I had a dream last night, and then had another dream where I was telling someone about the dream I just had. (The first one was about meeting a kangaroo that kept hugging me, and he would grab my butt really hard....)
Welcome back to yet another religion prequel. Stay with me now. This is the fun stuff.
When having an argument, you would assume the premises that are offered would be true, and therefore no effort would be made to support them. But just because the premises are assumed to be true doesn’t mean that they are. If you think the premises may be false, you can challenge them and ask your opponent to support them. This would require that your opponent create a new argument in which the old premises become the conclusions. If the inferences and reasoning process in an argument are false, that is usually because some fallacy has been committed. A fallacy is an error in logical reasoning where the connection between the premises and the conclusion is not what has been claimed, and does not provide the needed degree of support. This is different from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. People sometimes commit logical fallacies out of a desperate need to trick others into believing that they have a good argument when they themselves realize that they don’t. But in my experience it’s most likely that it's just a little sloppy thinking that crept in as they were passionately trying to state their case for their ideas.
It’s important to remember that just because there is a fallacy in an argument, that doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong. It just means that the argument itself is flawed, and that the argument’s conclusion cannot be based on the argument itself. In that case, it’s time to come up with another argument.
There are literally hundreds of logical fallacies. These are just a few.
STRAWMAN
A misrepresentation, exaggeration, or fabrication of a person’s argument in order to create an easier target to attack. Usually done to try to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
—“We should put more money into health and education.”
—“Why do you hate our country so much that you want to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending?”
AD IGNORANTIAM (ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE)
To assume something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. Or that something is false because it hasn’t been proven true. Usually done to switch the burden of proof to the person that isn’t making the claim that requires proof.
—“Science doesn’t know how to create life from inorganic substances, therefore life must have been created by the Christian God.”
POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC (“after this, therefore because of this”)
Known by some to be the false cause argument, this is when a causal connection is assumed because one thing happens after another thing happens, therefore the second thing that happened is assumed to be caused by the first thing. Many superstitions are based on this faulty reasoning.
—“Every time I wake up in the morning, the sun rises. Therefore, my waking up causes the sun to rise.”
APPEAL TO EMOTION
To manipulate people’s emotions in an effort to get them to accept a claim as being true. This tactic is very common in politics and advertising. Even though sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire an emotional response, the Appeal to Emotion fallacy is used in place of having a compelling reason for one’s position.
—“I’m sure that someone with your impeccable fashion sense would know that I’m right.”
SLIPPERY SLOPE
A person asserts that one event follows another (usually in a series) without any argument as to why the final result occurs. This shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals rather than the issue at hand. This fallacy plays to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy by attempting to instill fear.
—“Did you hear that the Boy Scouts now allow gay boys to become scouts?”
—“Mark my words, if they allow that then pretty soon they’ll allow farm animals to become scouts.”
AD HOMINEM (“AGAINST THE MAN”)
Attacking an opponent’s character traits instead of engaging with the argument itself. Not all ad Hominems are fallacious, however. If someone is a pathological liar, for instance, what he says can be considered to be unreliable. Then again, even a pathological liar may speak the truth occasionally. Just remember that it’s the content of an argument that determines the truth of a claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
—“My opponent says that raising taxes will be a good idea. This coming from a woman who eats a pint of ice cream every night!”
GENETIC
Something is criticized on the basis of where it comes from, with no case for why the argument itself is incorrect. The origin of a claim or thing is used as evidence for the claim or thing.
—“Yeah, the media says that the senator was taking kickbacks. But we all know about how biased the media is, right?”
TU QUOQUE (“YOU TOO”)
Avoids having to engage with criticism by shifting the focus from the accused back on the accuser themselves. By stating that an error can be overlooked or disregarded because others have committed the same error, this points out that the person making the claims may be hypocritical. But, of course, this does not necessarily prove the claims are false.
—“My mom says that smoking is bad for you. But she smokes. So it must be ok.”
PERSONAL INCREDULITY
Because you don’t understand a concept or cannot explain or conceive of the process, you decide it’s probably not true. This is one of my favorites.
—“I don’t understand how we could have evolved from any lower life form. The whole concept is just stupid.”
AD HOC REASONING (OR SPECIAL PLEADING)
When your claim is shown to be false, you attempt to introduce new information and arguments into the debate.
—“I have a dragon in my garage.”
—“Cool! Let me see it!”
—“Well, he’s invisible.”
—“Can’t you just throw a blanket over it, and I can at least see its shape?”
—“Well, he actually exists in a sort of trans-dimensional state, so that won’t work....”
