Navigating Logical Fallacies Retake
Navigating Logical Fallacies: A Comprehensive Guide
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of arguments. Understanding these fallacies helps in critiquing flawed logic and constructing sound arguments. Below is an in-depth exploration of key fallacies, complete with definitions, examples, formulas, and counterstrategies.
1. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)
Description: Assuming the conclusion in the premise, creating a circular argument.
Example: "The Bible is true because it’s the word of God."
- Claim X assumes X is true.
- Therefore, X is true.
Counter: Demand independent evidence. Ask, “What proof supports the premise itself?”
2. Circular Reasoning Fallacy
Description: Using the conclusion to support the premise.
Example: "I’m trustworthy because I never lie."
- X is true because X is true.
Counter: Identify the loop and request separate validation for the premise.
3. Moving the Goalpost Fallacy
Description: Changing criteria to avoid conceding.
Example: After proving vaccines work, demanding longer-term studies.
- Claim X is disproven.
- New requirement Y is introduced.
Counter: Hold the arguer to original standards. Ask, “Why shift the goalposts?”
4. Unfalsifiability Fallacy
Description: Making claims that cannot be tested.
Example: "Ghosts exist but are undetectable."
- X cannot be disproven.
- Therefore, X is true.
Counter: Require testable evidence. Ask, “How could this claim be proven false?”
5. No True Scotsman Fallacy
Description: Redefining a group to exclude counterexamples.
Example: "No *true* vegan eats meat."
- All X are Y.
- Counterexample Z (an X not Y) arises.
- “Z isn’t a *true* X.”
Counter: Challenge arbitrary redefinitions. Ask, “Who defines ‘true’ X?”
6. Definist Fallacy
Description: Biased redefinition of terms.
Example: "Happiness = wealth."
- Redefine term X to favor argument.
Counter: Question the definition’s validity. Ask, “Is this definition widely accepted?”
7. Naturalistic Fallacy
Description: Equating “natural” with “good.”
Example: "It’s natural, so it’s safe."
- X is natural.
- Therefore, X is good.
Counter: Separate facts from values. Ask, “Are all natural things good?”
8. Moralistic Fallacy
Description: Assuming “ought” from “is.”
Example: "We shouldn’t study violence; it’s immoral."
- X is undesirable.
- Therefore, X is false.
Counter: Distinguish facts from morals. Argue, “Reality isn’t dictated by ideals.”
9. Poisoning the Well
Description: Preemptively discrediting a source.
Example: “Don’t listen to him—he’s a liar.”
- Attack person’s credibility before they speak.
Counter: Focus on the argument, not the person. Ask, “What’s the evidence?”
10. Appeal to Motive
Description: Dismissing claims based on alleged motives.
Example: “You only support this policy for money.”
- Claim X is motivated by Y.
- Therefore, X is false.
Counter: Evaluate the argument’s merits. Ask, “Does the motive invalidate the evidence?”
11. Guilt by Association
Description: Linking to a negative group.
Example: “He’s friends with a criminal, so he’s guilty.”
- Person A is associated with B (negatively viewed).
- Therefore, A shares B’s traits.
Counter: Separate individuals from groups. Ask, “What’s the direct evidence?”
12. Composition Fallacy
Description: Assuming the whole mirrors its parts.
Example: “Each part is lightweight, so the machine is.”
- All parts have trait Y.
- Therefore, the whole has Y.
Counter: Examine the whole separately. Ask, “Does the interaction change Y?”
13. Division Fallacy
Description: Assuming parts mirror the whole.
Example: “The team is successful, so every member is.”
- The whole has trait Y.
- Therefore, all parts have Y.
Counter: Assess parts individually. Ask, “Does the whole’s success depend on all parts?”
14. Whataboutism
Description: Deflecting criticism with counter-accusations.
Example: “What about your mistakes?”
- Criticism of X met with “What about Y?”
Counter: Refocus on the original issue. Say, “We’re discussing X, not Y.”
15. Two Wrongs Make a Right
Description: Justifying harm with prior harm.
Example: “He cheated first, so I can too.”
- Wrong X justifies wrong Y.
Counter: Reject retaliation. Argue, “Wrongs don’t cancel each other.”
16. Wrong Direction Cause
Description: Confusing cause and effect.
Example: “Firefighters cause fires because they’re present.”
- X correlates with Y.
- Therefore, X causes Y.
Counter: Check temporal order. Ask, “Did X precede Y?”
17. Missing Common Cause
Description: Ignoring a shared cause.
Example: “Ice cream sales and drownings rise together.”
- X and Y correlate.
- Ignore Z (e.g., summer) causing both.
Counter: Identify third variables. Ask, “What else links X and Y?”
18. Argument to Moderation
Description: Assuming compromise is always valid.
Example: “The truth is halfway between extremes.”
- Position A and B exist.
- Therefore, compromise C is correct.
Counter: Evaluate validity, not position. Ask, “Is C supported by evidence?”
19. False Dichotomy
Description: Presenting limited options.
Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”
- X or Y (ignoring Z, etc.).
Counter: Offer alternatives. Say, “There are more possibilities.”
20. Argument from Incredulity
Description: Dismissing claims as unimaginable.
Example: “I can’t imagine evolution, so it’s false.”
- X is hard to believe.
- Therefore, X is false.
Counter: Provide evidence. Say, “Unfamiliarity doesn’t negate truth.”
21. Argument from Anecdote
Description: Using isolated examples as proof.
Example: “My friend smoked and lived to 100.”
- Anecdote X supports Y.
- Therefore, Y is true.
Counter: Cite statistical data. Ask, “What do broader studies show?”
22. Argument from Silence
Description: Assuming absence of evidence is evidence.
Example: “No one proved it’s safe, so it’s dangerous.”
- No evidence for X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Counter: Demand positive evidence. Say, “Absence of proof isn’t proof of absence.”
23. Appeal to Consequences
Description: Arguing based on outcomes.
Example: “Believe in God or you’ll go to hell.”
- X leads to bad/good outcome.
- Therefore, X is false/true.
Counter: Separate belief from consequences. Ask, “Does outcome affect truth?”
24. Appeal to Authority
Description: Citing non-experts or celebrities.
Example: “Celebrity X says this diet works.”
- Authority A says X.
- Therefore, X is true.
Counter: Check expertise and consensus. Ask, “Is A qualified in this field?”
25. Appeal to People (Bandwagon, etc.)
Description: Following popular opinion.
Example: “Everyone uses this product.”
- Many believe X.
- Therefore, X is true.
Counter: Emphasize evidence. Say, “Popularity doesn’t guarantee correctness.”
26. Appeal to Emotion
Description: Using emotions to persuade.
Example: “Support this policy or children will suffer!”
- Emotion Y is evoked.
- Therefore, accept X.
Counter: Focus on facts. Ask, “What data supports X?”
27. Appeal to Common Belief/Group Identity
Description: Aligning with group norms.
Example: “Our party believes this, so it’s right.”
- Group A believes X.
- Therefore, X is true.
Counter: Challenge groupthink. Ask, “Could the group be mistaken?”
28. Historian’s Fallacy
Description : Judging past decisions with present knowledge.
Example: “They should’ve predicted the stock crash.”
- Past actors didn’t know X (now known).
- Therefore, they were wrong.
Counter: Consider historical context. Ask, “What did they know then?”
29. Retrospective Determinism
Description: Assuming past events were inevitable.
Example: “The war was bound to happen.”
- X happened.
- Therefore, X was inevitable.
Counter: Explore alternatives. Ask, “What contingencies existed?”
30. Masked Man Fallacy
Description: Confusing identity via descriptions.
Example: “You’ve changed, so you’re not the same person.”
- X has different traits.
- Therefore, X isn’t X.
Counter: Clarify identity criteria. Say, “Traits change, identity persists.”
31. Conjunction Fallacy
Description: Assuming specifics are likelier than generals.
Example: “Linda is a bank teller and feminist” vs. “bank teller.”
- Specific scenario X seems likelier than general Y.
Counter: Apply probability rules. Explain, “Conjunctions are ≤ their parts.”
32. Base Rate Fallacy
Description: Ignoring statistical prevalence.
Example: “Test is 95% accurate, so you have the disease.”
- Focus on specific data, ignore base rates.
Counter: Incorporate prior probabilities. Ask, “How common is X overall?”
33. Hasty Generalization
Description: Overgeneralizing from small samples.
Example: “One bad apple, so all are bad.”
- Small sample X supports Y.
- Therefore, Y is universal.
Counter: Demand larger, diverse samples. Ask, “Is this representative?”
34. Fake Precision
Description: Using unjustified precise numbers.
Example: “This product is 99.9% effective.”
- Cite precise stats without evidence.
Counter: Request data sources. Ask, “How was this measured?”
35. Probability vs Plausibility
Description: Confusing likelihood with believability.
Example: “It’s possible, so it’s probable.”
- X is conceivable.
- Therefore, X is likely.
Counter: Provide statistical evidence. Say, “Possibility ≠ probability.”
36. Cherry Picking/Confirmation Bias
Description: Selecting favorable evidence.
Example: Citing only positive product reviews.
- Highlight data supporting X, ignore contrary data.
Counter: Seek all relevant evidence. Ask, “What’s the full picture?”
37. Appeal to Normality
Description: Equating “normal” with “right.”
Example: “It’s traditional, so it’s correct.”
- X is common/normal.
- Therefore, X is right.
Counter: Challenge normative assumptions. Ask, “Is normal always ethical?”
38. Strawman Fallacy (Distortion, Oversimplification, Overextension)
Description: Misrepresenting an argument.
Example: “You want to abolish police? So you support chaos!”
- Misstate opponent’s claim as Y.
- Attack Y instead of X.
Counter: Clarify the original position. Say, “I argued X, not Y.”
Comments
Post a Comment