By: Matt White
As one who identifies with freethinking values, I tend to support the ideas and rights that promote free speech and free thought -- that’s the understood emphasis of the philosophy and our group. I also, as a citizen of one of the best countries in the world, enjoy and promote the free exercise of those rights and an open discussion of those ideas. Consequently, we live in a world of competitive ideology; an intellectual gauntlet exists where notions and concepts must enter into an open forum, with competing ideas and their proponents hashing it out to obtain the one overall arching, intellectual holy grail that all seekers hope to find: the truth.
Like any moderated fight or competition, there are certain rules one must abide by in order to gain a victory, or in our case, to promote one’s ideas as the truth. While there are numerous rules in stylized debate -- a set of standards which should be enforced at all times -- there is one that particularly discourages logical low-blows. For an idea to be true, it must be logically consistent through all its parts, cohesive, coherent, and above all they must make practical sense. Evidence must be the final authority that proves or disproves a claim. Deviations from evidence that buttresses an argument, we call “logical fallacies” -- non-evidential attempts at proving a point. Like a magician performing a trick, logical fallacies are slight-of-the-hand methods used to bolster an illusion of fact.
As an arm chair academic, I would like to call you, the reader’s, attention to what I see as the ten most prevalent logical fallacies that I have come across. My hope is, while reading these, you may see practical applications to using these in real life:
10. Circular Reasoning
This is the worst of the best and I find it mostly in debates focusing on matters of religion. I tend to debate religion, history, and ethics, and circular reasoning is best described as two dependent premises enforcing each other, therefore a conclusion is reached on those two premises. Theists in particular use this one: "I believe my holy book is true because it says it is true; therefore my holy book is true." Outside evidence must validate an argument. How do we know your holy book is true? Is there any corroborating evidence to establish a firm foundation for your book? Can its premises be validated by outside sources? This has been the bane of many debates I’ve had, especially with Theists. Remember: the more varied evidence to support your claim, the better.
9. Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem is a fallacy that even the most rudimentary debater usually knows, but it pops up enough to be on my list. Ad Hominem is simply attacking the debater as opposed to criticizing the idea. An example: premise: “My dog is a good dog”; response: “prove it.”; reply: “you’re a horrible person for thinking my dog can’t be a good dog.” Attacking someone’s credibility, whether intellectual, academic, social, or moral, does nothing to prove or disprove the merits of an idea. The idea that my dog is still a good dog still stands ready to be debated regardless of the social standing of the two debaters. Subsequently…my dog is a Treeing Walker Coon Hound named Zelda…and she is a good dog.
8. Confusion of Correlation and Causation
This is one that many folks aren’t aware of, and I myself didn’t learn about it until an Introduction to Psychology course at university. To define this fallacy, we must first define “causation” and “correlation“. Causation: “I dropped the glass; the glass broke; therefore I broke the glass”. (I directly caused the glass to break by my actions). Correlation: “I am upset; there‘s a full moon out tonight; therefore the full moon is the source of my anger” (studies show the moon has no direct influence on behavior, hence it was entirely coincidental that the moon was out). The difference lies in linking two events. If one event directly causes another, it is grounds for causation; if two events happen to coincide or are related, but one did not directly cause the other, it is normally correlation. Confusion of the two can lead to premises being established based on coincidence or bad timing.
7. Argument from Authority
This is a fallacy committed by those, I’ve seen, who promote extremely bad premises. Essentially, this fallacy relies on the words of experts to validate the truthfulness of a claim, and it‘s a red flag to me that basically screams: “I have no real evidence…so I am going to use quotes instead!” I have run across these in a lot of Creationist/Evolution debates -- Creationists tend to quote-mine from “experts” (real or imagined) and will state “Aha! Because X says that…(statement agreeing with Creationist agenda)…therefore X is true!” No, no -- that’s an opinion and unless that view had evidence within, you have just quoted a person agreeing with you. If person A states that the grass is rainbow-colored, and person A happens to be a biologist, is person A’s claim true based on their expertise? Absolutely not. Arguments from authority are weak ways to use the words of experts in place of actual evidence.
6. Argumentum ad Populum/Bandwagon Fallacy
I have seen this fallacy all over the place. The bandwagon fallacy is simply a “strength in numbers” ploy. I’ll give you two examples -- one that I have actually heard before and one that I’ve never heard before…and kind of hope I don‘t. Compare and contrast their points: “Most people in the United States are white; therefore whites are the supreme race and should run the country” (I’ve heard this one); “Most people in the United States drink alcohol, therefore alcohol is a great thing!” (Never heard this one). Appealing to numbers or the popularity of an action or way of thought has no bearing on the actual truthfulness of the thought. In this country, you will hear “well, most people support…“. It’s a great political ploy because there’s a popular idea in this country that “majority rules”. This is somewhat true in practicality, but the majority of people can be mistaken. Remember: after the removal of dissidents, the vast majority of Germans supported Nazi Germany…
5. Special Pleading
This is a tricky little fallacy. Essentially, it means, in the course of discussion, one side tries to buy special exemptions for their premise that every other premise is subject to. A hypothetical example: premise: “I have a political position and it is amazing.”; reply: “prove your political position.”; response: “Well, my political position is unlike all the rest…” Usually in the realm of politics and religion, special pleading abounds because each adherent to a certain position seeks to place its position on a pedestal and the easiest way to do that is to find ways that it doesn’t fit all the rules or exempt it from the usual criticisms. To bring my Coon Hound back into the fray -- “my pet is a cat because, aside from the fact that she has four legs with doggy paws, a dog-like tail, floppy Coon Hound ears, is of the canine family, has mannerisms like a dog, has fur like many dogs do, has relatively the same cognitive abilities a dog has, has the teeth of a dog, the general looks of a dog, and barks like a dog…aside from all of that, she is a cat” No, she’s a dog and I cannot build a claim based on exemptions that all other people making the same claim would be subject to. My dog is just like every other dog, no matter how much I want her to be a cat. (And I don’t).
4. Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection
This fallacy is one that I see all over the bloody place and it speaks volumes about how we function as human beings. I lumped these two together because they’re essentially the same thing in practical applications. Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection (or CB and OS) are obvious when one plays with statistics. Observational selection is taking evidence that supports one’s claims while ignoring/suppressing the evidence that disproves it. Confirmation bias, to use a sound-bite, is “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.” I have, in my apartment, a corner-edge that’s really a beast to walk around in the middle of the night. I sometimes stub my toe on it. I have caught myself saying “(insert appropriate curse)! I stub my foot on this (curse) every (curse) time!” (My language can be colorful). That is not true -- I walk past that edge all the time during the dawn, day, and dusk hours, and I stub my toe on it probably somewhere near 1:100 of the times I walk by. Stating a premise based on a few affirmations in the face of numerous “misses” usually affirms the opposite of the premise.
3. False Dichotomy
Giving limited options when there are clearly more. I think of parents doing this all the time, and it‘s usually done to give a choice, but to limit that choice to preferred courses of actions that reinforce our premises. Premise: “broccoli is good for you…and you will either eat your broccoli or go to your room as punishment!” Clearly, if little Johnny could reason his way out of the situation, he has more options than eating the broccoli or going to his room. He could feed the broccoli to the dog, negotiate a middle ground, trade broccoli in for another vegetable, turn the table over, run outside for his parents to catch him, ruin the broccoli to where it can’t be eaten -- there are clearly more choices than what is presented. By the way, little Johnny should probably eat the broccoli…
2. Shifting the Burden of Proof
There’s one specific rule in argumentation that so many folks forget: “he who makes the claim must prove the claim.” Freethinkers are usually skeptics, especially in matters of the supernatural. There’s no impetus on us to believe something until there is adequate evidence for it. I personally have no reason to believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ESP, paranormal activities, spirits, angels, demons, or even gods until the evidence is presented. He who makes the claim, again, must prove it. Usually this falls, in my experience, in trying to prove something’s existence (usually God or another supernatural claim). If someone says “X is real”, I have the right to be skeptical and say “I see no evidence X is real; prove it is real.” Shifting the burden of proof would be my esteemed opponent saying “well, prove X is not real/you can’t prove X isn’t real, therefore it is real.” The absence of evidence, as it is said, may not be the evidence of absence, but evidence drives rational discourse. It is the absolute responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it; there’s no obligation for someone to believe it otherwise.
1. Straw Man
In thinking on this list, I was hesitant to put this as number one, but my experience has honestly taught me that this is the top fallacy I have seen in my experience…as frustrating as it is because it‘s such an easy fallacy to avoid committing. The Straw Man fallacy is the act of building a perceived position of one’s opponent, and then attacking it when that artificial position does not truly represent the opponent. I am an Agnostic Atheist and I hear arguments all the time misrepresenting the position of the unbeliever. So many times, I have to correct people by saying “well, that’s not actually what we believe…”. In politics, I see the continual mud-slinging between two different parties because of perception. On the fringes, Democrats demonize Republicans as one thing; Republicans vilify Democrats as another. I’ve never heard a Democrat or Republican admit to these accusations because they’re the other side’s perceptions.
So many Straw Men are built because of a general lack of understanding of another stance. I’ve seen it in the Evolution/Creationist debates; Atheist/Theist discussions; Democrat/Republican arguments; Socially Liberal/Socially Conservative Arguments. Insert any two opposing sides, and unless they are exceptionally well-studied on the opponent’s view points, and are prone to not misrepresent the other side’s view, you will see more straw men than all the corn fields of the South could have to offer. The best remedies to avoiding this fallacy are to simply let the other side represent himself and try to garner an honest understanding of your opponent’s position.
Conclusion
One may ask “what’s the point?”. Here’s the clincher: the ability to recognize logical fallacies gives one an intellectual advantage and, as I love listening to folks talk, it‘s just plain fun to be able to pull apart someone‘s logic by recognizing where they have failed. It betters you as an individual to know how to make a case that stands on its own merits instead of fallacious reasoning. I would urge you to apply these to everything you hear and say, whether it be watching television advertisements, listening to a co-worker putting forward a proposal, or even yourself engaging in a discussion where you must prove your point. The ideological arena we live in is one where the armed debater has the strong advantage, but its an advantage earned by anyone who takes the time to understand the tricks of the logical trade.
Honorable Mentions:
Argumentum ad ignorantium/Argument from Incredulity: An argument wherein one party does not understand how a proposition can be true, hence they presume it cannot be true.
Moving the goalposts: A situation where, once evidence is presented to sufficiently prove/disprove claim, even greater proof is therefore demanded, continually raising the bar or standard of evidence.
Argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat.
Non Sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
Begging the Question (or assuming the answer). Premise where one assumes the premise and conclusion are both true in order to prove the point.
Red Herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.
For a very comprehensive list of fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
For additional reading:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies