Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is a flaw

Logical Fallacies A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Logical fallacies are like tricks or illusions of thought, and they're often used subtly by public speakers to fool/persuade people. Source: yourlogicalfallacyis. com/

appeal to consequences You used an argument that either was considered true or false based on its desirable and undesirable consequences. Appeals to consequences share a lot in common with appeals to emotion, e. g. you would prefer living in a world where unicorns exist; a world where unicorns don’t exist isn’t as beautiful as one in which they do; since this is the case unicorns must exist so that the world can be beautiful. The Issue: an argument’s validity has nothing to do with whether or not its has desirable (I want X to be true) or undesirable (I don’t want X to be true) consequences; rather, valid arguments stand or fall on the basis of the supporting evidence (or lack thereof). Example: Free will must exist; if it didn’t, human beings would be nothing more than machines. 1

false dichotomy You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Also known as the “false dilemma” or “black-or-white” fallacy, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument; however, under closer scrutiny it becomes quickly evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. The Issue: binary or black and white thinking doesn’t allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two suggested possibilities; it frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate. This fallacy is best addressed through awareness and open-mindedness. Example: while rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens’ rights, the Supreme Leader tells the people they were either on his side or the side of the enemy. 2

ad hominem You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. A hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone’s case without actually having to engage the ideas/thinking of your opponent. The Issue: although a speaker’s credibility is important the truth or trustworthiness of a speaker’s ideas have nothing to do whatsoever with that speaker’s character. Ideas are stand or fall on the basis of either the physical or logical supporting evidence irrespective of the speaker’s personal qualities (or lack thereof). Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Bill asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells entirely unacceptable. 3

slippery slope You said that if we allow X to happen, then Z will happen as a result; therefore, we should not do X. Slippery slope arguments are attempts to appeal to the fears and emotions of an audience. In effect all such arguments misrepresent the central argument by focusing our attention on fantastic or unsubstantiated hypothetical situations. The Issue: the problem with this reasoning is it avoids the issue actually being disputed by shifting our attention on to something unrelated through an appeal to fear. Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we’ll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys. 4

strawman You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate. The Issue: the first speaker presents an valid argument. A second speaker introduces a counter-argument; however, the counter-argument isn’t leveled against the first speaker’s valid argument. Instead, the second speaker introduces and then attacks a secondary, irrelevant idea. The secondary idea cannot be defended (and cannot defend itself from a beating…just like a scare crow). Example: Will argues we should put more money into healthcare and education. Warren responds saying he’s surprised Will hates our country so much he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending and putting money into social programs. 5

appeal to emotion You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more; it’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional effect; however, the problem and fallacy occurs when a speaker invokes emotion for the simple sake of manipulation instead of using rational arguments to convince an audience to accept or reject a particular claim. The Issue: everyone is affected emotions and so appeals to emotion are a common and effective argument tactic; yet, they’re ultimately flawed and dishonest attempts at manipulation. Example: the new Power. Tangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. Tangerine. Power. 6

special pleading You looked for special treatment by ignoring aspects of an argument that do not support your point of view. Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits to change one’s mind or be intellectually consistent, many of us invent ways to cling to old beliefs. The Issue: it’s usually quite easy to find a reason to believe something when it suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one’s own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us. Example: Edward Johns claimed to be psychic; however, when his “abilities” were tested by actual scientists in a clinical setting these abilities inexplicably disappeared. Edward explained this problem away by saying the presence of scientific-skeptics made his psychic abilities no longer work. 7

tu quoque You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser—you answered criticism with criticism. Pronounced too-kwee. Literally translated as “you too” this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring (distraction) because it takes heat off someone having to defend their argument by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism. The Issue: when someone uses tu quoque they avoid having to deal with criticism, e. g. we shouldn’t drive cars because their pollution contributes to climate change, etc. by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism, e. g. well, why do you drive a car then? Example: Bob tells Ted it is dangerous to smoke cigarettes. Ted responds back by saying Bob is wrong because Bob drinks pop sweetened with aspartame (which is also a potentially harmful substance). 8

tu quoque You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser—you answered criticism with criticism. Pronounced too-kwee. Literally translated as “you too” this fallacy is also known as the appeal to hypocrisy. It is commonly employed as an effective red herring (distraction) because it takes heat off someone having to defend their argument by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism. The Issue: when someone uses tu quoque they avoid having to deal with criticism, e. g. we shouldn’t drive cars because their pollution contributes to climate change, etc. by shifting the focus back on the person making the criticism, e. g. well, why do you drive a car then? Example: Bob tells Ted it is dangerous to smoke cigarettes. Ted responds back by saying Bob is wrong because Bob drinks pop sweetened with aspartame (which is also a potentially harmful substance). 9

argument from ignorance You claimed that since your opponent couldn’t disprove your argument that your argument therefore must be true. We make arguments from ignorance when we use the absence of evidence in support of a particular claim, position or argument. The Issue: ignorance is not evidence of anything other than a fundamental lack of knowledge; therefore, saying since we have not yet disproven X means X is unsupportable because the “absence of evidence is not evidence of existence. ” Example: Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs. 10

