FALLACIES What is a Fallacy Bad logic an

FALLACIES! • What is a Fallacy? – Bad logic; an argument that contains one or more logical flaws – Often used as an automatic “win”—basically cheating at your argument, even if you do it on accident. • Why is it good to know the Fallacies? – To avoid logical flaws in your own thinking, and therefore make better arguments – To analyze your own ideas & make sure they’re sound – Learning to win arguments without “cheating” – To not be misled by someone else’s faulty argument – To better criticize counterarguments by identifying logical weaknesses

FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY • When the fuzzy meanings of words confuse the conversation, preventing any kind of conclusion from being reached • When the meaning of a word or phrase morphs into something else halfway through the conversation • When the two people arguing are using the same word to mean two different things • Sometimes used on purpose to get to a conclusion you couldn’t get to otherwise • Also often used in jokes.

Fallacies of Ambiguity (cont. ) 1. Ambiguity Fallacy • A word or phrase either changes meaning, or is not clearly defined. A: “I have a right to be angry!” B: “I do too, because all people have equal rights!” Illogical: it’s likely that one person could have more “right” to be angry than another; this is irrelevant to having equal rights under the law. The meaning of the word “right” has shifted. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman. ” The meaning of the phrase “sexual relations” is not clear: could mean literal intercourse, or could just mean a sexual relationship.

Fallacies of Ambiguity (cont. ) 2. Amphiboly • The meaning of a word/phrase gets confused due to the syntax of the sentence. “Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I’ll never know!” “I am opposed to taxes which slow economic growth” Without a comma, the meaning could be unclear: do you oppose all taxes, because they slow economic growth? Or do you only oppose taxes which you think slow economic growth? A politician who wanted to avoid taking a clear stand might answer, “yes. ”

Fallacies of Ambiguity (cont. ) 3. Division 4. Composition • Trying to apply a group’s • Assuming that just because something is true for one collective quality to only individual case, it can apply one individual part. to the whole group. “Ocelots are dying out. Sparky is an ocelot. Therefore, Sparky must be dying. ” “The universe has existed for 15 billion years. The universe is made of molecules. Therefore, every molecule in the universe has existed for 15 billion years. ” “Each part of a person’s body serves a specific purpose. So couldn’t we conclude that each person also serves a specific purpose? ” “When I stand on someone’s shoulders, I can see over the crowd. So if everyone stood on someone’s shoulders, we would all see better. ”

Fallacies of Ambiguity (cont. ) 5. Equivocation (“doublespeak”) • When a word with a double-meaning creates confusion; sometimes done on purpose, sometimes accidental; used in both comedy & politics. “Who’s On First? ” ~ Abbott & Costello “All men are created equal. Susan is not a man. Therefore, Susan was not created equal. ” “I don’t see why I have to pay this ticket. The sign said “Fine for parking here, ” so I assumed it was fine to park here!”

OTHER FALLACIES 6. Non-Sequitur (“does not follow”) • Sometimes used incorrectly to mean just a distraction or tangent (which is a totally different fallacy)—a “Non-Sequitur” is just any conclusion that doesn’t follow from its premises. “ 8 out of 10 women say they would like to date Tom Hiddleston must have a very busy love life!” “Everyone loves that stand-up comedian, and he has received extremely favorable reviews from every news site. Therefore, I think he should run for President. ” “I love sushi, and I also love chocolate cake. So it stands to reason, a sushi-and-chocolate cake would be amazing!”

7. “POST HOC” • “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc” = “After this, therefore because of this. ” • Assuming that because one thing came after another, the first thing caused the later thing. But it could be just a coincidence, or the two things might be related by another factor entirely. “After the recent school shooting, it was discovered that the perpetrator was a fan of violent video games. This proves that video games make people behave violently. ” - Not necessarily; could be the perpetrator was already a violent person & so was drawn to violent games. Doesn’t mean the games caused him to behave violently.

8. Distorting the Facts 9. Loaded Question • Deliberately • A question concealing facts or purposefully presenting them in designed as a trap. misleading. “He’s a criminal!” (But don’t mention that his only crime is speeding) “Have you stopped beating your wife? ”

10. Hasty Generalization • Drawing a broad conclusion based on incomplete or insufficient evidence; stereotyping. “My dad smoked 4 packs a day for his whole life and he never got cancer, so the danger must not be as bad as people say it is. ” “My mom, my sister, and my girlfriend are all terrible drivers. I guess women in general just aren’t very good at driving!

