Welcome to the wild world of logical fallacies, kiddies! We’re going to have lots of fun, but first, what is a logical fallacy?
Briefly stated, logical fallacies are tactics utilized by the intellectually dishonest or mentally deficient in place of legitimate reasoning in arguments. Logical fallacies are as ancient as human civilization and are still just as rampant today as ever. Part of being a proper skeptic and/or rationalist is to become familiar with these tactics so that you can nip them in the bud whenever someone tries to put one over on you. Once you're practiced at this, it can actually be kind of fun to play “spot the crock” and pick them out like rotten apples in a barrel.
If you want to see logical fallacies in their natural habitat, listen to the arguments of a Creationist. Fallacies not only make up virtually the entire Creationist arsenal, they’re the very backbone of the Creationist position itself. I wouldn’t recommend starting out by engaging a Creationist or conspiracy theorist, as the sheer volume of infractions will almost certainly overwhelm you (more on this later).
I'm going to begin with ten of the more prominent logical fallacies by defining them, describing them, and offering examples. I’ve also noticed people using these terms erroneously, both due to ignorance of their actual meaning or as a spiteful attempt to throw our weapons back at us. For this reason, I’ve also attempted to define what these terms are not.
#1 Ad hominem Latin: "Against the man"
Example 1:
A: "I think that affirmative action is a bad idea."
B: "Well you would say that - you're white."
Example 2:
A: "There is no evidence that your claim is true."
B: "Oh yeah? Well you're a poop head."
The idea of this fallacy is to attempt to discredit an argument by attacking the person stating the argument instead of the argument itself. As a critical thinker, it is important to realize that the source of an argument is irrelevant - the only question that really matters should be the question of whether or not it's true. It doesn't matter if it was conceived by Carl Sagan, Adolf Hitler, or the urine-stained homeless man who shouts at traffic. But the one-track human mind is well practiced at making erroneous associations.
Child actor turned evangelical douchebag Kirk Cameron released 50,000 copies of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, with a small addendum - an added prologue that attempted to attack Darwin as a racist and woman-hater. See an article on it here. What Kirk does not understand (among many other things) is that science does not give two shits about Darwin's personal beliefs. We celebrate him and owe him gratitude for his discovery and insight, but beyond that, the man is irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Whether he was a racist or anything else simply does not matter.
Example 2 above should be obvious as the lowest and most obvious form of ad hom, but don't let this fact fool you - it's still very prominently practiced.
What it is NOT: Calling a spade a spade, as long as it’s still relevant to the argument:
(In a debate about racial equality)
A: “I believe that black people are inferior to white people.”
B: “Then you're a racist.”
#2 Straw Man
Interpreting someone's position in an unfairly weak way, thus allowing you to argue against a position that nobody holds. This caricaturing (or stereotyping) of a position makes it easier to attack.
"Evolution is nonsense. Was your father a monkey?"
Example 2:
"Obama wants to decrease the funding to homeland security. I don't know why he wants to aid terrorists."
One of the favorites of Creationists, as demonstrated above. They like to use it along with appeal to ignorance and/or appeal to ridicule, all three of which are present in Example 1! No, your father was not a monkey. If evolutionary theory actually did make such claims, then they would be easily refuted. The problem with the statement is, of course, that evolution does not state that your relatives should be monkeys. Evolutionary theory posits that humans and monkeys did share a common ancestor many millions of years ago, but this is not as easy to attack. Thus the strawman.
What it is NOT: When used as a weapon against Weasel Words (see below), an arguer may be accused of straw man when in fact they’re simply bringing the correct description back to the table:
A: "That human sacrifice was a traditional and highly spiritual expression of faith and devotion by a culture and its religious belief."
B: "It was still murder."
#3 Slippery Slope
When a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of that event.
Example:"Don't give anyone a break. Next thing you know, they'll be walking all over you."
A tactic that is a subset of non-sequitur and goes very well with Appeal to Fear. One of the more prevalent and retarded examples in common practice is shown in the cartoon to the left. When faced with a proposition, users of this fallacy will make a logical leap into "next thing you know" territory without offering any sufficient evidence of correlation between premise and outcome.
What it is NOT: When an effect is proven to be a consequence of the first event, then the intermediate steps may be skipped merely for reasons of convenience:
"If we ban abortion, next thing you know more women will be paying money for dangerous back-alley procedures." (Evidence thoroughly supports this correlation, so it’s not a non-sequitur.)
#4 Middle Ground Fallacy (a.k.a. Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation)
When it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position.
Example 1:
"Some think that autism is caused by childhood vaccinations, but others say there is no correlation at all. The truth must be somewhere in between."
"Some think that autism is caused by childhood vaccinations, but others say there is no correlation at all. The truth must be somewhere in between."
Example 2:
"Both the Bible and Origin of Species were written by human beings, so they should both be considered equally valid."
A favorite of spineless weaklings as well as the lazy, as it allows them to easily “settle” something without having to actually engage in the stress of arguing it properly. I recently posited that its current popularity is a possible function of the PC movement, which likes to assert that compromise is the optimum solution for pretty much anything. The enormous problem with this rationale (and I use the term loosely) is that the fallacy has no interest in addressing the fact that some positions are correct, supported, or otherwise valid, while opposing arguments may not be. It automatically defaults to compromise without first evaluating the efficacy of each side, which can result in conclusions just as unsubstantiated, implausible, and outright ridiculous as the above cartoon parodies.
What it is NOT: Conversely, the existence of this fallacy does not infer that legitimate compromise should be avoided. There are many instances in which middle ground is indeed the best option.
#5 Burden of Proof or Appeal to Ignorance
When the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side (Example 2, below). Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B (Example 1, below).
