Recognising Logical Fallacies

Transcript from video

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that can lead to incorrect conclusions. They’re also arguments often used by people who don’t really have anything to back up their position. They can used to manipulate, coerce, avoid responsibility, or to convince others without any real evidence. Sometimes they’re used just for the sake of winning an argument, with some people their ego won’t let them be wrong. If anyone has ever gotten into an argument with a troll on social media, you probably already know false fallacies are usually all they have.

Now some fallacies may seem persuasive, at least at first, but are often flawed in their logic, don’t stand up to scrutiny but just make the argument deceptive, misleading or unresolvable. But they can be powerful tools for those looking to troll, bully, or manipulate others because they exploit cognitive biases, emotional responses and can lead to frustration, confusion or even compliance.

The fallacies can be subtle and not always easy to spot at first glance. In fact they often rely on the target not seeing their logical flaws. So recognising and understanding these fallacies, whether in conversations, arguments, on social media, can help with not being misled by flawed reasoning, and I’m going to outline thirteen different kinds.

So the firstly there is the Ad Hominem fallacy. This involves attacking the character, motive or some other attribute of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the issues themselves. It’s aimed at discrediting the person, usually with personal attacks rather than by having any real counter points. An example could be claiming you shouldn’t listen to someone because of how they look, or what kind of music they listen to. This is evidence they are clearly wrong.

Secondly, there’s a false dichotomy. This is presenting an argument with only two options. It’s either yes or no, good or bad, you’re either with us or against us. It’s aimed at tying the hands of the person they’re arguing against, not the answer to be neither, or allowing room for context.

Number three is an appeal to authority. This is using, or sometimes claiming, an authority figure’s opinion on something is fact and cannot be argued with. The authority figure knows more than you and they agree with them. Now the authority figure might not necessarily be in expert in that field, they only said what they thought. They may not have said it at all the person arguing made it up just to support their own position. When it comes to narcissistic people this sometimes gets flipped. They know more than the experts.

Number four is a strawman fallacy. This is when something someone says is taken out of context and misrepresented to make their argument easier to attack. For example, “I like coffee?”, “Okay so you’re saying you hate anyone who drinks tea?” The person ends up having to defend or explain something they never said or meant in the first place.

Fallacy number five is hasty generalisations. This is drawing conclusions from little to no information, biased data, anecdotal evidence or an opinion. For the person using this, their evidence can be really just based on what’s in their head at that moment. An example of this could be claiming Irish people are really rude. I met an Irish guy once who was rude therefore all Irish people are rude.

Number six is the bandwagon fallacy. This is suggesting that because lots of people think or believe something it must be true. Again, with narcissistic people another aspect of this could be claiming everyone knows something to be true, based solely on them telling lots of people the same thing. The more they say it, the more true it becomes.

Fallacy number seven is an appeal to ignorance. This is claiming something to be either true or false based solely on there being no evidence to the contrary. For instance, no one has proven the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exit, therefore it does. When someone is using this fallacy they often put the burden of proof on the other person to prove or disprove something, and they can be pretty good at dismissing any evidence there is.

Next, probably one of the most recognisable fallacies, is the circular argument. This can be when a conclusion is assumed based on a question answering itself. An example would be, “I’m not lying because I said I’m telling the truth”, or, “What is a dog?”, “A dog is not a cat.” Personally, of the logical fallacies, I find circular arguments to be the most frustrating.

Number nine is the false cause argument. This is assuming that one thing follows another, or one thing must have caused something else. For instance, “I had a headache when I was talking to this person, therefore they must have caused it.”

Similarly is number ten, the slippery slope. This is suggesting that one event will inevitably follow on from another. An example in a controlling relationship could be, if I allow you to have any friends you’ll like them more than me. If you like them more than me you’ll spend more time with them. If you spend more time with them, you will leave me. Therefore I don’t want you having friends.

Moving on to fallacy number eleven which ignores logic and reason and instead appeals to emotion. This involves manipulating someone’s emotions to either win an argument or to get them to comply. It could involve manipulating someone’s excitement, their anger, or trying to guilt trip and shame them. An example of this might be, “If you don’t support this cause people will suffer. What would your friends think of you then?”

Number twelve is what’s known as the red herring, also referred to sometimes as side shows. These involve introducing irrelevant points, information or questions into an argument to distract and divert attention from the original issue. An example could be if someone were to be asked something like, “Did you eat my sandwich?” and they answer, “What are you going to do about the state of the kitchen?” I think a very common sign of the red herring being introduced is when someone is asked something they immediately respond with, “But what about this, what about that, what about the time you...” Things that, even if they have some importance, have no real relevance to what’s being discussed.

Any politicians listening to this?

Fallacy number thirteen is the sharpshooter fallacy. This is when someone comes to a conclusion, then works backwards looking for evidence to support their claim whilst discounting any that challenge it. It gets its name from the idea of a gunman who just shoots his gun, then goes and draws a target around the bullet hole to make it look like he hit the target bullseye. I would suggest this is a common tactic of those who engage in what’s known as offence archaeology. That’s when someone comes to a conclusion about somebody’s motives or character, then goes scrolling through years worth of social media posts looking for something to support their claim. If they can’t find something to support their claim, they’ll use anything they can criticise to discredit the target.

Lastly there is the fallacy fallacy, that’s when someone claims your argument contains a fallacy, therefore you’re wrong and they don’t have to listen to you.

So there are fourteen different kinds of fallacy some people use to manipulate, coerce and frustrate others. But the antidote to these fallacies is not just recognising them but using critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and sometimes, maybe just choosing not to engage with those who use such tactics, especially maliciously.

Watch the video here: