Logical Fallacies
- Amy Compare
- Aug 30, 2020
- 16 min read
I spent almost every day this week learning about logical fallacies because it is something we were planing on discussing in the Anti-Racist Coaltion this week. Although I generally knew what logical fallacies were, I did not know how to name them. I found out that there are a LOT of logical fallacies, and it was kind of overwhelming to sort through them (I was picking out some to highlight in our meeting) and learn about. I had other things that I wanted to look into this week, but ended up spending all my time that I allot for this learning to go towards this topic (but that means that next week, I’ll be able to dive into those things).
According to this website, a logical fallacy is “an error in reasoning or a false assumption that might sound impressive but proves absolutely nothing. Sometimes they are completely unintentional, but more often than not, they are used by people during debates, arguments, or presentations to mislead you into thinking, acting, or behaving in a certain way.” One important point is that just because someone’s argument relies on a fallacy doesn’t necessarily mean their claim is inherently untrue. Making a fallacy-ridden claim doesn’t automatically invalidate the premise of the argument. It just means the argument doesn’t actually validate their premise. I found this idea important to acknowledge, as one of the most important takeaways from this learning this week was that I use logical fallacies all the time when I have discussions, and I didn’t know it. So while I went into this week expecting to learn how to respond to people who use logical fallacies, I think the most important thing I learned was how to not use logical fallacies myself (or at least the few that I learned about).
The second thing I was thinking about while learning about these was “who decides what is logical and what isn’t?” This started when thinking about the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the individual instead of refuting the opponent’s point). I started to think about the complexity of issues and how impossible it is to separate identity from other aspects of life. Why shouldn’t something like character be important? I was having a hard time understanding this fallacy, especially in regards to character/past actions. If someone has done something that causes me to lose trust in the past, why is it fallacious to not trust in the present? In this case, I realized that if I am using someone’s character as a point against a claim about their merits, that isn’t addressing the initial claim. For example, I can talk about the Presidents’ character as a reason for why I will not vote for him (that’s my opinion and it holds weight for me), but bringing up his character in response to his impact on the economy would be an ad hominem fallacy in an argument because that isn’t addressing the original claim. While I came to a resolution with this particular fallacy, it did make me think more about what constitutes logic, and why we consider it important to be objective in arguments when the world is so subjective.
Also, using logic requires you to take emotions out of the picture, but we’re not robots and humans can’t be completely separated from emotions (even if we try). I know that I have work to do in managing my emotions in topics that I feel strongly about, and I know that I need to do this in order to get my point across. But it is hard to understand how someone who can approach a difficult topic without letting their emotions get in the way can have their perspective validated more than someone who shows their emotions. Maybe this is me trying to avoid working on my emotions (I’m not avoiding, just procrastinating by spending all week learning about logical fallacies, but I had a reason too!), but I think there is something deeper nagging me about it that I can't put my finger on.
Additionally, I have been thinking about the weight we give personal experiences and anecdotes. Personal experiences are often dismissed as evidence for a claim, but why? I know there are cases where people can draw a conclusion based on their personal experience that is not true (while their personal experience was true, it does not mean it supports a broader claim about a larger population) - for example, if I bought a car and it turned out to have a lot of problems, I might tell people that the dealership sells faulty cars and that they’re the worst one in town. But just because I was sold a faulty car at a dealership does not mean that everyone was or that the dealership is the worst one in town - it could have been an anomaly, and if I was the only one that happened to, I can claim having a bad experience, but I can’t claim that everyone else has. I suppose what I am thinking about though is personal experiences that are similar across time and space. When we see a lot of people claiming something based on their personal experience, why isn’t that readily accepted as logical evidence to a claim? But also why do a lot of people need to have an experience to prove that it exists? Why can’t someone’s claim that they’ve had an experience that may be different than anyone else be taken at face value? (I think this is another topic, as it’s not necessarily dealing with logic and claims).
A lot of these fallacies are sort of opposites of each other - like an argument can be fallacious by leaning too heavily on expert opinion but can also be fallacious by not including expert opinion. It’s kind of confusing, and it makes me question if anything is logical. One thing I realized is that these fallacies depend on context, and that a claim can be bolstered by many pieces of evidence that could be considered fallacies if taken separately, but perhaps not if taken as a whole. Some of the fallacies are more cut and dry than the others.
Here is a list of ones that I learned about this week, examples of them, and how to respond to them. In general, a decent response to any of these fallacies is to call it out as a fallacy and ask for more evidence.
Ad Hominem (“Poisoning the well” or “personal attack”)
Definition:
Rather than refuting the opponent’s point, attacking the individual instead
Examples:
"Well, it's pretty obvious that your political party doesn't know how to be fiscally responsible, so I wouldn't expect you to be either."
A politician arguing that his opponent cannot possibly be a good choice for women because he has a religious conviction that causes him to be pro-life.