Example 1:
"Well you can’t prove that the universe came from nothing, so God must exist."
Example 2:
A: “Where is your proof of the existence of ghosts?”
B: “Well you can’t disprove that they exist either, can you?”
Essentially, this fallacy posits that whatever has not been proven false (to the arguer's satisfaction) must therefore be true! Though they might believe in all sorts of ludicrous crap, they will often insist that it’s not up to them to prove any of it - No, it’s up to you to disprove it. This false dichotomy is a very popular fallacy, particularly among conspiracy theorists, who demand that their claims be addressed despite the fact that they have no evidence to support any of it. That is not how it works - you provide the evidence first, and only then will we be obligated to take you seriously.
This fallacy can often be as simple as a religious person asking why you’re an atheist - I don’t have to explain my lack of belief in things that aren’t proven to exist, do I?
What it is NOT: I’m not sure how this particular fallacy can be directly abused or misinterpreted. Just be certain that all of your claims have sufficient evidence to back them up.
#6 Red Herring
When an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
Example 1 (Paraphrased from Here Be Dragons):
A: “Who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?”
B: “Dick Cheney had business interests in the Middle East!”
A: “Who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?”
B: “The leaseholder had an insurance policy on his skyscrapers!”
A: “Who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?”
B: “George Bush’s younger brother Marvin was a stockholder in an insurance company, and the World Trade Center was one of their clients!”
As shown above, a delicious favorite of conspiracy theorists. 9/11 “Truthers” in particular are so fond of red herrings that one might expect their words to have a fishy stench (this occasionally happens anyway, but for unrelated reasons). Conspiracy theorists are necessarily unable to discern good information from bad, and for avoiding coincidence at every opportunity. Their tactic of weaving virtually every scrap of irrelevant circumstance into a massive quilt of fail means that red herrings are almost guaranteed to result. Just because some of the names and places are the same does not infer evidence or even relevance to the topic. Keep your nose on the trail.
What it is NOT: Your opponent may use red herring as an excuse to cut you off before you’ve come to the part of your point that’s pertinent to the discussion. It’s also misused by people who are simply too stupid to understand how your point relates to the argument in the first place.
#7 Appeal to Authority
When the arguer or a source cited is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
Example 1:
Celebrity product endorsements.
Example 2:
“The Pope was saying on the news that condoms often break and are ineffective in stopping the spread of AIDS.”
This fallacy can in some ways prove to be a polar opposite of the Ad Hominem logical fallacy; Ad hom seeks to attack a person's argument on the basis of the person him or herself while Appeal to Authority seeks to exploit positive impressions of the person in order to promote the argument, but both depend upon the same misguided associations we have between a statement and the irrelevant status of the one making it.
What it is NOT: Conspiracy theorists, in their infinite ineptitude, believe this fallacy to mean that nobody in authority should be trusted at all, simply based on the fact that they are in a position of authority. Aside from being literally impossible, this is of course entirely wrong. What matters is the validity of the argument itself.
Another problem can occur when people are too stupid to understand the statement at all. In such cases, there is little choice but to outright choose a position. In such cases this fallacy can cause problems, particularly when the wrong definition is dumber, simpler, and otherwise more comprehensible. When faced with physicists and their theory of gravity verses a fat guy in his basement who thinks that the earth is pulling us towards it due to its magnetic field, you must not misinterpret Appeal to Authority in your decision of which party to believe. Simply stated, sometimes people have authority FOR A REASON.
#8 Proof by Verbosity
Overwhelming someone with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that much of it slides by unchallenged.
Example:
“Blah blah blah New World Order blah blah blah reptile aliens blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah psychic phenomena…”
Another favorite of the usual suspects. They fire so much nonsense at you so quickly that it becomes impossible to address it all properly. It’s the reason why I suggested not taking on one of these loons as your first exercise.
What it is NOT: This shouldn’t be confused with someone’s inability to counter an argument for legitimate reasons. If you have that much good information, then present it!
#9 Weasel Words
Purposely using words that are vague, ambiguous, or otherwise misleading in order to manipulate perception.
Example 1:
The government calling the Vietnam War a “police action.” The Patriot Act.
Example 2:
“I’m not a slut, I’m polyamorous!”
The weapon of choice for politicians everywhere and at all times, as it’s the bread and butter for political “spin.” It’s used in many different ways, but the goal is always to squirm away from any descriptors that are perceived to have negative connotations. Recently, there has been a movement for Christians to call themselves “Followers of Christ,” since the real word has (legitimately) earned so much baggage.
Here's a simple summary: If they're using fake words to describe something, then that something is probably fake too.
What it is NOT: Sometimes people who are confused about big words (or words in general) will infer that two terms mean the same thing, or even that they’re made up.
#10 Appeal to Common Practice
The idea that something is correct/reasonable/justified/etc. because it’s a common action.
Example 1:
“I heard on the news that over 85% of Americans are Christian. There must be something to it then…how could so many people be wrong?”
Example 2:
“Sure cheating on a test is wrong, but everybody does it, so it’s okay.”
A strange attempt at justification, since we can usually count on the majority of people to not do something right. Discounting this fallacy is so easy your mother can do it, i.e. "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" Well as it turns out, depending on the circumstances, many people would without a second thought. Or a first thought. Or if the influence is strong enough, any thought at all.
What it is NOT: Notable exceptions are certain cultural and moral social norms. Such standards are by definition determined solely by the majority of common perception, so majority does rule in those cases.
Well, that does it for an unfortunately paltry ten. Remember, if you’re aware of logical fallacies, then they can’t get you. If you find that your own usual arguments contain them, well, you ought to know what to do about that!
Good stuff, can't wait to see more!
ReplyDelete