Logical Fallacies
What they are and why people make them
Commonly used in political debates, propaganda and other attempts at persuasion, a logical fallacy is a flawed, deceptive and/or false argument that can be proven wrong with reasoning. Productive debates and discussions should not allow logical fallacies.
The following are some common logical fallacies:
Ad hominem argument: This involves arguing against the person making the argument rather than addressing the person’s argument. This can include personal insults, such as criticizing the person’s physical appearance or the way they talk, the organization they belong to, or past personal mistakes. In politics it’s called mudslinging.
A friend and I set up a discussion group that discussed various political, social, and philosophical topics. The first rule for the group was “No ad hominem arguments.”
Strawman argument: This is when someone attacks a distortion of the original argument that they created themselves (the “strawman”).
False dichotomy argument: This is when limited options are presented, often two extreme cases, when there are more possibilities. This is a manipulative tool, promoting one side while demonizing the other.
Slippery slope argument: This involves taking an argument from the first, sensible premise to a highly unlikely and extreme conclusion through several hastily constructed steps.
Hasty generalization: This is a broad claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. An example is generalizing about a group based on just a few extreme or fringe members.
Red herring: This involves bringing up an irrelevant issue to redirect or confuse the discussion to avoid the original topic.
Bandwagon fallacy: This is where something is assumed to be true or good because others agree with it.
Causal fallacy: This is when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. A common saying of scientists is “Correlation is not proof of causation.”
Guilt by association: Often used as an ad hominem attack, this is when someone is painted as guilty or bad because of their association with an offender or someone bad. An example is when someone is the brother or co-worker or shares one political position with someone who is deemed bad, that person, without other evidence, is smeared as bad.
Appeal to pity: This involves provoking emotions instead of using factual evidence to win an argument. An example is when a defendant in a trial uses crutches to try to gain sympathy from the jury.
Appeal to nature: This occurs when something is claimed to be good because it's perceived as natural, or bad because it's perceived as unnatural. Whether or not something is natural does not determine that it is good or bad. Cancer and polio are natural. Similarly, appeals to tradition and appeal to novelty or newness are where things are deemed good or bad simply because they are traditional or new.
.
Why people make logical fallacy arguments
One reason people use logical fallacies is that they use poor reasoning, and do not understand how logical fallacies are flawed.
Another reason people used logical fallacies is that they work. We all at times use logical fallacies and play on people’s cognitive biases and emotions to try to persuade people. We ourselves at times fall prey to faulty arguments. Remember that most of our decision-making is made at the irrational level.
Emotions are an essential part of our learning concepts and even acceptance of facts. Storytelling, playacting, art and metaphors are standard teaching tools. Politicians and advertisers have long known the power of emotions in shaping public opinion. They employ various techniques, such as the use of peer pressure and evoking powerful images and slogans to tap into the unconscious biases of the public. Propaganda and emotional persuasion can lead us to false conclusions and beliefs. The truth is often counterintuitive, and falsehoods can make sense.
University College London neurobiology professor Semir Zeki said that, whether they realize it or not, great artists are neuroscientists. They use techniques-- such as colors, angles and shapes-- to manipulate and influence the audiences' minds.
What is your big idea? Here's mine (from an email on the essence of the idea):
Subject: The rules have changed, as in — there are none. By failing to recognize that, you cannot adapt to deal with it.
In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “Half the country is with me on this and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below, it would be the opposite half.” When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone — in what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? But in the force fields of fallacy that people hide behind today, you can claim to be a critical thinker and not do anything that remotely reflects its requirements. What was once understood as a demanding process that puts your mind to the test: Is now one Tweet away from glory in the Gutter Games of Government. In this fantasyland where liars are loved as bastions of virtue and people telling you what you wanna hear are “geniuses”:
You can “win” an argument without even knowing what the issue’s about.
And the professionals answer to America suffocating in an atmosphere of absurdity? Endlessly rehashing the same old problems in the same old ways. It’s all an illusion of progress — perfectly captured by John Wooden’s “Never mistake activity for achievement.” But there’s an opportunity to turn it all around — by taking the problem and turning it into a solution. A student wrote of her psychology professor: “Tim Wilson taught me the importance of breaking problems down into more manageable pieces.” Lo and behold, at the bedrock of my idea is exactly that. If you want to start solving problems, first you need to clear the clutter that’s crippled this country. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything. And you do it by holding one man to his own “standards”: A professional know-it-all with a cult-like following unlike anything I’ve ever seen.
As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something. His disciples see him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes. And that — is an opportunity! How do we make people realize they’ve been lied to? You have to knock down one small pillar that’s easier to reach. I’ve got the perfect pillar — on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history (which shaped everything you see today). I don’t need mass appeal to make this happen, I just need to get to one man. Long before brain imaging to understand human behavior, we already had all the tools we needed for a hopeful humanity. We didn’t take advantage of the gifts we were given, and what a shocker — we don’t make good use of those fancy new insights either. Your field is forever fighting the forces of human nature whereas my solution banks on it.
I have a very specific target audience to get this in gear, so it wouldn’t take much. One email could set off a chain of events that could open the door to the kind of conversation this nation’s never had. Imagine! There was a time when we did.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Memmer