A parent who says that the teacher doesn't know how to teach because she graduated from a community college
"You're clearly just too young to understand."
Mr. Jones’ tax plan isn’t worth considering. What could a person who works for the government know about taxes? .
How to Respond:
Point out that their attack on the individual rather than refuting the point (or ask them how their attack refutes the point)
Definition:
Stating that something just because an authority figure said so, rather than applying logical reasoning or supporting their claim with evidence)
Example:
My favorite actor, who appeared in a movie about AIDS, has testified that the HIV virus doesn’t really cause AIDS and that there has been a cover-up. So, I think that AIDS must be caused by something other than HIV and the drug companies are hiding it so that they can make money from expensive anti-HIV drugs
How to Respond:
Ask what gives that person/group authority on the subject
Question why they hold weight in the conversation
Definition:
Over-reliance on credentials in situations where they aren’t relevant or necessary
When the attack on someone’s lack of credentials isn’t supported by valid reasoning, as in cases where people fail to explain why the lack of credentials is relevant to the discussion, or in cases where people only mention a person’s credentials, while ignoring their original argument entirely
Examples:
Alex: there is pretty overwhelming consensus in the scientific community regarding climate change. Bob: you don’t have a PhD in climatology, so what do you know about it.
Alex: maybe you shouldn’t let your kid play with that electrical socket. Bob: if you’re not a parent, then don’t give me any parenting advice.
How to Respond:
Call out the fallacy
Redirect the discussion back to the original argument
Explain why credentials are not necessary in this case
Show the issue with blindly relying on credentials
Demonstrate the issue with defining valid credentials
Definition:
Argue against phony, weak, or ridiculous position that you have created, then proceed to easily knock it down
Person A states their position, Person B presents distorted version of person A’s position pretending there’s no difference between the 2 versions, Person B attacks distorted version of person A’s position
Examples:
Person 1:I think pollution from humans contributes to climate change. -> Person 2: So, you think humans are directly responsible for extreme weather, like hurricanes, and have caused the droughts in the southwestern U.S.? If that’s the case, maybe we just need to go to the southwest and perform a “rain dance.”
“I think that we should give better study guides to students”, a person using a straw man might reply by saying “I think that your idea is bad, because we shouldn’t just give out easy A’s to everyone”.
How to respond:
Point out the strawman, ignore the strawman
How to make sure you are not using the strawman fallacy:
One way to ensure that you’re not using a strawman is to try to re-express your opponent’s position, and then ask them whether they agree with your description of their position before you start arguing against it.
Appeal to Ignorance
Definition:
Use the premise that since we do not know (or cannot prove) something that it must be either true or false
A statement must be true if it cannot be proven false or a statement must be false if it cannot be proven true
Example: “There’s no evidence that masks prevent the spread of coronavirus, so they don’t work”
How to Respond:
Call out the fallacy and explain how it is fallacious
The False Dilemma - “False Dichotomy”, “Black and White Fallacy”
Definition:
Reduce an argument down to only two options even though there may be more (and far better possibilities) to choose from
Example:
America: Love it or leave it.
"Proposed solutions frequently have an either/or fallacy - 'Either we ban boxing or hundreds of young men will be senselessly killed.' [A third alternative is to change boxing's rules or equipment.] 'If we don't provide farmers with low-interest loans, they will go bankrupt.' [Increasing prices for farm products might be a better alternative.]
How to Respond:
Point out that there are more options than just two
The Slippery Slope - “The Domino Theory”
Definition:
Taking an argument from a sensible moderate place and moving it to an extreme place
“What ifs…”
Examples:
“If we are willing to reduce the number of jurors from 12 to 10, then why not reduce it to just 2 people, 1 person, or none at all?”
“If we increase the number of immigrants that we let into the country, we will eventually end up letting in anyone who wants to immigrate, and then the whole country will be destroyed.”
How to Respond:
Slippery slope arguments often leave out important events that connect between the start and end points of the slope, and pointing these out can help illustrate the issues with the proposed slope.
Highlight the disconnect between the different pieces of the slope.
Point out the distance between the start and end points of the slope.
Show that it’s possible to stop the transition between the start and end points.
Call out the underlying premises of the slippery slope argument.
Provide a relevant example that illustrates the issue with slippery slope arguments in general.
Ask your opponent to justify the slope.
The Circular Argument - “Petitio Principii” or “Begging the Question
Definition:
Repeating what has just been said
Examples:
Violent video games cause teens to be violent, because violent teens play violent video games.
You must obey the law, because it's illegal to break the law.
America is the best place to live, because it's better than any other country.
"The news is fake because so much of the news is fake."
How to respond to circular arguments
Ask for more evidence
The Bandwagon
Definition:
Works on the basis that something is good, correct, true, right just because most people think it as well
Example:
“It may be against the law to drink alcohol if you are under 18 years old, but almost everyone drinks anyway, so it must be fine.”