11. SLIPPERY SLOPE • Assuming that if we allow one thing to happen, it will inevitably lead to more and more terrible things until everything we know and love is destroyed (or something like that). “If we allow the government to censor pornography, eventually they’ll start censoring mainstream films, the internet, everything. Before we know it, our country will become a police state with no free speech or free press at all!” “If we legalize marijuana, then people will just turn to harder illegal drugs. Eventually we’ll have to legalize everything, and then the whole country will fall apart. ”

12. False Analogy • Trying to make a point based on a comparison between two seemingly similar, but actually noncomparable, things (apples v. oranges). • Might be done accidentally if someone hasn’t actually given enough thought to their comparison; might be done on purpose to be deliberately misleading. “Students should be allowed to use their textbooks during exams. After all, surgeons are allowed to look at X-rays during an operation. ” “Children are like nails. You have to hit them in the head to make them work. ”

13. Strawman • Constructing a purposefully weak or ridiculous-sounding version of your opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to defeat. • Comes from the idea that a man made of straw is a lot easier to knock over than a real person. “People who believe in God believe in a being they can’t see, hear, touch or prove the existence of. You might as well believe in a flying spaghetti monster!” “Evolutionists say that we’re all descended from monkeys. Now I don’t know about you, but my great granddad was not a monkey!”

14. Black-and-White Fallacy • Reducing a complicated debate to only two possible options, ignoring any third option or middle ground. • Also called “False Dichotomy” or “Either-Or” fallacy. “Either vote for me, or allow the country to fall into ruin!” “You’re either with us or against us!” “If you support women’s rights, then you must be against men’s rights!” (or vice versa)

CONFIRMATION BIAS FALLACIES • Any logical fallacy where you have already decided on your conclusion, and so you only acknowledge evidence that supports your conclusion, while ignoring or misrepresenting evidence that might challenge your conclusion. • You have a bias, and you’re only looking for confirmation of it, rather than honestly trying to figure out the truth. • The conclusion decides the evidence, instead of the evidence leading to the conclusion.

Confirmation Bias Fallacies (cont. ) 15. Begging the Question • Often used incorrectly to mean “raising the question”—but is actually an example of Circular Reasoning, where the proof of the conclusion is already hidden in the premises. • In other words, you’re trying to prove a conclusion by assuming the conclusion has already been proven. “Paranormal activity must be real, because what I experienced could only be described as paranormal. ” “I know he’s telling the truth because he told me that he never lies!”

Confirmation Bias Fallacies (cont. ) 16. Texas Sharpshooter • You have already decided on your conclusion, and so you purposefully go looking for evidence to interpret in a specific way that supports your conclusion—even if that evidence is not necessarily relevant, or you have to do some creative stretching to make it fit with your conclusion. Comes from the idea of a man shooting the side of a barn, then painting the target around the hole to make it look like he got a bull’s eye.

Confirmation Bias Fallacies (cont. ) 16. Texas Sharpshooter “It’s been unusually cold both this year and last year. This proves that global warming is a hoax!” - You’re already working under the assumption that it’s a hoax, and so interpret any unusual weather as confirming your belief. “I know David likes me. See, in class the other day he read a poem about a girl he loves. The poem mentioned roses, which are a type of flower. And I love daisies, which are also flowers. So the poem must have been about me!” “Nostradamus once wrote a prophecy that said, ‘The son of Germany obeys no law. ’ OMG, Nostradamus predicted Hitler!!” - The only way you could arrive at this conclusion is if you already know about Hitler and are looking for something that kinda sounds like him.

Confirmation Bias Fallacies (cont. ) 17. Protecting the Hypothesis • AKA the “Missing Data” Fallacy • You’ve already decided on your conclusion, so whenever any evidence is raised that might disprove it, instead of reconsidering your position you automatically dismiss the evidence as either false or incomplete • Doing whatever it takes to protect your conclusion from being disproven, even if it means resorting to unlikely explanations for contradictory facts.

Confirmation Bias Fallacies (cont. ) 17. Protecting the Hypothesis Steve believes the earth is round. Will believes it’s flat. As they watch a ship disappear over the horizon, they have this conversation: STEVE: See, the ship disappeared! That proves the surface of the earth is curved. You can’t argue with that. WILL: No, that doesn’t prove anything. It only looks like that because the light sags. STEVE: The light sags? But in physics class we learned that light always travels in a straight line! WILL: Oh, yeah, science just hasn’t figured that one out yet, but they will eventually. STEVE: What about all the satellite images of earth from space? How do you explain that? WILL: Obviously it’s a big NASA conspiracy. Open your eyes, man! Don’t be a sheep.

