We like to believe we always think logically, but sometimes we fool ourselves or others trap us with faulty logic. This is so common, that philosophers have categorized these gaps in our reasoning and named them to help us recognize when our logic has failed us.
Here are 8 types of failed logic, along with the interesting names they have been assigned:
1. Slippery Slope – Tying a mild negative consequence to a similar but more extreme one and arguing that one will lead to the other. Example: Using marijuana will lead to use of harder drugs and eventually addiction, crime and jail. Like alcohol, there has never been any evidence produced to show that using marijuana socially results in increased risk of drug addiction and its consequences. In Canada, this is reflected in changes in our marijuana laws in recent years. Decriminalization of simple possession of marijuana has meant a reduction in criminal charges that can have a long-lasting detrimental effect on a person’s future, but this was blocked for years by slippery slope fallacies.
2. False Dichotomy – An either/or set of options is presented as if only these 2 possibilities exist, when there are really many more options. “Either you’re with us or against us” is a classic false dichotomy – a person can be partially for or against or just not care! This is also a type of logic fallacy people use against themselves in negative self talk: “If I was just better/smarter/worked harder, I’d make fewer mistakes and be more successful.” Really…smart and hard-working people make mistakes too but, perhaps, may be more likely to learn from them and avoid putting themselves down.
3. Begging the Question – The argument relies on itself to explain its reasoning, also called Circular Reasoning. “My father/husband/politician knows what’s best for me because he told me he always knows what’s right for me, and he’s always right.” You’re right because you say you are right… Yeah, right!
4. Red Herring – Using an argument that seems relevant but really isn’t, also referred to as a Smoke Screen. The argument is designed to mislead or distract, and is often used when the first argument didn’t work. “When you tell me I should eat healthier and exercise, that says to me you think I’m fat. I like myself the way I am, and more people should have better self-esteem.” This fallacy is often used in politics to avoid answering a question…just keep talking and segue to something completely unrelated while no-one notices…
5. Appeals to authority, pity or the “majority” – Using an argument that completely skips logic and, instead, appealing to an outside influence/source that feels/sounds resonant but really isn’t. It seems we’ve been hearing a lot of this faulty logic recently:
a. Authority – “The politicians say it’s true so it must be.” If it’s a science issue, we need to listen to the scientists.
b. Pity – “I know we need to follow public health precautions, but we’re just too tired of all these restrictions.” Is fatigue really a reason to do something experts tell us is dangerous?
c. Majority – “Everyone I know says masks/vaccines are dangerous, so it must be true.” Again, science and experts say otherwise…
6. Ad Hominum Fallacy – When someone points out you’re wrong and you can’t think of a way to defend yourself, so you just insult them instead. This one is also popular in politics – it’s so sad to see personal attacks that have nothing to do with the issues that really concern voters. These fallacies distract from discussion of the issues voters should be learning about.
7. Straw Man Fallacy – Substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresentative version of the argument to make it easier to attack while not actually addressing the original topic. “I think we should spend more money on public health during this pandemic.” “Don’t be ridiculous – we can’t spend all our budget on public health.”
8. Correlation is Not Causation – This is the most important fallacy of all to know about and probably the most often missed. Just because 2 things occur together doesn’t mean one causes the other. For example, heavy smoking can cause fingers to become yellowed, and smoking is associated with lung cancer. Therefore, one could mistakenly reason, yellow fingers cause cancer because the same person often has both. Sound ridiculous? Yes, but we too often see this logic used in science. Here is one: High cholesterol is believed to be a contributing cause of heart disease, and heart disease and stroke occur through common mechanisms; therefore, high cholesterol is cited as a risk factor for stroke even though no studies have proven this is true. Interpreting an association or correlation as a cause is also rampant in diet studies. How many times have we heard that eggs, for example, are bad for us one week then that they are part of a healthy diet the next?
What to do?
So, how do we avoid these errors in logic or refute them when used against us in a discussion? The first step is to recognize them when they occur. Calmly call out the person using the fallacy and bring the discussion back to the original argument. “It seems you don’t have a response to my argument if you’ve resorted to insulting me” or “You’ve changed the topic (or exaggerated the facts); let’s get back to the issue we were discussing” or “If you’re going to quote anyone, be sure you’re quoting someone who’s an expert or knows about the subject” or just quote the true authority on the subject yourself, as in “Well, here’s what the scientists say…”.
And, to avoid being duped by a Correlation is Not Causation fallacy, always check whether the original study concludes that the factors are “associated” with each other rather than whether one has actually been shown to cause the other. It isn’t always easy to detect the difference but watch for “observational” studies – this means a trend was observed but the study was not actually set up to prove causation. Often, they will end these studies by saying “further studies are needed” …
Can't always win...
Lastly, depending on who your argument is with, try to do this in the spirit of discussion. While discussing ideas with others can be challenging and stimulating, friends have been lost and families divided over arguments that have gone sour. It’s also important to show respect for the other person. If you belittle them for a lack of knowledge or challenge their right to autonomy to choose what they believe, they are likely to dig in their heels and refuse to consider changing their opinion, even when they’re dead wrong and know it. No-one likes to "lose face".
So sometimes it’s best to state the facts and concede that everyone’s entitled to their opinion except, perhaps, if there is the potential for harm to occur. However, if an opinion is deep-rooted, the person may need to think about what’s been said before considering a change of mind. Just leave them with the facts, agree to disagree and walk away… you can’t win them all on the first try!
References:
8 Logical Fallacies that Mess Us All Up – Medium
Red Herring Examples – Yourdictionary.com
Comprehensive Motivational Interviewing Training for Health Professionals – CCCEP Educational Program 2020
What Does Losing Face Mean? – Yoyo Chinese
Types of strawman arguments – Effectiviology
And I love SuperTramp, so here's a link to The Logical Song - YouTube
Comments