Logical Fallacy

9 min read

Deviation Actions

Atamolos's avatar
By
Atamolos
Published:
1.2K Views
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****This is not a political or economic piece, so any comments relating to politics or economics will be hidden.*****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a member of the internet, communist groups, and the Controversy Inc DA group, I get into a fair amount of arguments.  I like to think that I present my arguments fluently and coherently, but I'm not ignorant enough to think I'm always right.

Everyone makes logical fallacies.  Everyone.  No exceptions.

Logic is not the natural state of the human mind, because we are creatures of emotion rather than rationality.

But, as someone who hates logical fallacies, especially when I make them, I'm making this guide so that they become less common.


    • The Strawman - A strawman argument is when on participant in an argument oversimplifies the opponent's argument in order to make it simpler to attack.  By misrepresenting the argument, it both makes the other position appear much more reasonable, and make any rationalization against their argument appear to be unreasonable.  This particular fallacy irks me much more than most others, which is why I put it first on my list.
    • The False Cause - A false cause is when an actual relationship between two occurrences is portrayed as one occurrence being the cause of the other.  This technique is very common, especially when talking about economics, which is a common controversy topic for me.
    • Pathos - Also sometimes called emotional appeal, this is when one or more of the participants in the argument uses techniques designed to illicit an emotional response from the opposition rather than present a coherent case.  This is not to say that emotion should always be exempt from controversy, but it should never be used as a placeholder for legitimate argument.  I've never actually had this happen to me during an argument, but I have seen arguments in which this is the primary modus operandi, which can be frustrating to read through.
    • The Fallacy Fallacy - A fallacy fallacy is when one participant in an argument assumes that, because their opponent makes a logical fallacy, their entire argument is invalid.  I have yet to see a single argument in which this fallacy is not made.  I make this fallacy on a regular basis, and opponents I've had make this fallacy on a regular basis.  In an argument where "victory" is the goal, then this fallacy is almost impossible not to make.  Of course, if an opponent's argument is riddled with fallacy, there's nothing to be accomplished by arguing, and there is little reason to continue the argument.
    • The Slippery Slope - Primarily dealing with hypothetical situations, this fallacy is when one participant assumes that one event could possibly lead to another hypothetical event, therefore the first event should be prevented from happening.  This can go hand in hand with pathos, using an appeal to emotions, specifically fear or insecurity.  When talking about the possible negative ethical implications of political change, especially in my experience, this argument is common.
    • Ad Hominem Attacks - This is an unacceptable modus operandi.  An ad hominem attack is when one participant attacks their opponent personally.  It's childish and immature, not to mention it can do actual harm to the person at whcih the attack is directed.  I will admit that I have been guilty of this once here on deviantART.  I posted the aforementioned ad hominem attack in repsonse to someone else's ad hominem attack on another user with whom I was associated.
    • Tu Quoque - If one avoids responding to a legitimate criticism with a counter argument, and instead responds with a counter-criticism, it shifts the argumentative focus from the criticized to the critic.  Contrary to some beliefs, this does not constitute a counter-argument.  I have made this fallacy before, specifically when arguing with someone who has opposing political beliefs, and I have observed it enough to safely assume that it is not uncommon.
    • Personal Incredulity - This is the assumption that, because you do not fully understand something, then it must be untrue.  My arguments with religious fundamentalists about the theory of evolution and other scientific principles is a significant example of this.
    • Special Pleading - This is, quite perhaps, the most egregious fallacy to be made.  It occurs when an individual's argument is debunked and they invent an exception to the counter argument or change the conditions of the argument in order to make their claims true.  More often than not, circumstances in which this fallacy is made are such so that it is difficult to identify exactly when or if it is so.
    • The Loaded Question - A question is worded so that there is a presumption built into it, and it is impossible to answer the question "correctly".  I have yet to participate in or observe a single dispute within which such questions are not made.
    • The False Burden of Proof - The credibility of a claim is entirely dependent on the proof provided by the party making the claim.  The burden of proof lies with them rather than those who refute the unproven claim.  Religious arguments are possibly the most widespread examples of this fallacy.
    • Verbal Ambiguity - This entails the use of homonyms to misrepresent the truth.  This is more common in spoken, rather than typed arguments for obvious reasons.
    • The Gambler's Fallacy - The frequency of an occurrence has no influence on whether or not it will occur in the same fashion.  The assumption that repetition of specific results can influence how something will occur if it occurs again.  This is a major basis of arguments by conservatives and other anti-progressives.  I have specifically encountered this argument many a time in arguments and it seems to be a widespread belief among social moderates and anti-radicals.
