Logical Fallacies

welcome to us represented this discussion will cover logical fallacies we'll begin by over viewing the topic and then we'll break down some common fallacies finishing up with a brief review by definition logical fallacies are just forms of flawed reasoning they can be obvious or subtle so when they're disguised as reasonable claims it takes time and practice to find them the ad hominem is probably the most common logical fallacy ad hominem is a latin term that means against the man it refers to an attack on a person instead of addressing the argument or the issue the assumption here is that if the speaker proves somehow unacceptable then his or her statements are unacceptable - this is a form of character assassination it happens when sticking to the issue at hand takes too much energy or integrity name-calling is a blatant example of the ad hominem someone spewing racial slurs political diatribes gender insults religious attacks or any other form of character assassination is guilty of the ad hominem this means it's probably not such a great idea to call people tree huggers t-bag or fascists or diluted hipsters on the other hand sometimes the ad hominem sounds like a reasonable complaint when it really isn't for example someone might say what can the priest tell us about marriage he's never been married himself an accusation like this ignores the validity of the advice the priest might offer yes Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy but they also hold advanced degrees tailored to their profession they take coursework in counseling and then put this knowledge to practice on the job in fact many of them probably know more than they'll ever want to about marriage the hasty generalization is an inductive fallacy which means drawing a conclusion based on far too little data the two clearest examples are stereotyping and superstition to stereotype means to believe that all people with a particular characteristic are the same but consigning an entire class of people into one narrow category signals slovenly inaccurate thinking for instance let's say someone states I once met a Harvard professor who was very cold and arrogant therefore all Harvard professors are very cold and arrogant well what if the Harvard professor really is pernicious but everyone else in his department is perfectly nice or what if the accuser is a sociopath and the Harvard professor was sensibly avoiding a dangerous situation maybe the Harvard professor was just having a bad day in other words more often than not one person doesn't reflect an entire culture at large superstition is a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary it can be any belief based on fear ignorance or the supernatural that's inconsistent with the laws of science for instance some people think that if you stare into a mirror for too long the mirror will capture your soul others believe that everything happens for a reason one of the best ways to avoid superstition is to look for evidence paying attention to empirical evidence leads to rational conclusions moreover when you can't gather enough information to defend your claim then you should probably rethink your opinion the false dichotomy incorrectly assumes that a choice can be made based on only one of two options when in fact alternative possibilities exist dichotomous thinking can keep one from understanding the full range of an issue for instance during the Vietnam War the hawks and doves were both guilty of the false dichotomy the Hawks were the group that supported the Vietnam War one of their famous claims was America love it or leave it the subtext here is that if you don't support the Vietnam War then you don't love America and therefore you should leave it's hard to imagine a more unamerican imperative given that the first amendment defends freedom of speech freedom of the press freedom of assembly and freedom to petition government many Vietnam War protestors considered themselves true patriots because they considered it their duty to oppose a conflict they viewed as immoral and unjust on the other hand the doves who opposed the Vietnam War were also guilty of the false dichotomy many of them accused the returning troops of being war mongering baby killers in fact 40 percent of the people who fought in Vietnam were drafted of the other 60% many served because they considered the war necessary and just another cross-section of troops who fought in Vietnam thought it was their duty as American citizens because they considered it a privilege to live in a democracy how many war mongering baby killer Psychopaths does this leave probably about the same 1% of the general population that are psychopaths to begin with begging the question might be the most dismissive fallacy specifically the arguer disregards opposing viewpoints while assuming that her opinion is fact thereby claiming there's no point in going any further with the argument for instance someone might say Harold Coleman is clearly guilty of embezzlement so why bother with the trial it's worth noting that the only thing one shouldn't argue is a fact everything else's opinion a thesis is always an opinion we support our thesis claims through sound logic in credible evidence whether the central idea is an argument analysis evaluation or anything else accordingly the very point of Harold Coleman's trial is to determine his guilt or innocence a sensible person will follow the case all the way through to the jury's verdict begging the question can do serious damage in 1996 a six-year-old girl named Jon Benet Ramsey was found dead in the basement of her parents home the victim of a brutal murder the media tried and convicted the parents of the murder in the court of public opinion and ruined their lives the Ramseys had to leave town they lost friends and relatives the mother Patsy Ramsey died of cancer nobody ever found out who actually killed that little girl and then the courts finally decided there wasn't enough evidence to convict the parents it now seems likely that the Ramseys had nothing to do with the murder of their daughter the faulty analogy occurs when someone compares two different things that don't share a fundamental similarity for instance someone might say if we ban guns then we might as well ban knives the problem here is that a gun is designed mostly to kill or maim a knife is designed to chop carrots a useful argument regarding the right to bear arms should probably begin with a study of the Second Amendment followed by the various legal precedents that have taken place since its inception that would make more sense in a slippery slope and the