Logical Fallacies
March 24, 2007
Logical Fallacies
Recognize your own before you start pointing out theirs.
Too often, a debate gets out of hand, and you find yourself unable to sway your opponent, and they cannot provide information that will sway you. Continuing the debate, then, looks like an effort in futility. Other times, you KNOW that what your adversary is saying is wrong, but you can’t quite demonstrate why. Instead of throwing in the towel, why not look at the arguments themselves? Do they REALLY mean what you think they mean? Practically everyone has been or will be guilty of using a logical fallacy - There is nothing wrong with using them on occasion, especially in informal debates and simple persuasive speech. If you can slip them by, you can greatly strengthen your position. The corollary, though, is that if and when they are caught, they tend to harm your position and your reputation as a debator, so it’s better, especially in serious discussions, to avoid them wherever possible.
Ad Hominem - Latin for “Argument against the man”, ad hominems are arguments that the debator’s position is false because of a ngative attribute associated with the debator.
Examples: “That’s a stupid idea”; “That sounds like something Hitler would say”
How to avoid: Concentrate on what your opponent is saying, not how he is saying it. Give him the benefit of the doubt. recognize the difference between Ignorance (not knowing the facts) and Stupidity (willfully ignoring the facts) and err in your assumptions on the side of simple ignorance. For instance, a person who regularly makes major grammatical mistakes could be stupid and just doesn’t care to learn proper grammar, or, especially on the internet, your language could be his second, or third, and he simply hasn’t yet mastered the intricacies. This person doesn’t deserve your ridicule. When you are the recipient of an Ad Hominem debate, it is easy to turn them against your opponent by simply pointing out the ad hominem for what it is, dismissing it, and continuing the discussion.
Straw Man - A debator sets up an easily refutable argument, then attributes that argument to his opponent.
Example: “If the evolutionists are right, then we’re really nothing more than monkeys.”
How to avoid: Don’t try to argue from your opponent’s point of view, that is his job. Straw Men often pop up when a debator has an incomplete picture of his opponent’s point of view, and fills in the gaps based on his own understanding. Don’t rush the conclusion, instead, query the opponent. It is entirely possible that he will set his own argument up as the easily refutable straw-man if you give him the chance to do so. When confronting a straw-man argument, stick with the facts, quote the exact statements that lead to the straw-man, elaborate on the true meaning of those facts, and set up the same situation, but substitute your version of reality for his claim of your version.
Appeal to Ignorance - The debator claims that due to the lack of evidence to support the contrary opinion, his opinion must be true. (See also ‘False Dichotomy’)
Examples: “The theory of evolution has hundreds of ‘missing links’ therefore it cannot be true”; “God has never been proven, therefore he must not exist”; “God has never been disproven, therefore he must exist”
How to avoid: If you look at the examples, you’ll see that the argument itself isn’t the fallacious part, but the conclusions drawn from that argument could easily be disproven with tomorrow’s newspaper headlines. A simple way to avoid the problem, then, is to avoid making conclusions, and allow your arguments to stand on their own. The obvious defense is Knowledge. Providing a true account of the events eliminates the ignorance, thus killing the argument. But, in the absence of significant knowledge, Straw Men are a good, last-line defense to Appeals to Ignorance: When he claims God is responsible for the highly improbable event, you can suggest an alternative view, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any number of fanciful, unproveable events, and ask him for arguments to differentiate between his account and these fanciful accounts. Remember: Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof.
Appeal to (False) Authority - The debator claims that the opinion of a person or reference source is an expert in the field and claims to support his position. The problem is that the expert or source is not a party to the debate, therefore its/his opinions are irrelevant. Do not confuse referencing Knowledge - such as the outcomes of a test, the results of a survey, or any other source where the identity of the claimant is irrelevant - with reference to expert opinion. Appeals to authority become appeals to false authorities when a party to the debate refuses to accept the “expert” nature of the source.
Examples: “According to Richard Dawkins, Evolution is true”; “According to Webster’s Dictionary, Atheism is immoral”
Example of False Authority: In a debate regarding the specifics of evolution, a debator references the Bible as the truth; In a debate regarding the intricacies and necessity of Catholic confession, a debator references Linus Torvalds.
How to avoid: The only opinions that matter in a free-thought debate are the final opinions of the debators. I cannot stress this enough: Opinions are NOT valid arguments, no matter who makes them. Be especially aware of Appeal to Popularity. Just because an opinion is popular doesn’t mean it is correct, nor are unpopular opinions necessarily incorrect. You can adopt an outside opinion as your own, but you need to recognize that the evidence that supports the opinion is the vital component - the opinion itself is worthless. Concentrate on the reason for adopting the opinion. If your only reason is that you wish to emulate an individual or group, you might want to reconsider that opinion. Many times, you can combat an appeal to authority by defining the context in which that authority was quoted. Darwin, for instance, has one particular quote attributed to him that would suggest that the eye could not have developed by natural selection. This quote is frequently used as an appeal to authority by creationists who claim that even Darwin had doubts about his theories. But, if you read the entire paragraph instead of the first line, you can see that Darwin had an explanation, and his statement was regarding human imagination, not holes in evolutionary theory. The remainder of the paragraph offers an evolutionary explanation for how that eye could have formed!
False Dichotomy - The debator presents two (or more) possible situations with the implication that these are the only situations possible, when in reality, other possibilities exist.
Example: “<i>If your house catches fire, you can go out the front door, or go out the back door</i>” In reality, you have several options. You can leave the house through a window, a side door, climb down from an upper floor balcony, or, you could fight the fire with baking soda, a bucket of water, a fire extinguisher, a hose…
How to avoid: Carefully consider possibilities. If you can find a single additional situation in your argument, you should consider it and address it in your original argument. Failing to do so will give your opponent room to latch on to that ignored possibility and cast doubt on your arguments, even if the possibility doesn’t explicitly help his case. Not all dichotomies are false, but many are. If you are told to select from two possibilities, examine the situation carefully, and try to determine if there is a third method. Usually, when you find one alternative, several more will become apparant. But, be careful of True Dichotomies. For instance, a true dichotomy is that people are either Theists or Atheists with regards to a specific concept of God. A/Theism regards belief in god, so you can either believe or (not)believe. If you do not explicitly believe in that concept of god, you are an atheist with regards to that concept. (Agnosticism doesn’t apply, it concerns itself with Knowledge, not Belief). This example illuminates “The Principle of the Excluded Middle”, a concept that says that of the two possibilities, only one can be true. With a true dichotomy, the principle applies. With a false dichotomy, it does not, but the debator claims it does.
There are dozens of logical fallacies, I’ve only outlined a few of the more common ones. For more information, check Wikipedia and Google.
Recognizing logical fallacies will strengthen your abilities as a debator, and increase support for your side. It should also help you to recognize whether your beliefs are based on logical thought, or irrational ideas. In any event, it should make your discussions more productive and more interesting.
Comments
One Response to “Logical Fallacies”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
[...] back to my post on Logical Fallacies we see this is an Appeal to Ignorance - The debator claims that due to the lack of evidence to [...]