LOADED QUESTION
This acts as a sort of pre-emptive Strawman fallacy. A question is asked with a built-in assumption, in which the recipient of the loaded question becomes compelled to defend himself. This fallacy is another kind of appeal to emotion, and frames the argument in a misleading way.
—“So, Senator, is it true that you stopped beating your wife?”
—“What? I don’t beat my wife!”
—“So when did you stop?”
—“What do you mean? I never did beat my wife!”
—“So, you can safely say that you are not now beating your wife?”
—“Yes, I can say that. Hey, wait a minute...”
—“Thank you sir.”
BURDEN OF PROOF
The claim that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. The fallacy is where the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another example is when the lack of evidence for one side (A) is taken to be evidence for the other side (B), when the burden of proof actually rests on the one side (A).
—The most famous example of the Burden of Proof fallacy is Bertrand Russell’s Teapot. The idea is that of reducing non-falsifiable beliefs to something that’s patently absurd.
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM - APPEAL TO POPULARITY (BANDWAGON)
The idea that just because an idea is popular, it must be true. Yes, if 10,000 people do a stupid thing, it’s still a stupid thing. The popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
—“The Mormon religion is one of the fastest growing religions today, with over 15 million believers! That must mean it’s the one true religion!”
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
The opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, is used in place of a valid argument. This one is notoriously abused by conservatives, with their fear of the intelligent “elite.” Of course we should trust people who speak from authority in their particular field of study. Do you have something you’re good at, something you’ve spent a good part of your life learning? And then you see it portrayed in a movie, and they’ve gotten it totally wrong? Well that’s how you are about everything else in the world. Being an expert in a particular field lends itself to special knowledge in that particular field. The fallacy comes in when the person cited is an expert in a field other than the one in question. Or when the truth of a claim rests on the perceived authority, not on logic and evidence, where it should. Even someone expert in their field can be wrong about something.
—“Hey, you say you’re an atheist? And you admire intelligent people? Well Einstein believed in God. Now do you believe in God?”
—This was actually said to me once. (The last sentence was implied.) Not only is it factually incorrect (Einstein did not believe in God), it wasn’t exactly his area of expertise anyway. Einstein may have been one clever physicist, but he probably wasn’t very good at something like, for instance, cutting hair. Just because he may have been a genius at physics doesn’t necessarily mean he was a genius at cutting hair. Or that he was a capable theologian.
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN
A person’s belief is rendered unfalsifiable because no matter how compelling the evidence, one simply shifts the goalposts so that it wouldn’t apply to a supposedly ‘true’ example. This is what’s known as a “tautology,” or circular reasoning; an argument containing its conclusion among its premises. I like to call this one the “No True Christian” fallacy, because that’s where I hear it the most. This post-rationalization is a way to avoid any valid criticism of one’s argument.
—"All Scotsmen enjoy haggis."
—"My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!"
—"Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis. Therefore your uncle is no true Scotsman."
FALSE DILEMMA (BLACK OR WHITE)
Two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities, when more possibilities actually exist. This is used on many a news show; an over-simplification of a group of options into merely two choices.
—“You’re either against gay marriage or you want to destroy this country.”
BEGGING THE QUESTION
Presenting a circular argument in which the conclusion is included in the premise, where the claim that the conclusion is true assumes that the conclusion is true. Of course, this does not serve as evidence for that claim.
—“God must exist.”
—“How do you know?”
—“Because the Bible says so.”
—“Why should I believe the Bible?”
—“Because the Bible was written by God.”
ANECDOTAL
A personal experience or an isolated example is used instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences.
—“My grandfather smoked 30 cigarettes a day and lived until he was 102, so don’t believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.”
THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER
Data is chosen that exists in a pattern which fits someone’s presumption. In this fallacy the “texas sharpshooter” is a marksman who shoots randomly at barns and then paint bullseye targets around the spots where the most bullet holes appear, thus making it appear as if he’s a really good shot.
—“Well, being a Capricorn, you grow to be 12 feet tall, have a yellow underbelly and sharp dorsal spines reaching two feet in length, can bite off huge rocks and trees, and wear spectacles."
—"Wow! That part about the spectacles is amazingly accurate!”
—"Yes! Haha! I've never been wrong yet!!"
One unfortunate by-product of knowing logical fallacies is the temptation that people have to merely point them out as a way to end a conversation. Just remember that pointing out faulty reasoning is a means to an end, not the end itself. Recognizing logical fallacies in others’ arguments helps you to find the truth behind the information you encounter. It’s also invaluable in helping to critique the validity of claims and indispensable in learning to carefully craft your arguments to avoid errors of reasoning in your own work.