arguer begins with a single condition takes a stand against it and uses as support the notion that other worse things are going to happen if the first condition is allowed to exist the problem here is that if someone predicts that taking the first step will inevitably lead to a second undesirable step he or she needs to provide evidence that a negative outcome will happen let's first examine a successful causal analysis in order to clarify the issue one of the best examples in political discourse is the Declaration of Independence in it Thomas Jefferson says that when one group of people plans to separate from another a decent respect to public opinion requires a statement of cause next jefferson borrows from John Locke's political theory to justify the human entitlement to life liberty in the pursuit of happiness thus diss articulating the Divine Right of Kings and ushering in the notion that representative Republican democracy should define political culture all of this rhetoric is masterful enough but of greater significance to this discussion Jefferson then lists the main reasons for the colony's impending revolution he addresses issues Americans still debate like leadership failing to create laws designed to protect the people's interests and taxation without representation and the leadership not protecting the borders effectively and unlawful search and seizure and so on by the end of the Declaration the reader is clear on the causes that compel the separation all of which leads naturally to the famous lines in the closing paragraph the ones that state these United colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states these words signaled the birth of a nation on the other hand the slippery slope argument pretends to be a cause-effect claim but it fails to include evidence along the way for instance some argue that marijuana is a gateway drug however there isn't enough evidence to show that legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana will suddenly produce a burgeoning population of hardcore drug addicts sticking heroin needles in their eyeballs or eating sheets of acid a sensible argument against marijuana presents medical research proving that chronic marijuana use can permanently damage short and long term memory the relativist fallacy is exactly what the name implies which is to say someone tries to turn a fact into a relativistic point of view in order to defend a notion that doesn't exist in a rational world a three step process illustrates the point first claim X is presented next person a rejects claim X stating that it might be true for other people but it isn't true for him consequently person a believes he's justified in rejecting claim X in more concrete terms the relativist fallacy might look something like this Sara says to Greg not all women are mean Greg responds that's not true women have been mean to me my whole life therefore they are all mean non-sequitur is Latin for it does not follow with this fallacy the conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it for example someone might say dr. Jones has been involved with some fascinating cancer research I'm sure he'd be an excellent choice for your general practitioner there's no logical sequence here between dr. Jones being a good cancer researcher and a talented family doctor the two practices require dramatically different skills the complex question fallacy opens with a question that rests on a doubtful assumption then all answers would then appear to endorse that assumption for instance someone might ask so are you still beating your wife of course this is a leading question by publicly assuming something that hasn't been proven and often isn't even true the speaker casts doubt on the victims integrity and intentions politicians employ this ruse all the time they make false or misleading claims about their opponents just before election since the truth behind that particular accusation can't be uncovered until after the election the damage has already been done circular reasoning is a form of flood thinking in which the proposition depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion in other words instead of logically working through an idea the arguer simply links the proposition with the conclusion and the to depend on each other nothing else is involved in the conversation for example some people state the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so this isn't what st. Thomas Aquinas had in mind as he examined the notions of free will and determinism the red herring is an irrelevant topic presented to distract the audience from the actual subject at hand for instance citizen one says our candidate has a much clearer understanding of how to generate business in our community citizen 2 responds well what good is that given that he's a womanizing Boozer this happens regularly in public discourse as well a convenient way to avoid addressing a major issue is to throw people off track by getting them to think about an ancillary topic that doesn't really address the main issue a few other fallacies deserve quick mention since they tend to crop up in public discourse concerning appeals to fear everyone knows how scary life can be but when we have to make smart choices that affect the lives of those around us we can't appeal to others fears and we can't let fear control our thinking appealing to fear in order to push people into foolish decisions is a counterproductive strategy appeals to Authority should be avoided as well age wealth and titled don't define the strength of an argument and finally Americans need to spend more time thinking about and avoiding the bandwagon fallacy when someone mentions that seventy percent of the American public believe a certain thing it's a good idea to find out what the other thirty percent think a good argument speaks to issues ethically openly and intelligently shady shallow arrogant and dishonest ways of knowing have no place in rational and productive communication using logical fallacies leads to loss of respect from those who matter most the Honorable thinkers in your audience the smart thing to do is to first understand what logical fallacies are and second avoid them at all costs in public and private discourse thank you for studying logical fallacies and thank you for spending time with us represented

Channel: US Represented

Views: 165,090

Rating: 4.8525023 out of 5

Keywords: US, Represented, usrepresented, logical fallacy, logic, fallacy, rhetoric, writing, argument, don't be like politicians, fight fallacies

Id: RdSB137pFrs

Length: 17min 29sec (1049 seconds)

Published: Sun May 10 2015