hence the semblance of correctness), but accomplishes nothing in the actual dialogue because the original view hasn’t been addressed.
• The antidote is the Principle of Charity: assume your dialogue partner’s view is as strong as possible, so your response is also strengthened. Ask yourself: would the person endorse the view you are attributing to them?
• Examples:
  • Person A: “Everyone deserves equal pay regardless of gender.” Person B: “So a stay-at-home mother should earn as much as a brain surgeon?”
  • Party A: “We need to raise taxes to fund health care.” Party B: “Party A just wants to take all your money and throw it away on executive salaries.”

1b. Pooh-Pooh / Hand-Waving (adjacent to Straw Person)

While constructing a straw person is wrong, some arguers don’t bother to address a person’s view at all — they simply dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. This is called the “pooh-pooh” fallacy or hand-waving. Rather than building a weaker version of the opponent’s position (straw person), the arguer waves the position away as too absurd to take seriously, without engaging with it.

---

2. Begging the Question (Petitio Principii)

The fallacy of begging the question is assuming what you intend to, or should be, proving. It is a failure of the support relationship.

• Also called the fallacy of circularity. Petitio principii is Latin for “little circle.”
• The conclusion is placed (in some form) into the premises — the argument goes in a circle rather than providing independent support.
• An argument can be formally valid and even sound while still begging the question (e.g., “Rome is the capital of Italy, therefore Rome is the capital of Italy” — valid and sound, but circular — gives no reason to believe it).
• Three common forms:
  1. P → Therefore P (restated in different language)
  2. P → Therefore not-P is not true
  3. P, Q, R → Therefore P (conclusion is one of the premises)
• Examples:
  • “Joe is the rightful possessor of the bike because they own it.” (Ownership = rightful possession = circular.)
  • “Free trade will be good for the country. Isn’t it patently clear that unrestricted commercial relations will bestow great benefits?” (Rephrasing the claim as self-evident doesn’t support it.)
  • “Government ownership of public utilities is dangerous because it is socialistic.” (Uses the controversial claim “socialism is dangerous” to support the conclusion — but that’s what’s at issue.)

3. Question-Begging Epithets

Question-begging epithets use slanted language that is question-begging because it implies what we wish to prove but have not yet proved.

• An epithet is a descriptive word or phrase used to characterize something, often negatively. Also called: loaded words, mudslinging, verbal suggestion.
• The slanted word smuggles in the conclusion without proving it. Slanted language does not prove a claim; it does not make it dialectically acceptable.
• Signal words for begging: “Obviously…”, “It is patently clear that…”, “As everyone knows…”, “Isn’t it self-evident that…” — these assert rather than support.
• Overlaps with abuse (ad hominem) when the epithet is directed at a person; overlaps with poisoning the well when it attacks motivation.
• A positively slanted epithet is just as question-begging: “Of course the husband ought to support his family, as it is the duty of the breadwinner” — uses prestige language to assume the conclusion.
• Examples:
  • “This criminal has been charged with a terrible crime.” (Calling them a “criminal” assumes what the trial is determining.)
  • “You shouldn’t listen to this dangerous radical’s ideas.” (Implies the ideas are dangerous before proving it.)
  • “Of course the husband ought to support his wife and family, as it is the duty of the breadwinner.” (Uses prestige language to beg the question of who should be the breadwinner.)

4. Complex Question

The fallacy of complex question is when the arguer asks a question that presupposes the truth of the question at issue.

• A question form of begging the question. Also called: trick question, leading question, false question.
• Classic example: “Have you stopped beating your dog?” — both Yes and No affirm that you did beat your dog.
• The fallacy exploits the rules of interrogative inquiry: questions invite answers, and both direct answers affirm the presupposition.

The 5 rules of good interrogative inquiry (Ch. 19, §19.4):

1. Questions must be answered truthfully
2. Lying or refusing to answer = breakdown of the inquiry
3. Questions are asked one after the other (sequentially)
4. Later questions depend on answers to earlier questions
5. The process builds a case that reveals the truth about some matter

Complex question violates rule 4: it skips ahead and presupposes an answer to an earlier question that was never established.

• Examples:
  • “What is the explanation for mental telepathy?” (Presupposes telepathy exists.)
  • “Where did you hide the murder weapon?” (Presupposes guilt.)
  • “When should you buy your first Cadillac?” (Presupposes you will buy one.)
  • “Are you still angry with me?” (Presupposes that you were angry.)

5. Special Pleading

Special pleading is when we use slanted or loaded language for others’ actions but when we do the same thing ourselves we use neutral or positive language.

• Applies a double standard: negative/loaded terms for others, neutral/positive terms for ourselves.
• Bertrand Russell’s classic conjugation: “I am firm; you are stubborn; he is pig-headed.” Same behaviour, three different framings based on who is doing it.
• Evidence of a double standard: literally correct words are replaced by emotionally charged words that are similar in meaning.
• Double standards often reflect differences in prestige or power and typically operate covertly.
• Examples from the text:

Neutral	Special pleading
Enterprising plan	Opportunistic scheme
He smiled engagingly	He leered suggestively
Reserved	Secretive
Boisterous group of young fellows	Rowdy gang of juvenile toughs
Group	Gang

---

graph TD
    A[Fallacies of Evading the Facts] --> B[Straw Person]
    A --> C[Begging the Question]
    A --> D[Question-Begging Epithets]
    A --> E[Complex Question]
    A --> F[Special Pleading]
    B --> G[Distorts opponent's view — fights a weakened version]
    C --> H[Conclusion smuggled into premises — circular support]
    D --> H
    E --> H
    F --> I[Double standard — loaded language for others, neutral for self]
    B --> J[Antidote: Principle of Charity]

(diagram saved)

Cross-Course Connections

InformalFallacies — parent category
Cogency — all these fallacies fail the support relationship
Argument — begging the question violates the support condition of a cogent argument
FallaciesOfEmotionalBias — Unit 9 companion; question-begging epithets overlap with abuse
FallaciesOfPresumption — Unit 9 companion
Definition — special pleading exploits definitional flexibility (loading vs. neutral language)
RhetoricalAppeals — loaded language connects to pathos and ethos in writing

Key Points for Exam/Study

• Straw person: fights a distorted/weakened version of the opponent’s view; antidote = Principle of Charity
• Begging the question = circular reasoning — conclusion is already in the premises; fails the support relationship
• Circularity can produce valid arguments (even sound ones) but still gives no reason to believe the conclusion
• Question-begging epithets: slanted words smuggle in the conclusion — look for loaded/prejudicial language
• Complex question: trick question whose direct answers all affirm an unproven presupposition
• Special pleading: double standard — loaded for others, neutral/positive for self; look for charged language swap
• All five maintain a semblance of correctness, which is why they are fallacies and not just bad arguments

Open Questions

• Is begging the question always detectable in real arguments? In long arguments, how do we systematically trace the circularity?