How to Respond:
Ask more more evidence to support their claim
Provide more evidence yourself
Definition:
Clever, irrelevant argument that distracts from the real topic being scrutinized
Moving conversation away from area where they are vulnerable into one that they they feel is safer
Topic A under discussion; Topic B introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when actually it is not); Topic A is abandoned.
This is fallacious because just because something else is bad does not entail that another bad thing has its badness lessened or refuted
Example:
Bringing up Black-on-Black violence during a conversation about police brutality against BIPOC. - “Black Lives Matter protesters claim to care about black lives, but they are hypocrites. They never say anything about the dozens of black people killed every day due to gang violence in Chicago. How can they believe black lives matter if they do not condemn black-on-black crime?” “George Floyd was not a hero and people should not be protesting his death at the hands of the police. After all, George Floyd had a past criminal record and was no angel. Why do liberals insist on venerating criminals?”
Tone policing - “I would agree with feminists more if they weren’t so shrill and in your face about their beliefs. They should try to be more civil or else they won’t convince very many people.”
“Why should we enact more environmental legislation? What about India and China? Climate activists should be criticizing them instead of the US. If climate activists want people to take them seriously then they need to criticize these other countries.”
John: KIPP Schools work. Their students score higher on standardized tests, demonstrate emotional intelligence, and get admitted into the best colleges. We should support KIPP Schools. Mary: Well, I think education should teach people to intrinsically love learning. *Explanation: Mary is presenting very general ideas about education without responding to the arguments in favor of KIPP Schools.
How to recognize to Red Herring Fallacies - Ask yourself:
Does the statement/argument change the point of the conversation from the original topic?
Is the given reason actually a justification for the presented view, or is it tangential and not related?
Does the given argument actually refute what it’s intended to refute, or something else?
How to respond to red herring fallacies
Point out why the particular statement/argument is irrelevant to the context at hand. To be more precise, you should show why the statement is irrelevant and how it is being used to change the topic of conversation.
After you point out the red herring fallacy, then you can redirect the conversation back to its original point. Sometimes though, your interlocutor will not let you change the conversation back to its original topic. In those cases, you can either continue with the original topic or accept that the conversation has changed.
Taking 2 opposing viewpoints and claim they are equal when they aren’t
Example: Reverse racism is equivalent to racism
“You cannot judge the company for dumping bio waste in the oceans when you threw a soda can on the floor at the park.”
Caveats to false equivalence:
Not every comparison is an equivalence; it’s possible to compare things without suggesting that they are equal to one another.
Not every equivalence is a false equivalence; in many cases, an equivalence may be entirely reasonable.
Not every false equivalence is intentional; in many cases, people might use a false equivalence without realizing that there is an issue with it.
Equivalence is subjective; it’s not always possible to clearly determine whether a certain equivalence is false or not.
How to Respond:
show that the similarities between the things being equated are exaggerated, highlight the differences between the things being equated, present counterexamples that demonstrate the issues with the equivalence, or ask your opponent to justify why they believe that their proposed equivalence is reasonable
How to not fall into logical fallacies:
Make sure that whenever you equate two or more things with one another, you have proper justification as to why the things in question are equivalent, based on relevant criteria.
Definition
Occurs when someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence - jumping to a conclusion about the validity of a proposition with some (but not enough) evidence to back it up and overlook potential counterarguments
Example:
An environmental group illegally blocked loggers and workers at a nuclear plant. Therefore, environmentalists are radicals who take the law into their own hands.
How to Respond:
Point out the generalization
Ask the other person about the source of their information
Perhaps add other evidence
Definition
Occurs when sufficient logical evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is true, but someone fails to acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something unrelated entirely
Example:
“Just because I’ve had 12 car accidents in the past six months doesn’t mean I’m a bad driver.”
The polygamist has had twelve wives for twelve years but no children. He says, “I just can’t imagine what is wrong with all those women!”
“Sure that drug has been fatal in 100 previous tests, but how do you know some unknown factor wasn't present causing the deaths? Maybe the drug is perfectly safe.”
How to Respond:
Question their thinking - why are they not considering the evidence
Point out gaps in their thinking
Call out the fallacy
Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy
Definition:
In place of logical evidence, substitutes examples from someone’s personal experience - overlook the fact that one (possibly isolated) example can’t stand alone as definitive proof of a greater premise
Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy - "Cherry Picking"
Tendency to cherry-pick data clusters based on a predetermined conclusion
Find patterns and correlations in support of goals and ignores evidence that contradicts them or suggests that clusters aren’t actually statistically significant
Example:
Consider a situation where a new study, which is based on the input of thousands of scientists in a certain field, finds that 99% of them agree with the consensus position on a certain phenomenon, and only 1% of them disagree with it. When reporting on this study, a reporter who engages in cherry picking might say the following:“A recent study found that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the consensus position on this phenomenon.”