    • The Bandwagon - If a participant in an argument claims that something is correct because of its popularity or widespread usage, then they are making this fallacy.  It is a common fallacy to be made when the accuracy of religious text is being disputed.  I make it a personal goal to avoid making this fallacy, which is not difficult considering much of my argumentative basis is derived from ideologies outside of mainstream politics.
    • The Appeal to Authority - This fallacy often goes along with bandwagon tactics.  Simply because an individual in a position of political power, regardless of their credibility, has an opinion does not make this opinion true.  This fallacy is often made when talking about "visionaries" or "revolutionaries", such as Nelson Mandela or Vladimir Lenin, perhaps in a slightly dogmatic sense.  But, it can go the opposite way just as well.  If a politician that is non-credible has an opinion, that does not make the opinion incorrect by default.  Current US President Obama and Former Presidents Clinton and Bush, are perfect examples of this.  Their actions incurred the displeasure of many Americans and people worldwide, but this does not discredit all of their opinions and beliefs.  (Again, to reinforce the message at the top, these are not necessarily my political views, they are simply examples designed to explain the fallacies being illustrated.)
    • Composition and Division - This is the assumption that, because a certain criteria applies to parts a whole, then it must be true of the whole itself.  This mistake is often made along with the gambler's fallacy, particularly when generalizing religious or political groups.  I run into this fallacy all of the time when anti-communists and I come into conflict.
    • No True Scotsman - In this form of fallacy, one argumentative party's belief is portrayed as unfalsifiably true because regardless of how compelling the evidence is, they simply shift the focus of the dispute so that it would no longer apply to a supposedly 'true' example.
    • The Genetic Fallacy - This fallacy is essentially just the use of an opponent's race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, age, or the origin of their argument to undermine their claims.  This is, more often than not, a form of ad hominem attack used to leverage the aggressor party into a more advantageous position of the argument.  It is designed to make the opposing argument appear to be unfounded on the grounds of the non-credibility individual(s) providing it without actually having a counter argument.  I rarely run into this one as it is usually only made by racists and nationalists, who I have somehow managed to avoid for the time being.
    • The Bipolarity Fallacy - Often referred to as the "black-or-white fallacy", the premise of this fallacy is that one participant resist a counter argument that involves a "gray area" and limits discussion to only two, very opposing, distinct solutions.  I run into this a lot, particularly hand-in-hand with strawman tactics, mostly when discussing economics.
    • Begging the Question - This is the presentation of circular logic by one participant in order to support their own views without a counter argument.  Not much more to it than that.
    • Appeal to Nature - The whole premise of this fallacy is that all things considered "natural" are generally good, whereas things considered "unnatural" are generally negative.  This allows participants to make claims with no more justification than "it's natural/unnatural".  By far the most common usage of this argument is when homosexual/bisexual/transgender rights are being discussed.
    • Anecdotes - Anecdotes consist of the usage of personal experiences to trump legitimate evidence.  This can often lead to the denial of actual statistics or compelling arguments in favor of contradicting, and possibly isolated, cases.  Now, this is not to say that personal experiences cannot be used in arguments, but if such experiences directly contradict a well-founded argument and are used in an argument as such, then they are considered illegitimate and cannot be used to support an accurate counter-argument.  I have run into certain users who base their entire arguments on anecdotes, and I have used anecdotes before to support my arguments, likely because people become emotional while arguing, and it becomes difficult to use exclusively statistics and Google searches to support their opinions.
    • The Texas Sharpshooter - Sharpshooting is a fallacy made when one or both arguing parties cherry-pick evidence to suit their argument.  Everyone is guilty of this.  Quite literally, everyone does this.  I have done this, my supporters have done this, and my opponents have done this.
    • The Middle Ground Assumption - Often, the middle ground between two extremes can lead to a mutually beneficial solution.  However, this fact can bias compromising personalities into the false assumption that the middle ground will always lead to such a solution.  I have never, by some manner of luck, personally faced or observed this fallacy.

    I hope that by illustrating these fallacies in relative detail, I have been able to help prevent future arguments from being impaired by such erroneous methods of rationalization.
    © 2014 - 2024 Atamolos
    Comments25
    Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
    mido557's avatar
    mido557
    Huh, I found this useful myself, never heard of the "Bipolarity Fallacy", interesting stuff.
    This will come in handy for people new to political discussion in my opinion, gonna send it to anyone who might need it if you don't mind :D