ichthyoid

Like many, over the past couple weeks, I've watched as society in the United States began to crumble under the weight of a global pandemic and the traumatic tragedy that befell George Floyd with the protests and riots that have continued since. I've watched news and alternative news commentary on both, and because I believe it's important to listen to dissent, I've been keeping track of how the two sides of the issues present their cases. I've watched how they argue for what they believe in, or try to dismantle the arguments of the other side.

The problem that I see which keeps recurring, and probably has always been occurring, is the use of logical fallacies as supplements or even in place of actual arguments. And the use of logical fallacies often derail the conversation to the point where it doesn't really benefit the issue at hand.

But, because I'm more of a Man in the Mirror type guy, I've been using this opportunity to dissect my own thinking, to see if I've also used these fallacies in support of my own views. So, with that in mind, I wanted to share on some of these logical fallacies, and to help us all correct ourselves to avoid these ways of thinking.

But first...

What Is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is simply a line of reasoning with a flaw that, even if the premise of the argument were true, the conclusion through the use of that flaw is rendered false. There are two different categories of logical fallacies (informal and formal), but for the simple scope I'm writing for, there's not much of a need to define them.

Instead, it's important to understand that logical fallacies do not and cannot be used to support an argument. At least, not in a way that deductively makes a conclusion true. The fallacy itself may actually be true, but cannot necessarily render the conclusion true, because its relationship to the premise is faulty or non-sequitur.

In order to demonstrate the flaw of the logical fallacies' I'm writing about, I'm going to use a simple, neutral statement that (almost?) everyone can agree on in order see how logical fallacies work (or rather, don't work). The simple statement is:

The color of the morning sky is blue.

Pretty neutral, right? There are really only two sides (Yes, the color of the morning sky is blue vs. no, the color of the morning sky is not blue). With this in mind, onward we go!

1. Ad Hominem

An Ad Hominem fallacy is the attempt to use the character, personality, or history of a person in order to substantiate or denounce an argument.

The Ad Hominem is probably the most popular fallacy I see when reading the news cycle today. It goes something like this:

“[Insert person] is a greedy, self-righteous bigot, associated with other greedy, self-righteous bigots. Therefore, we shouldn't pay attention to what they're saying because it's obviously false.”

Within the argument, the person using this ad hominem fallacy may also construct a negative history of the person being attacked. By doing so, they often persuade their audience to be so disgusted by him or her, that they don't consider anything that person has to say, and thus disengage with the actual argument being made.

Now, to be sure, there may be truth to whether that person has negative personality traits or some kind of corrupted history. But these attributes have very little to do with whether an argument is valid. Take, for instance, our argument. Let's say the person being attacked is making the argument, “The color of the morning sky is blue.” Even if that person were to be the most evil human being on the planet, it wouldn't change whether the color of the morning sky is actually blue.

I think this is something that we need to internalize for ourselves, to measure how we listen to others. The question we should often ask ourselves is, “Am I listening to this person because they're making a good argument, or because I really like the person?” Or, perhaps in reverse, “Am I discounting what this person is saying because their argument is faulty, or because I really dislike this person?” Being able to answer this question ourselves will help us see whether we're committing the fallacy of Ad Hominem in our own thoughts.

2. Straw Man Argument

The Straw Man argument is simply setting up a similar second argument in place of the original being presented, and then adding fallacious things to it that the original did not intend, in order to make that position look weaker than it actually is.

The Straw Man argument is very similar to the ad hominem, and in fact, people often mix the two up. It is also often used in conjunction with ad hominem to completely discredit an opponent, or at the very least, make one's own arguments sound more solid than they actually are. In the end, while the Straw Man argument may seem to have been defeated, what was defeated wasn't the original argument, and thus, and the conclusion drawn is fallacious as it pertains to that original argument.

Let's take a look at our original statement, “The color of the morning sky is blue.” Someone using a Straw Man argument may say something like this:

“[Person's name]'s argument is that someone got a paint brush and somehow filled the sky with the color blue, which we know is impossible because the sky isn't a physical canvas we can paint on. Therefore, this argument is false.”

As mentioned before, the person arguing against our statement made a fallacious assumption that we were definitively not saying. But, of course, it's easy to argue against the idea that the sky is a physical canvas. But as we can see, not only has a fake argument been set up, but the conclusion has little to do with the original argument.

The easiest way to identify whether we believe in a straw man is to look at an argument and, without adding any outside assumptions to it, see whether it stands on its own evidence. Is there contrary evidence to the claim being made? Is the contrary evidence that I see actually disagreeing with this argument, or is it disagreeing with something that I believe surrounds the argument being made?

3. The Genetic Fallacy

The Genetic Fallacy is a common fallacy that, for most who don't know about it, is easy to fall into. But once we understand what it is, it is extremely easy to identify.

The Genetic Fallacy is discounting an argument or line of reasoning because of knowledge about the origin or history of the argument being made, or the evidence within that argument. In other words, just because I know the how the statement came to be does not discount whether the statement is true.

Again, let's look at our example statement. Someone using the Genetic Fallacy might say something like:

“Everyone might see that the color of the morning sky is blue. But, we know what see is simply the activity of light particles bouncing off of objects and coming in through our eyes, and being interpreted by our brains. Since this is just an interpretation by our brains, there is no determining whether the sky has any real color, let alone it being blue.”

