Thursday Thirteen #12
Published Thu, Jul 12 2007 10:06 AM
Recently I've had some fairly bitter arguments with a couple of bloggers. I've come to the conclusion that I really don't like arguing with liberals, and apparently I'm not alone in this conclusion. At the same time, I've seen some liberals come to the conclusion that they don't like arguing with conservatives.
Part of the problem is that both conservatives and liberals frequently argue from ideology and from emotion. Another part of the problem is that most people are probably not that well trained in logic or honest debating skills.
Most logic is based upon the syllogism, a classic form of deductive reasoning.
IF A IMPLIES B
AND A IS TRUE
THEN B IS TRUE
Logical fallacies often use false or misleading premises to lead to false conclusions. In other words, the first part of the syllogism (IF A IMPLIES B) may be false or misleading, or the second part (A IS TRUE) may be false or misleading.
To help improve some of the character of online "debate" I present thirteen logical fallacies. You can read more detailed explanations of these and other logical fallacies at Logical Fallacies .info.
Thirteen Things about Logical Fallacies
- Ad Hominem (Personal Attacks)
When you attack the character of a person rather than their statements you are committing an ad hominem attack. Seeking to discredit what someone says by name calling works to stifle honest debate. Debate should center on ideas, not personalities.
- Bandwagon
Arguing based on polls or consensus is an example of the bandwagon fallacy. Just because there's a large consensus among certain groups of people about an idea does not mean that the idea is correct.
- Appeal to Popularity
This is similar to the bandwagon fallacy. It's the argument that simply because an idea is widely held it must be true. For example, once it was a widely held idea that the Earth is flat, but we now know that it's not.
- Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is when you rely upon the assertion of a person you judge to be an authority to support your argument. While an authority may speak the truth about the matter, they may also assert a falsehood. Further, simply because a person is judged to be an authority doesn't make them one, and they may not be an authority on the subject matter at hand.
- Appeal to Tradition
An appeal to tradition is based on the idea that older ideas are better. The validity of an idea has nothing to do with its age, despite the notion that it has withstood the test of time. Consider a fairly old idea — the Earth is flat. This idea is an old idea, yet it is also provably false.
- Appeal to Novelty
An appeal to novelty is simply the opposite of an appeal to tradition. This type of argument assumes that because an idea is a new one it's a good one. Again, the validity of an idea has nothing to do with its age. All ideas were new once. If a "new idea" is a good one then all ideas are good ones.
- Moralistic Fallacy
When you start with the idea that things should be a certain way and extend it to the idea that things are that way you commit a moralistic fallacy. The fact that there are laws that govern social behavior doesn't mean that those laws aren't violated.
- Naturalistic Fallacy
When you start with the idea that things are a certain way and conclude that that's the way they should be, you commit a naturalistic fallacy. Simply because many people ignore the speed limits on certain roads doesn't mean that there should be no speed limits.
- Red Herring
This is throwing up a distraction to prevent a person from proving their point. It's often very effective, and frustrating. The problem with it is it doesn't discredit an argument, it simply diverts it.
How many times have you watched a discussion thread get hijacked this way? What's even worse, it might not be noticed until the original speaker responds. Then an ideological ally might accuse the original speaker of throwing up the red herring.
- Straw Man
Basing your argument upon a false assertion about an opposing idea so that you can disprove that false assertion, and thereby discredit the opposing idea is the essence of the straw man fallacy. When you use a straw man argument you don't disprove the opposing idea, just a misrepresentation of the idea.
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
This is a fallacy based on the idea that because one thing happens after another it was caused by the other. An example of this might be found in some of the interstitials on BBC America just before some shows. "The following program contains accents that you would be hearing more often if you hadn't thrown our tea into Boston Harbor."
This assumes that the "Boston Tea Party" was the cause of the American Revolution. The causes of the American Revolution are laid out in the charges against King George in the Declaration of Independence.
- False Dilemma
This is a fallacy based on presenting fewer alternatives than actually exist. An overly simple example of this is the question "Answer 'Yes' or 'No', have you stopped beating your wife?". The person being asked may have never beaten their wife in the first place, but that option is precluded by the form of the question.
- Fallacists Fallacy
I saved this one for last. The fallacists fallacy is the rejecting of an idea simply because the only arguments presented for it are fallacies. Fallacies cannot be used to prove an idea is valid. That doesn't mean that valid ideas are invalid simply because the person arguing for them uses fallacies. There may be other arguments that can demonstrate the validity of an idea that the person supporting it simply hasn't presented or considered.
I believe that most bloggers sincerely hold the positions that they argue. I also believe that most bloggers (myself included) are frequently guilty of using one or more of these fallacies in their arguments. This doesn't invalidate their ideas, merely the specific arguments they are using to support those ideas.
I think the same can be said of politicians, pundits and special interest advocacy groups. All too often we see examples of these fallacies in advertisements, opinion pieces, campaign literature and even news reports. We all need to step back and consider carefully the information we are being fed before forming opinions and especially before voting. If more of us did, we'd probably be a lot less frustrated with the results.
Links to other Thursday Thirteens! (My trackback filter won't let you trackback unless you link to this post, so you can leave a comment I will add you as I get time today.):
- Nancy Liedel
- qtpies7
- JAM
- David
- Your name here...
Get the Thursday Thirteen code here!
The purpose of the meme is to get to know everyone who participates a little bit better every Thursday. Visiting fellow Thirteeners is encouraged! If you participate, leave the link to your Thirteen in others comments. It’s easy, and fun! Be sure to update your Thirteen with links that are left for you, as well! I will link to everyone who participates and leaves a link to their 13 things. Trackbacks, pings, comment links accepted!
View More Thursday Thirteen Participants
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=866
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/7/12/866.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Nancy Liedel responded with:
 | I'm a liberal. It happens. Doesn't bother me, if it doesn't bother anyone else. That said, everyone has a right to their opinion and their personal truth. I think your points about disucssion are valid. I've seen people rant like loons from all sides of issues and that does not solve a dang thing. |
qtpies7 responded with: TT
 | Those are really interesting. We are pretty much sick of arguing with the liberals in our family. It just gets ugly. I wish I could keep these at my fingertips so I could see it as it was happening! |
JAM responded with:
 | This is a unique, well thought out, and well written post.
I rarely delve into politics anymore on my blog, but I've been fortunate to avoid flame wars in my comments.
I'm a politically conservative man that is pretty scared for America right now. But all I can do is work hard for my family, pray, and keep myself informed and VOTE.
I enjoyed this post very much. |
David responded with:
 | Good list, although I sometimes have to think twice when the classic Latin names aren't used (yeh, I'm an olde phart, so? :-)). BTW, I know it's just a typo, but it's "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc"
;-)
"False Dilemma" is also often used in conjunction with compound questions, where many options are offered, but only a "yes" or "no" answer is allowed. *heh* I once had a lawyer ask me a compound question in that form when I was a witness in a case. When the opposing counsel didn't object, I did, asking the judge to rule on how I could answer a compound question with a simple "yes" or "no".
The judge made the lawyer separate his miltiple questions into discrete parts. Oh, and I got to elaborate my answer to ameliorate his biased question form.
I hate lawyers. They're mostly either shysters like the first one in the example above or incompetent as in that lawyer's opposing party. Either way, they're not going to force me to lie while under oath by the forms of their questioins. |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | David - You're right. That was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it in the post. |
Comments to this entry are closed.