Unintentional use of cherry picking is driven by the flawed manner in which humans process information and make decisions.
Due to confirmation bias (we look for evidence that strengthens our perspectives)
How to respond to cherry-picking
Call out the fact that crucial information is being left out
Bring the omitted information into the conversation
Definition:
Assumes a compromise between 2 extreme conflicting points is always true - ignores the possibility that both extremes could be completely true of false
Examples:
One of my friends told me that lying is never acceptable, while another friend said it’s actually alright to lie whenever you want to. Therefore, it must be ok to lie sometimes.”
“Elizabeth thinks the best way to increase business revenue is to revamp the entire company website. However, James is strongly against making any adjustments to the website. The best approach must be to redesign just a few pages of the website.”
One mother tells another in the waiting room of the pediatrician’s office that vaccines cause Autism. The other mother responds by saying that vaccines do not cause Autism. Someone who overheard the conversation in the waiting room concludes that the truth is some vaccines probably cause some people to develop Autism.
How to Respond:
Point out the fallacy
Question the evidence of the middle ground claim
Definition:
Claiming something is true because there is no evidence against it
However, just because there is no evidence presented against something doesn’t automatically make that thing true
Also attributing secondary source as main evidence for a claim
Examples:
Alex: Jenny says that vaccines are bad for you, and that you shouldn’t vaccinate your kids. Bob: is there any empirical proof that supports this? Alex: I’m just telling you what Jenny says.
"Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn't so! See? You can't! That means you have to accept that what I say is true."
“College students spend four years of their lives and thousands of their parents' dollars trying to get as little as possible out of their college education, provided only that they get their coveted diplomas.”
“Prove there’s no global conspiracy! The fact that there is no evidence is just proof that it exists! They wouldn’t let you see the evidence!”
Mike: “I think celebrity X is having an affair.” Delilah: “Are you sure?” Mike: “Yeah, I read it in the Daily Gossip.”
How to respond to burden of proof fallacy
Call out the fallacy - demonstrating that your opponents had made certain claims which have a burden of proof, and that they have failed to provide the necessary evidence which is needed in order to support those claims
Shift burden of proof to the original speaker - explicitly ask them to provide proof or retract their claims
If possible, provide counter-proof yourself
Definition:
Claiming something is false because you have difficulty understanding why or how something is true
Premise 1: I can’t explain or imagine how proposition X can be true. Premise 2: if I can’t explain or imagine how a certain proposition could be true, then it must be false. Conclusions: proposition X is false.
Example:
“I can’t imagine how humans could have evolved from single-celled organisms; it just doesn’t make sense to me. There is no way that the theory of evolution is right.”
How to Respond:
Point out the fallacy
Ask the other person to justify their reasoning - explain why they are incredulous and why it validates their point
Provide your own evidence
Avoid overly-complicated explanations
Definition:
Inaccurately deflects counterexamples to a claim by changing the positioning or conditions of the original claim to exclude the counterexample
Instead of acknowledging that a counterexample to the original claim exists, the speaker amends the terms of the claim
Example:
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Another good example is abortion, our government has such a small Christian influence that the courts have ruled it's ok to kill babies now. Typical. The people who support legalized abortion but claim to be Christians don't really follow Jesus—they have lost their way.
How to Respond:
Point out the shift to deflect a counterexample
Question what characterizes a group (in the example, Christians)
Tu Quoque Fallacy - Appeal to Hypocrisy or The Pot Calling the Kettle Black Fallacy
Definition:
Invalid attempt to discredit an opponent by answering criticism with criticism, but never actually presenting a counterargument to the original disputed claim
Example:
Mother: You should stop smoking. It's harmful to your health. Daughter: Why should I listen to you? You started smoking when you were 16!
How to Respond:
Call it out and explain how their criticism does not respond to your claim
Critiques/Questions - but I think actions do hold weight - if your values aren’t in line with your actions, how can you criticize someone else - This is a way to appeal to emotions, but why shouldn’t that hold weight?
Definition:
A conclusion that assumes if “A” occurred after “B”, then “B” must have caused “A”
But correlation does not indicate causation
Example:
Attributing the cause of World War II to only Adolf Hitler's hatred of the Jews
Explaining that the U.S. Civil War was fought only because of the institution of slavery
"The report suggests that 'the rise in violent offending and the explosion in the sales of iPods and other portable media devices is more than coincidental,' and asks, rather provocatively, 'Is There an iCrime Wave?' The report notes that nationally, violent crime fell every year from 1993 to 2004, before rising in 2005 and 2006, just as 'America’s streets filled with millions of people visibly wearing, and being distracted by, expensive electronic gear.
How to Respond:
Point out the fallacy
Ask for more evidence
Provide extra information
Comments