The Fallacies

The Fallacies

The most critical part of being an effective manager is to have the ability to make the correct and timely decisions, which can make a huge difference in the success or failure of an organization in both the short and long term. A large part of the decision making process is to avoid common mistake or fallacies that prevent a manager from making a decision based upon facts and correctly devise information. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss three difference fallacies and their relationship to critical thinking as part of a managerÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s decision making process. Three of the many fallacies a manager must avoid are appeal to authority, false analogy and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of irrelevance when the authority being cited is not really an authority (the Nizkor Project). It is also known as fallacious appeal to authority, misuse of authority, irrelevant authority, questionable authority, inappropriate authority and ad verecundiam. If the authorities are speaking outside of their field of expertise or the subject is controversial, piling up long lists of supports does not make the appeal any more relevant. In the field of the authorityÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦s expertise, "this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority's competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. ... Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it." (education.gsu.edu). The example for this fallacy is appeal to Einstein to support a point in religion would be to make an irrelevant appeal to authority because Einstein was an expert in physics, not religion. Also, the fallacy is committed when the person is not a legitimate authority on the subject. In additional, when a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. Appeals to authority do not become relevant when instead of a single authority one cites several experts who believe something is true. In order to distinguish a fallacious appeal to authority from a good appeal to authority is the arguments need to meets the following conditions:

Ð'„X The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question (the Nizkor Project).

Ð'„X The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.

Ð'„X There is an adequate of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.

Ð'„X The person in question is not significantly biased.

Ð'„X The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.

Ð'„X The authority in question must be identified.

False analogy is two objects compared are different in a way that affects the relevant property. In another word, two things or events on which a comparison can be made but only partial similarity of features between them. It is a logical fallacy applying to inductive arguments. For example, Ð'ÐŽÐ'§Faith in an afterlife is like faith in the sun rising tomorrow. You donÐ'ÐŽÐ'¦t really know you just believeÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё (www.bga.com). The analogy of this example fails because the sun has a verifiable track record and there can be differing degrees of trust, not just total arbitrary commitment. For furthermore, it can be an argument draws a conclusion from observed cases that are only superficially or apparently similar to the unobserved cases about