Fallacies In Today’s World
Logical Fallacies Being Used In Current Religious And Political Environments
A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument which may appear to be a well-reasoned argument if unnoticed.
There are 24 different logical fallacies, and they are continuously committed every day in every part of life, especially in politics and religion.
I will attempt to break down each fallacy and give an example of how it is currently used.
Spotting a fallacy is helpful because it can help prevent deception and help identify lousy logic.
The Strawman Fallacy - When you misrepresent someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. For example, Amy says we should not be involved in the war in Ukraine. Glenda then accuses Amy of not caring about the citizens of Ukraine. Just because Amy disagrees with the war, it doesn’t mean that she lacks empathy for Ukraine citizens.
The Fallacy Fallacy - You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, the claim itself must be wrong. For example, John claims that climate change is affecting the world in a negative way, but his argument is poor and full of fallacies. This isn’t proof that climate change is or isn’t negatively affecting the world. It’s proof that John is not well-educated on the topic.
Appeal To Nature - You argued that because something is 'natural' it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good, or ideal. For example, Karen tells her friend that there are some new forms of natural treatments for cancer and those are better than chemotherapy because they’re natural. Just because something is natural, that doesn’t automatically make it better.
Slippery Slope - You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen. For example, if we ban bump stocks then the government will eventually take our guns. Although this could be an actual scenario, a slippery slope fallacy assumes certainty of an unknown future pattern and takes the focus off the topic.
The Texas Sharpshooter - You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument or found a pattern to fit a presumption. For example, someone is arguing for the goodness of God, and points to the scriptures in the Bible where God is good, but ignores the scriptures where He murders innocent children, condones slavery, and justifies rape. Outlying patterns or facts don’t always represent the complete data.
Composition/Division - You assume that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts. For example, someone says that police are racist, and since James is a police officer, he must be a racist too. James’ job as a police officer doesn’t represent who he is. He could have joined the force to help stop the occurring injustices.
Personal Incredulity - Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true. For example, a creationist doesn’t have a firm grasp on the theory of evolution or “can’t see how that could happen,” so they claim it’s not likely to be accurate. Someone’s lack of understanding of something does not prove it’s true or false.
Appeal To Emotion - You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. For example, someone argues that we shouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms publicly because it’ll make them feel scared. You could better present your argument with facts and data on the use of firearms in public.
Tu Quoque - Bringing up negative aspects of an opponent or their situation to attack their viewpoint. For example, Leonardo DiCaprio advocates for slowing down the effects of climate change. Yet, he flies around in a private jet that releases chemicals into the air which have been proven to have a negative impact on our climate. DiCaprio’s hypocrisy doesn’t determine whether his facts about climate change are accurate.
Ambiguity - You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth. For example, the priest told Susan she should have faith. Susan believes she will strike it rich on the stock market this year. The priest uses the word “faith” to mean that one must believe in the existence of God. However, the person talking to the priest understands the word “faith” to mean “hope that something will happen”.
Begging The Question - You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. For example, Susan claims the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. This is circular logic and would need to include some form of evidence other than the Bible to argue the claim logically.
Ad Hominem - You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. For example, Joe Biden gives a speech about the economy, but instead of focusing on the substance of his speech, a biased news anchor comments on Biden’s inability to complete full sentences. Attacking someone’s character is shifting the focus from the argument.
Special Pleading - You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false. For example, Paul claims that God heals the sick, and then Jimmy asks Paul why God doesn’t cure childhood cancer. Paul replies that God’s hands are tied because of sin, lack of faith, mysterious ways, etc.
No True Scotsman - You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument. For example, Bill claims that no true conservative would support the legalization of gay marriage, and since Donald Trump supports it, he’s not a true conservative.
Burden Of Proof - You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. For example, John claims that he saw an alien in his backyard. Tony doesn’t believe him and asks for sufficient evidence of his claim. Instead of providing evidence, John tells Tony that he must prove he didn’t see an alien. Tony is not making the claim, John is. Therefore, John holds the burden of proof.
The Gambler's Fallacy - You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins. For example, Mary claims that in the past we’ve had a recession nearly every five years, and since we haven’t had one in four years, we should expect to have one in the coming year. Evidence of past occurrences doesn’t always predict the future.
Loaded Question - You asked a question with a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. For example, Mary and Susan are discussing a court case they’ve been watching on TV about Justin the serial killer. Susan tells Mary she doesn’t believe Justin is guilty of the crime. Susan responds, “So you think Justin is a good person?” Mary’s position wasn’t that she thought Justin was a good person. Her position was that she thought he was innocent of that particular crime.
Anecdotal - You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence. For example, Jack claims he hears instructions in his head from the prophet Muhammad. Personal experiences are not sufficient forms of evidence.
Genetic - You judged something as good or bad based on where it comes from, or from whom it came. For example, Mark blindly supports Donald Trump and believes everything he does is good because he’s Donald Trump. Alternatively, Ronald hates Donald Trump and believes he can’t do anything good because he’s Trump.
False Cause - You presumed that an actual or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other. For example, someone claims that video games contain violence, so if someone plays a video game, they are a violent person. The problem here is the presumption. Providing data that compared people who played video games to their history of violence would be a logical argument.
Bandwagon - You appeal to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted validation. For example, Harold claims that there are a lot of people out there who believe in aliens, and they can’t all be wrong, so there must be aliens. The number of people who believe something doesn’t affect the likeliness of it being true.
Appeal To Authority - You said that because an authority thinks something, it must be true. For example, a creationist says that some scientists believe in creation; therefore, evolution is false. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution.
Black-Or-White - You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities when more possibilities exist. For example, Steven claims that his friend Gabe has to vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. There are other options such as not voting or voting for a third party candidate.
Middle Ground - You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes, must be the truth. For example, Holly said that vaccinations caused autism in children, but her scientifically well-read friend Caleb said that this claim had been debunked and proven false. Their friend Alice offered a compromise that vaccinations must cause some autism, just not all autism.
Related: How To Think Logically