Skip to main content

Logical Fallacies. What They Are and What to Do.

Logical Fallacies. What They Are and What to Do.

Argumentation is a technical term for trying to convince someone of a point of view or even a truth. Logical and emotional arguments are two principal ways to argue. Logical fallacies are those methods that pretend to be logical but are substantially flawed.  Formally then, we present a few of the more typical logical fallacies. We follow it up with tips that indicate what to look for when debating/arguing/conversing with a friend or opponent.

·        Ad hominem - attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

·        Straw man - misrepresenting the opponent's argument in order to make it easier to attack.

·        False dilemma - presenting two options as the only possible options, when in fact there are other options available.

·        Begging the question - assuming the truth of the conclusion in the premise of the argument.

·        Circular reasoning - using the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises of the argument.

·        Ad populum - appealing to the popularity of an idea as evidence for its truth. Also, pity.

·        Appeal to authority - citing an authority figure as evidence for the truth of an argument. Also, Correlation Is Not Causation.

·        Slippery Slope Fallacy - occurs when someone makes a claim about a series of events that would lead to one major event, usually a bad event.

·        Red Herring – irrelevant information is presented alongside relevant information, distracting attention from that relevant information.

Here are some tips that may help.

Tip #0. Listen very carefully. Don’t let fuzzy arguments sway you from genuine logic. Some will try. Let’s call this “blowing it past you.” Observe and note the fallacy used from the list above.

Tip #1, Be certain you are both using the same set of axioms, i.e. things you accept as true. Not close sets of axioms but identical sets of axioms. Know particularly well your own axioms.

Tip #2. Be aware of the “stretch.” Your opponent, says A implies B. Well, maybe A implies B’, but to go to B is a stretch of logic, as in just beyond logical - not quite there. Something like sleight of hand.

Tip #3. Is your opponent using “authority” to make conclusions? For example, one says that Bertrand Russell said that, and thus you must believe it. Authority is often a powerful argument, often used by religious and political persons, to end the discussion.

Tip #4. Stand your ground. One important counterargument is to say not he/she is wrong, but his/hers premises do not support the conclusion being made.

Tip #5. Look for contradictions made by your opponent. Eventually, they may trip themselves up by using conflicting, as in changing, bases for arguing.

Tip #6. Stay calm at all times. Emotion can sway you from logic to opinion, and you might not even notice it.

Tip #7. Don’t fall for your own logical fallacies. Your brain can trick you; it talks you into things not valid. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Fake News

If you've been following the news the last couple of days, you will note the flurry of copy devoted to fake news.  Both sides are blaming whatever has befallen them the consequence of fake news.  Let's look at this phenomenon a bit.    When I was a student years ago, a friend climbed some mountain in Peru.   A article was written in the local newspaper about the event.   In only three column inches, the newspaper made about six errors.   An easy article to write you say?   Just interview and reproduce.   Yet so many errors?   The question is this: was this fake news or bad reporting?   The idea here is that fake news comes in various flavors. Bad reporting – errors made by the author or editor Opinion presented as news     Deliberate creation of falsehoods to favor a point of view       The reporting of selected truths to favor a particular point of view Now we have the big social media ...