Are you losing an argument to a logical fallacy? Part 1
There are a lot of logical fallacies to choose from; so over the next few postings, I will cover 30 fallacies that are in general use today. This is Part 1.
Sometimes you find yourself arguing with someone, and what they say doesn’t make sense. Their ideas sound promising but feel wrong. Maybe you are debating with someone using a logical fallacy as part of their thinking. There are a lot of logical fallacies to choose from; so over the next few postings, I will cover 30 fallacies that are in general use today.
What is a Logical Fallacy?
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning or an idea that does not make sense logically. There are two major types of logical fallacies, formal and informal. In formal fallacies, there needs to be a solution to how you structure your argument and make your points. You might be speaking the truth, but the logic breaks down because of the way you're putting your arguments together.
There's a problem with what you're saying in informal fallacies, and the information might need to be corrected or more accurate. This posting will focus on informal fallacies as they can be common in everyday debate, and you will start to see these in use in both others' arguments and your own.
Logically Fallacies – 1 to 10
Non-Sequitur (“it does not follow”) – when a logical extension to the argument does not exist – as there is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.
Example: A suitcase is strong because it’s black.
Argument from authority – an expert believes something is true and speaks with authority on that subject, which makes it true. Conversely, because someone is wrong on one thing, it makes them wrong on other things.
Example: Pilots know about flying, and if they see a UFO, it’s aliens because they speak from authority
Argument from the outcome (“resulting’) – deducing the correctness of an action based on the outcome of that action or the failure of the approach based on the failure of the outcome.
Example: Betting on red when black came up was a bad strategy
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) – if I did A and then B happened, the mistake is to assume A caused B; they may not be related.
Example: I had a cold, took an herbal remedy and that remedy cured a cold – it may have had nothing to do with getting better.
Correlation and causation – two things happening simultaneously do not mean they are connected. For fun, check out this website full of spurious correlations.
Example: The number of people who drowned by falling into a pool correlates with films Nicolas Cage appeared in (it really does).
Ad Hoc Reasoning or Special Pleading – adding in a new, often unconnected argument to support a previous position.
Example: People may believe in aliens, but when asked why they have never encountered one, they argue they are still researching us before revealing themselves.
Tu Quoque (“you too”) – this argument tries to imply that because I may be wrong, so are you. The problem is that my being wrong doesn’t mean you are right.
Example: That may not have been an alien sighting, but you said it was a weather balloon, and it wasn’t.
Ad Hominem - an attack on the person, not the argument they are making.
Example: There is someone you don’t like, so everything they say can be discounted.
Godwin’s Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum— a type of Ad Hominem attached refers to an attempt at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another’s position and Hitler or the Nazis.
Example: See Donald Trump
Ad Ignorantiam (“argument from ignorance”) – believing something is true because you don’t know it’s false.
Example: Because you can’t prove aliens don’t exist, they do exist
More next time
Next time we cover, among others, False Continuums and False Dichotomies.
What’s your favorite? Let me know.
False dichotomies