Common Logical Fallacies That Can Control Beliefs
Become aware of logical fallacies and how to conquer them.
Logical fallacies play a significant role in shaping and controlling our beliefs. They are deceptive techniques that manipulate the way we think and reason, often leading us to make flawed and irrational conclusions. Logical fallacies an a sneaky way yet unreasonable way to attempt to win an argument or discussion.
Unfortunately, logical fallacies are common and continue to grow during discussions and arguments. Becoming aware of logical fallacies will ensure you don’t get run over in a discussion or even in relationships. Logical fallacies do not provide any support to a claim, rather it's a low blow seeking to put you on your knees.
By acknowledging the below logical fallacies, you can be aware of your own biases and always be one step ahead when a fallacy is applied to you.
The Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy materialises when someone misrepresents your argument - thus setting up the Straw Man making it easier to attack. The illusion of your true story is created by the opposing speaker in an attempt to easily defeat you. To defeat the Straw Man fallacy, you must know your argument inside out. This will allow you to call out any misrepresentations of your argument.
Example of the strawman fallacy:
The boyfriend tells his girlfriend that he doesn’t want to go out to eat tonight. The girlfriend rolls her eyes and tells him he never wants to go out anymore.
In this scenario, the boyfriend’s argument that he doesn’t want to eat tonight have been twisted into a statement about how he never wants to go out – ever, when that’s clearly not the case.
No True Scotsman:
This fallacy attempts to defend any given generalisation beliefs by denying the validity of any counterexample. The opposing speaker will attempt to change definitions and positions to divert any points that disprove the generalisation. To counter the No True Scotsman Fallacy, provide an example that dismisses the generalisation.
Example of the No True Scotsman fallacy:
A man sees another man drinking a non-alcoholic drink at a bar and states ‘He isn’t a real man, no real man avoids alcohol, this man isn’t a real man!”. The No True Scotsman fallacy creates an ideal, disregards anything that doesn’t fit the ideal and uses it as an argument.
This argument is better of dismissed entirely or you can respond with mentioning another group of the ideal that don’t fit the given statement.
Ad Hominem:
Ad Hominem occurs when a speaker attacks the character/personal attributes of somebody, rather than the argument in discussion. The attacking of a person's characteristics attempts to undermine a speaker's arguments without engaging in the argument itself. To deal with an Ad Hominem attack, do not get defensive and point out that the insult doesn’t provide any support before redirecting the conversation to the points at hand.
Example of the Ad Hominem Fallacy:
A new employee suggests a new strategy in a workplace to boost productivity and the boss replies ‘You don’t know what you’re talking about, you’ve only been here three months!”
Although experience does have validity, new ideas can provide effective solutions to boost any given scenarios. The boss has attacked the new employees lack of experience, not his strategic idea.
Texas Sharpshooter:
The false cause fallacy is known as the Texas Sharpshooter story where a marksman shoots random bullets into a barn to create bullet holes. Once the bullet holes are created, the marksman paints a target around a cluster of bullet holes to appear as an expert marksman. Those who use the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy tend to handpick data to argue their pre-set argument, instead of looking at counterarguments accurately. To dodge the bullets of the Texas Sharpshooter, you must ensure data is being represented correctly and fairly during a conversation.
Example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy:
A vodka company found a study that shows vodka is the best selling spirit in the top 10 happiest countries, therefore, vodka makes you happy.
Correlation does not mean causation.
The Bandwagon:
A point believed and expressed by a weighty percentage of the population appears to make the point have more validity. However, population has no validity of a proposition - just because a lot of people believe something to be true, does not make it true. When considering if you want the ticket to bandwagon or not, think critically and consider your position carefully.
Example of the Bandwagon Fallacy:
A friend says to another friend, why are you not going to the concert in town tonight?! Everyone is going! You’re missing out!”
It’s easy to follow what everyone else is doing without thinking for yourself.
Gamblers Fallacy:
The Gamblers Fallacy is the belief that the probability of a previous event is directly influenced by previous cases of similar events. Avoid the gamblers fallacy with the awareness that superstition does not exist.
Example of the Gamblers Fallacy:
Parents who believe that the gender of their first children will affect the gender of their next child.
Even if a couple has five male children, it won't improve the odds of their next child being female. The odds will always remain 50/50.
The Red Herring Fallacy:
The Red Herring seeks to take attention from the main point of the conversation at hand and refocus it on a less relevant statement. When you sense a Red Herring during a conversation, point out the irrelevance of the question or statement and redirect the conversation back to the original topic.
Example of the Red Herring Fallacy:
“Wow, Dad, it's really hard to make a living on my salary." Father: "Consider yourself lucky, son. Why, when I was your age, I only made $40 a week."
Red Herrings can be outdated and off topic, as a result, the original statement can be ignored.
Tu Quoque:
Simply put, answering criticism with criticism. This fallacy attempts to discredit criticism with more criticism instead of providing a rational counterpoint to the discussion. When facing a Tu Quoque fallacy, it’s important to redirect the conversation to the issues being discussed without pointing out personal mistakes.
Example of the Tu Quoque Fallacy:
A mother tells her daughter that she should never smoke, they daughter responds ‘Why should I listen to you? You’ve been smoking since you were 16!”
Answering criticism with criticism can lead to explosive arguments without addressing the point at all.
Authority Appeal:
The Authority Appeal fallacy draws on an argument that is backed by an authority. Although authorities often have experts in a given field, this does not give any internal bearing on whether a given point is true or not. Just because an authority believes something to be true, does not make it so. When the appeal to authority claim pops up during a conversation, consider if the authority is relevant to the discussion, including qualified, credible or biased.
