Critical Thinking #8

 Critical Thinking #8   Fallacies

An argument can be sound (have the proper structure of premises and conclusion) and valid (premises are true and the conclusion logically follows), but if one does not use logical reasoning to offer a conclusion, the argument is wrong, incorrect.

"A logical fallacy is a type of flawed reasoning, and a fallacious argument is an argument that contains a fallacy."

We prepare ourselves to argue as critical thinkers by:

> becoming familiar with common fallacies

>evaluating the assumptions in an argument

>finding the conclusion and determining if the premises are relevant to it

>looking for things that distract from the main point

Toward that end I want to identify and define twelve of the most common fallacies that prevent reasonable debate and keep us from coming to better solutions.

1. Red Herring:  this is when an arguer raises an irrelevant side issue to distract the listener(s) from the main topic under consideration. You do not argue economics by getting side tracked discussing Nobel Prize winners.

2. Appeal to Popularity:  here is when the arguer tries to strengthen the argument by claiming "everybody" shares the belief, preference, or habit. Individual responsibility is ignored.

3. Slippery Slope:  the arguer claims one event will lead to a chain of events that result in an undesired outcome. There is no reason to assume the sequence will happen.

4.Appeal to Ignorance:  the arguer claims that since something cannot be disproved, it must be true. The arguer is avoiding the responsibility to provide evidence if their claim is to be accepted.

5. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc ("after this, therefore because of this"):  this is the classic confusion of correlation and causation. This is a questionable cause-and-effect relationship. Just because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily mean one caused the other.

6. Straw Man:  this occurs when the arguer distorts the opposing position and then presents evidence to knock down the distorted argument rather than the real one. The purpose is to misrepresent the motives of the opposition, distorting its position.

7. Ad Hominem:  this happens when the arguer attacks the opponent's personal characteristics, qualifications, or circumstances. It attacks a person rather than providing evidence for an argument.

8. Begging the Question: listening carefully, one can hear the similarity between premises and conclusion; one simply repeats the other. The truth of the premise is assumed to be true by the conclusion. This fallacy just repeats the claim twice.

9. Weak Analogy: this fallacy occurs when the comparison of two things is irrelevant or so weak as to be meaningless.

10. Unqualified Authority:  the arguer tries to prove a point by appealing to someone who is not an expert in the field or is unqualified to give advice that something is true. A baseball player probably would not be performing brain surgery.

11. Appeal to Emotion:  the arguer tries to persuade by appealing to fear, pity, patriotism, or flattery instead of using rational arguments. Emotion is useful but not strong enough to stand on its own as evidence.

12. False Dichotomy:  this fallacy falsely uses an either/or choice. The arguer offers a situation with only two possible outcomes, and one of them is overwhelmingly preferable, maybe even opposites.

If you accept premises without question or verification, you might end up agreeing to something you would not otherwise.