ambiguity You used a double-meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under close scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is because the purposeful use of such language is intrinsically misleading. The Issue: people who value intellectual honesty make a point of presenting their ideas in as clear a manner as possible; thus, to say one thing while meaning something else entirely is an intellectually dishonest method of persuasion. Example: a judge asks a man why he hadn’t paid his “parking fines. ” The defendant responds he shouldn’t have to pay anything because the sign read “Fine for parking here” (and so the defendant naturally concluded it would be “okay” or “fine” to park there). 11

bandwagon (appeal to popularity) You appealed to the popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief. The Issue: accepting something as true simply because a majority of people believe in it does not in itself make that thing, idea, etc. true or valid. Ideas stand or fall on the basis of supporting evidence (and the validity of that evidence is also not dependent upon the assent of a majority—it depends upon the techniques and methods used to acquire that evidence). Example: I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them but I guess if most people like them then they must be okay. 12

appeal to authority You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true. Arguments from authority have been made by religious and secular authorities to try and control the thinking of people. Such arguments depend upon the power of the speaker rather than the explanatory power of the argument itself. The Issue: it is important to note that you should not dismiss the claims of experts or the scientific consensus. Arguments made by experts in their field of expertise are perfectly valid (assuming that their views are generally accepted by the majority of other members working in their field). Appeals to authority are otherwise always invalid. Example: I’m not a doctor but I play one on TV; therefore, you shouldn’t question my medical advice. 13

genetic fallacy You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something’s or someone’s origins. It’s similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone’s argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. The Issue: this argument is similar to the “poisoning the well” fallacy, in that, a speaker attempts to prejudice the audience by appealing to some sort of unsavory connection, e. g. Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarianism is somehow fascistic or evil. Example: accused on the 6 o’clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable. Donald Trump accomplishes this by calling the media a “bunch of liars” (and people unquestioningly believe him). 14

composition/division You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. Often when something is true for the part it also applies to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whethere exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased (closed) so that we presume consistency exists where it does not. The Issue: the fallacies of composition and division are concerned with the relationship between the whole and the parts. If you attribute a certain quality to a part of something, it will not necessarily apply to the whole, and if you attribute a certain quality to the whole, it will not necessarily apply to the parts. Example: Daniel was a precocious child and had a liking for logic. He reasoned that atoms are invisible, and that he was made of atoms and therefore invisible too. Unfortunately, despite his thinking skills, he lost the game of hide and seek. 15

begging the question You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. This logically incoherent argument arises in situations where speakers hold a particularly strong belief which they assume in their minds is simply is true or a given. The Issue: the statement or claim is assumed true without evidence other than the claim itself. The proof is merely a restatement of the premise, i. e. the question simply transforms into a statement of fact. Example: the word of Zorbo the Great is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in The Great and Infallible Book of Zorbo’s Best and Most Truest Things that are Definitely True and Should Not Ever Be Questioned. 16

appeal to nature You argued that because something is “natural” it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Many “natural” things are “good” and this can bias our thinking; but naturalness itself doesn’t make something good or bad. For instance murder could be seen as natural but that doesn’t mean it’s either good or justifiable; moreover, a lot of people who oppose genetically modified organisms do so because of the perception “nature shouldn’t be meddled with. ” Interestingly GMOs are really only an example of crop evolution sped up, i. e. the same forces that happen “naturally” over time are simply accelerated in a laboratory. Example: the medicine man rolled into town on his bandwagon offering various natural remedies, such as very special plain water. He said that it was only natural that people should be wary of “artificial” medicines such as antibiotics. 17

anecdotal You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. It’s often much easier for people to believe someone’s testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more “abstract” statistical reality. The Issue: human memory is a completely flawed and subjective thing. We remember things incorrectly or remember things that didn’t actually happen at all; moreover, one’s perception of an experience is not a guarantee one will recall or understand that experience accurately. Example: Jason said that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97—so don’t believe everything you read about meta 18 analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

the texas sharpshooter You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument or found a pattern (ignoring other data) to fit your presumption. Also called “confirmation bias” this fallacy is coined after a marksman shooting randomly at barns and then painting bullseye targets around the spot where the most bullet holes appear, making it appear as if he’s a really good shot. Clusters naturally appear by chance establishing correlations but don’t necessarily indicate there’s a causal relationship. The Issue: problems result in research when differences in data (or information that doesn’t support your hypothesis) is ignored. Ignoring what isn’t convenient to argument leads one to reach a false conclusion. Example: the makers of Sugarette Candy Drinks point to research showing that of the five countries where Sugarette drinks sell the most units, three of them are in the top ten healthiest countries on Earth; therefore, Sugarette drinks are healthy. 19

middle ground You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth. Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half-way between truth and a lie is still a lie. The Issue: being willing to find middle-ground or compromise with another person is arguably a virtue; yet, the middle-ground notwithstanding does not in and of itself constitute truth. Truth or facts are always true or valid irrespective of the personality, expertise, or attitudes of the speaker. Example: Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise saying vaccinations cause some autism…just not all autism. 20