MOAR FALLACIES! 18. Moving the Goalposts • Also called “Raising the bar” • A fallacy where one side in a debate is able to answer every single one of the other side’s protests…. • … But instead of admitting defeat, the losing side just keeps changing the rules of the game, until eventually they rig the argument so that it’s impossible for their opponent to win. • Comes from the metaphor of a player about to score a goal, but then the opposing team picks up the goalposts and keeps moving them farther and farther back, thus preventing the player from scoring.

MOAR FALLACIES! 18. Moving the Goalposts USUALLY GOES LIKE THIS: Jane raises Question A. Beth answers Question A. Jane ignores Beth’s answer and moves on to Question B. Beth also answers Question B. Jane ignores Beth’s answer and moves on to Question C… etc. … Until finally Jane retreats to Question X, which is impossible to answer unless you actually know everything. Since Beth is not omniscient, she can’t answer Question X, and thus “loses” the argument. Jane declares victory.

MOAR FALLACIES! 18. Moving the Goalposts JANE: “I don’t see how anyone could criticize this novel for glorifying abusive relationships! Name me one example where the hero does something that’s abusive!” BETH: “Well, in Chapter 5 the hero insults the heroine multiple times. And in Chapter 6 he refuses to let her see her friends. And in Chapter 9 he spies on her private emails…” JANE: “Okay, okay, but you have to understand those things in context. They totally make sense and aren’t abusive if you actually take the time to read the book!” BETH: “But I have read the book, and even in context I found his actions abusive. ” JANE: “Okay, but you know this is a series, right? There’s more than one book. He might be kind of a jerk in the first book, but he gets way better by the fifth book. It’s called character development, geez. ”

MOAR FALLACIES! 18. Moving the Goalposts BETH: “Well, actually, if I recall correctly, in the fifth book he actually hits her once…” JANE: “Okay, look, I’ll buy the argument that these books promote abuse if you actually show me some real-life people who got into abusive relationships from reading these books!” BETH: “I actually saw an interview with someone on TV last night…” JANE: “Yeah yeah, but that’s just one example. That doesn’t prove anything. Show me how many people have been affected badly by these books. ” BETH: “But no one could possibly know that!” JANE: “Then you can’t prove these books promote abuse! Case closed. ”

19. THE FALLACY • The fallacy of assuming that just because someone else’s argument contains a fallacy, that their conclusions are automatically wrong. • Pointing out someone else’s fallacies is not an automatic “win”—though it is certainly a strong blow to their argument. • One could have a correct conclusion, but get to it by illogical means. Just because the argument is bad doesn’t mean the conclusion necessarily is. “All dogs have 4 legs and a tail. Missy has 4 legs and a tail. Therefore, Missy is a dog. ” Illogical, but not necessarily wrong.

20. RED HERRING • Deliberately trying to derail the argument or change the subject by throwing in a distraction. • If your opponent does this with any kind of subtlety, it can be very hard to catch. • Allegedly comes from the idea of using a rotten herring to throw hunting dogs off a scent. • “People say that it’s morally wrong for me to accept bribes. But I ask you, what is morality anyway? ” • “How can you sit here complaining about women’s salaries, when there are other countries that don’t let women work at all!”

AD HOMINEM FALLACIES • “At/against the person” • Any time in an argument when, instead of addressing your opponent’s argument, you attack your opponent on a personal level instead. • Implying that your opponent’s argument must be automatically wrong purely on the basis of your opponent’s personal flaws.

Ad Hominem Fallacies (cont. ) 21. Tu Quoque (“You, too”) • Dismissing someone’s argument by accusing them of hypocrisy. SAM: “You shouldn’t eat so much junk food, you know. It’s bad for your health. ” BARBARA: “Don’t lecture me. I saw you with a cheeseburger just yesterday. ” WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? If Barbara’s right, then Sam is being hypocritical here… but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

Ad Hominem Fallacies (cont. ) 22. Circumstantial • Dismissing someone’s argument by accusing them of having ulterior motives. SAM: “You should buy this car. It’s really reliable. ” BARBARA: “You’re just saying that because you’ll get a nice big commission if you sell it to me. ” WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? Sam may be mainly motivated by his paycheck… but that doesn’t mean the car isn’t reliable.