Example of the Authority Appeal Fallacy:
Selectively citing the 1% of climate scientists who disagree with the evidence on human-induced global warming and ignoring the other 99%.
Authorities can be credible but not all authorities are.
The Loaded Question:
Using questions that are loaded begins with a built presumption that indicates the person answering it is guilty. Putting the respondent in an uncomfortable and disadvantageous position, the loaded question applies pressure to the respondent without wanting the claim to reflect badly on themselves. When responding to a loaded question, the best course of action is to disagree with the premise of the question.
Example of a Loaded Question:
Have you finally stopped cheating in your exams?
Don’t dig a hole when facing a loaded question, disagree with it entirely.
The Slippery Slope
As the name suggests, the slippery slope fallacy argument states that a relatively small step can lead to a chain of catastrophic events. When faced with the slippery slope fallacy, point out the missing pieces or the disconnect of the slope.
Example of the Authority Appeal Fallacy:
Letting your sister stay over this weekend will make her think it’s okay to crash here whenever she wants. Soon, she’ll be living here rent-free.
Just because A can happen, doesn’t mean Z will. The Slippery Slope is usually a prediction without evidence.
Division Fallacy:
The division fallacy occurs when one believes that one part of something must be applied to the whole thing. Just because something is part is true, does mean the whole thing is true - although this sometimes can be the case. Clear evidence is required to back the claims up, not just assumptions. The division fallacy is best defeated by providing examples.
Example of the Authority Appeal Fallacy:
The U.S.A. is the richest country in the world, therefore, every U.S. citizen must live a rich, affluent life.
However, this is not the case. Accurate statistics show that over 11% of the U.S. population lives in poverty.
Genetic Fallacy:
The genetic fallacy entails judging something as positive or negative on where the information came from or whom it came from. This prevents the main points of the argument from looking at the roots of where it came from and not what the argument is itself. When countering the genetic fallacy, it’s important to point out that if conversations are only based on the origin of the information it doesn’t provide any validity to the argument in question.
Example of the Genetic Fallacy:
I can't believe anything my doctor says about my health issues, he is overweight himself!”
Don’t judge a book by it’s cover.
Black or White:
The misconception that only two possibilities exist while disregarding that other possibilities can ever exist in a given scenario. During a conversation where one believes it's black or white, be sceptical and look for other possibilities.
Example of the Black or White Fallacy:
“Either you support the new environmental plan or you don’t, there is no middle ground!
Sometimes grey area’s can exist in scenarios.
Middle Ground:
The belief is that the middle point between two extremes must be the truth. However, a bias that the middle is always the truth will not provide evidence. Compromising between two extremes works sometimes, but it is naïve to believe it is always the best action or always true. The middle ground fallacy can be misused as a moral compass to try and provide comfort and clouding over a situation to make the conflict resolve quickly. To deal with the middle ground fallacy, ensure the compromise isn’t the best suit of action and stay true to your points in a calm manner.
Example of the Middle Ground Fallacy:
One of my friends told me that lying is never acceptable, while another friend said it’s actually alright to lie whenever you want to. Therefore, it must be ok to lie sometimes.”
Sometimes its the extremes on either end of the spectrum which can be truthful.
Appeal to Nature:
A common belief is that all natural things are good. This creates a bias in our thinking as nature is not intended to be good or bad, nature just is. To avoid the appeal to nature fallacy provide counterexamples to ensure the natural isn’t always good and unnatural isn’t always bad. Cars and planes aren’t natural - should we try and walk to get on holiday?
Example of the Middle Ground Fallacy:
Natural medicine is good for you, therefore you should use it instead of conventional medicine.
Nature isn’t always good, nature just is.
Anecdotal:
Using a personal or isolated experience to represent a full argument without any other sound evidence. When one uses anecdotal to represent their full argument, point out that anecdotal should only be used in the context of the discussion and are not evidence on their own.
Example of the Anecdotal Fallacy:
My grandfather was a heavy smoker most of his life, but he lived to be 90 years old. Therefore, smoking is not harmful to people.”
Without back up, your point is weak.
Emotional Appeal:
Manipulating someone using emotional cues instead of applying a logical argument. When one's emotions are in a manipulation attempt, always stick to the original line or reasoning without letting emotions impact you.
Example of the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy:
A defendant in court says they shouldn’t have to pay a fine because they feel terrible for what they did.
Remain logical, not emotional.
Ambiguity:
Ambiguity simply put is misleading the truth through a double-meaning statement. If you hear an ambiguous statement, it’s best to ask for further clarification.
Example of Ambiguity: All trees have bark. Every dog barks. Therefore, a dog is a tree.
Double meanings are every rarely correct, always question them.
Whether it’s yourself who has the logical fallacy or the person you’re speaking with, it's important to know how to correctly deal with the fallacy. Overcoming your own fallacies will enable you to have deeper, logical and intellectual conversations without interruption or bias or emotion. When faced with a logical fallacy, remain calm and polite while executing a counter-example. Many fall into the argument hazards of logical fallacies, letting their need to be right trump the effectiveness of the conversation. If unreasonable, it's best to exit the conversation as this person has let fallacies dominate themselves and it’s not worth wasting your time trying to convince them otherwise. Stick to your own values while using logical points with an open mind.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience - Mark Twain.
It’s OK to be wrong sometimes, it happens to everyone. Letting a fallacy control you will prevent you from speaking your truth.