That argument may sound really smart, and even as I typed it, I started to wonder if it could be true. But again, what is being argued by the opponent is not whether the sky is blue, but because we know how our brains can interpret what we see, therefore we can discount the argument. This is not engaging the argument, but simply using knowledge about it to discount it.

A way to identify whether we are using the genetic fallacy ourselves is to ask ourselves the question, “Am I discounting or approving a certain argument because of my knowledge of how that argument came to be? Is it the associated history that convinces me about this argument, or the actual evidence being presented by the argument?”

4. Appeal to Authority

The Appeal to Authority legitimizes or delegitimizes an argument because a perceived authority figure said so. This is obviously false. Just because a person says something is true doesn't necessitate that it is.

However, while this seems pretty easy to pick out, in reality, it's a bit tricky to deal with. After all, good research often cites sources, which seem to be the same as the definition of this fallacy. But the correct citing of sources doesn't appeal to an authority based on the person of that authority. Instead, it cites its sources based on the evidence being presented by the authority.

So things like, “[Scientist's Name], who has a Ph.D. in Astrophysics and Mathematics said the sky is blue, how can you not believe them?” is an appeal to authority. But instead, the argument should be something like, “According to this research conducted by [Scientist's Name], 100% of the people in this study perceive the sky to be blue, which helps to make the case that the sky is blue”. You don't cite what the person said, but rather the evidence their research has resulted in.

An easy way to see whether we're committing this fallacy is to ask ourselves, “Am I agreeing/disagreeing with this argument because of the person who said it, or the evidence being presented by them?”

5. False Dilemma

The False Dilemma is the presentation of two seemingly opposing options as if they were the only choices available.

Like the Appeal to Authority, False Dilemma is sometimes tricky to identify as well. This is because it often involves two concepts or ideas that seem contradictory on the surface, but in reality can either co-exist, or there is an external solution that solves the dilemma handily.

Taking our example statement, a true dilemma would result in something like, “Either the color of the morning sky is blue, or it is not blue.” This is a true or false statement, because the first obviously contradicts the second. Yes, there are certain shades of blue, and some people differ on what a morning is, but that is a problem of definition rather a false dilemma. As long as we define “blue” or “morning” or even “sky”, and the parties agree on these definitions, then the dilemma Is or Is Not remains true.

An actual false dilemma would be, “Either the color of the morning sky is blue, or it is raining this morning.” This may seem true on the surface. After all, often rain comes with heavy gray clouds that certainly turn the sky into a dark shade. But there are times when rain comes, and the sky is still clear. It just depends on the atmosphere.

What we can ask ourselves when presented with a dilemma is, “Are there other options outside of the ones being presented?” Or “Are these two options necessarily mutually exclusive?”

6. Red Herring

Ah, the Red Herring. My favorite. Probably because of this. But regardless of whether it can cut down a tree, the Red Herring fallacy is used quite often, even in formal debates.

A Red Herring fallacy is a deviation from the topic of the argument and instead focusing on an off-topic point. It is often not easy to identify. This is because, especially when someone is new to an argument, they may not know how different ideas and concepts connect, or whether they connect at all. And for those who are experienced in a topic or idea, many arguments presented by the other side may seem like Red Herrings when presented poorly.

In our example, a Red Herring may look like this,

“The color of the morning sky is blue. Two days ago, in the morning, I was painting a scene of the sea, and it included the sky. The majority of the colors I used to match what I saw was blue.”

The evidence being used seems to have nothing to do with the topic. After all, painting a scene and reality can certainly contradict each other. However, a Red Herring may be rescued in a sense by re-stating an argument:

“The color of the morning sky is blue. Two days ago, in the morning, I was painting a scene which included the sky. The color I used to match the sky I was seeing was blue.”

This is a better argument (although not but much, certainly), and it no longer uses a Red Herring because it's more directly connected to the original statement.

How do we detect Red Herrings ourselves? We can ask ourselves, “Does the evidence being presented have a direct connection to the argument?” Or “How does this evidence connect with the argument?”

7. Appeal to Majority

An Appeal to Majority is the attempt to validate or invalidate an argument because a majority group believe it is true. It is sometimes called the Bandwagon fallacy.

This one is almost exactly like the appeal to authority, and is easily debunked. Obviously, just because more people believe something is true doesn't make it actually true. In our example, if we ever found a large majority of people who believe that the sky is green, that would not necessarily make it so.

But appeal to majority seems to also be the most used tactic in many arguments, often in combination with the others. For example, saying that a large percentage of scientists believe in something is often used to substantiate a point of view. After all, scientists are supposed to be a reputable community. If a majority of them believe it, is it not true?

The obvious answer would be 'no'. After all, there may have been a time when a majority of experts believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Clearly those experts would have been wrong.

What Appeal to Majority (and a lot of other fallacies mentioned) seems to do the most is shortcut an argument. If I can get you to believe that a majority of reputable people believe in something, then I don't need to show the evidence for it. And by doing so, I haven't actually engaged the argument, but circumvented it.

The Appeal to Majority is easy to identify. But it is not easy to let go of for many of us. Something that we can all ask ourselves is, “Do I believe/disbelieve this because a large group of people that I admire/dislike do as well? Or have I looked at the actual evidence and made up my own mind about it?”

Header Image credit to Pixabay.