Ad Hominem Fallacies (cont. ) 23. Guilt-by-Association • Dismissing someone’s argument because they happen to share something in common with someone the audience hates/distrusts. BARBARA: “My opponent Sam thinks we ought to implement more socialist programs in our state. But you know who else was a socialist? Stalin. You don’t want to vote for someone who has something in common with Stalin, now do you? ” SAM: “Barbara makes some good points in her article on religious liberties. However, I do want to point out that she once worked for Senator Smith, a well-known atheist. So perhaps we should take her arguments with a grain of salt. ”

Ad Hominem Fallacies (cont. ) 24. Abuse • Most common & straightforward type of Ad Hominem attack • Ignoring someone’s argument completely and just straight up attacking their character/insulting them instead SAM: “Barbara says she would be a good president. But did you know? Last year she set at least 10 kittens on fire just in one week! Do you really want to vote for a kitten-burner? ” BARBARA: “Sam claims that I’m a kitten-burner. I’d like to retaliate by pointing out that he is a stupid poop-face, and so’s his mom. ”

Ad Hominem Fallacies (cont. ) 25. Poisoning the Well • A pre-emptive Ad Hominem strike • Ruining the audience’s impressions of your opponent (and their argument) before your opponent even has a chance to speak. “I’m going to let my opponent speak to you about employment issues now. I’m sure he’ll have some interesting points. But while you listen, just keep in mind that he’s been known to steal money from old ladies in the past. Just sayin. ”

RELATED TO AD HOMINEM! 26. Genetic Fallacy • Judging an argument’s worth (good or bad) based solely on where it originated from. A: “I heard the national employment rate has been dropping lately. ” B: “Oh no! Where’d you hear that? ” A: “Fox News. ” B: “Oh. Well then, it must be an exaggeration. ” A: “I heard that the president is not actually American, and that he’s conspiring with terrorists to destroy us!” B: “Oh no! Where’d you hear that? ” A: “Fox News. ” B: “Oh! Then it must be true!”

27. AUTHORITY FALLACY • Appealing to an irrelevant or unnecessary authority to back up a weak argument. “Sure, I know all about your rare medical condition. Trust me, my aunt is a doctor… (of philosophy). ” A: “I think slavery is okay. ” B: “How can you say that? Slavery’s a terrible violation of human rights! On what grounds could you possibly argue that it’s okay? ” A: “Well, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and he was a pretty good guy. So I figure if it was all right for him, it’s all right for me. ”

28. BANDWAGON (“Argumentum ad Populum”) • Arguing that something is true/good (or false/bad), because many people believe it to be true/good (or false/bad). “That movie is terrible. I haven’t seen it, but all the critics say it was horrible. ” “ 85% of the country says they believe the government is hiding aliens in Area 51. That many people can’t be wrong!” “You should try eating Tide pods. Everyone’s doing it!”

Two Emotional Fallacies 29. Appeal to Fear (Ad Baculum) 30. Appeal to Misery (Ad Misericordium) • Trying to win an argument by • Frightening or gaining pity/sympathy, rather threatening someone into agreeing with you. than actually having a strong argument. “If you vote for the other guy, then I guarantee you terrorists will invade our country and kill us all. ” “If you disagree with me, then I’ll see you in court. ” “Listen, I’ve been working to get here my whole life. Please don’t take away my dream. Vote for me. ” “You have to take me back, Lisa! If you don’t, I’ll kill myself!”

31. Death by a Thousand Qualifications • A fallacy in which a statement initially sounds good… but upon further examination, ends up containing several qualifications that unravel the original meaning. “My new self-published novel is a huge success! All of my Amazon reviews gave it 5 stars!” - Except there were only 2 reviews… - … And they were both written by your parents. “You’re my favorite brother!” “… But I’m your only brother. ”

32. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN • A member of Group A (could be a race, gender, nationality, religion, sports team, fandom, anything) behaves badly—does something immoral that could reflect badly on the whole group. • Someone from Group B points this out, and then everyone in Group A goes, “No, no! They’re not really one of us! No true member of Group A would ever do something like that!”

32. NO TRUE SCOTSMAN TEXAN: “No Texan would ever run from a fight!” NON-TEXAN: “What about Joe? He’s a Texan, and he ran from a fight yesterday. ” TEXAN: “Let me clarify: no true Scotsman Texan would ever run from a fight!” A: “Our fandom is the friendliest, most welcoming fandom on the internet. ” B: “Really? Because I’ve been getting harassed on Twitter by people from your fandom all week. ” A: “Ugh, those jerks. They’re not true fans. If they were they’d never do that. ”