by Chris Alexion, Copyright December 07, 2005, all rights reserved. 194 views
The phrase "non sequitur" means "It does not follow." This fallacy is sometimes called a catch-all fallacy for any statement that just doesn't follow logically from the statements (premises) that are supposed to suport it. Take this example:
The Delaware House of Representatives will soon consider Senate Bill 99. The bill would make smoking in most public buildings, most obviously restaurants, illegal….The rationale is sound, based on studies published in scientific and medical journals that indicate environmental tobacco smoke causes about 62,000 coronary heart disease deaths and 3,000 cancer deaths in the United States each year. It is also well documented that children are much more affected by second-hand smoke than adults. (J. Thomas Butler, "Be serious about smoke," Delaware News Journal, January 20, 2002)
Dr. Butler says a smoke ban is "sound" based on studies showing harmful effects of smoking. But the fact that something is harmful doesn't in itself prove the need for more legislation. There are other factors we need to consider, and these can't be simplistically overlooked. There's plenty of bad stuff out there, but no one would seriously consider using just any method of preventing them.
The red herring is a similar fallacy, and can often be confused with the non sequitur. Someone uses a red herring when he drags an irrelevant fact into an argument in order to get us off track. Dr. Butler, again, is an example:
Reduction of exposure to what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency labeled a Class A carcinogen–the category reserved for the most dangerous substances–would certainly have beneficial effects. Let's forget the unfounded fears and unsubstantiated claims and carry out government's obligation to reduce risks to health and safety in Delaware.
Secondhand smoke may really be bad for you. It may cause nasty cancers. It may turn your nose blue and make your ears fall off. But these facts in themselves don't necessitate governmental restrictions on smoking; bringing them in only leads us down a bunny trail about how bad the effects of smoking are. The real issue, meanwhile, lies elsewhere.
-----No comments yet.