Recognizing and understanding these fallacies enhances critical thinking and argumentative skills, helping you to identify flaws in reasoning, construct more persuasive arguments, and make better choices.

What Is an Argument?

Before we dive into fallacies, let’s first quickly look at what an argument exactly is.

As you know, in everyday situations an “argument” refers to a situation where people are having a (heated) disagreement. In philosophy and logic, however, it means something more; it’s a set of statements — premises and a conclusion — made for or against a particular idea, theory, or position.

This is an argument that has two premises and a conclusion. If we break it down, it would look like this:

• Premise 1: Every time there is rain coming, my joints start aching.
• Premise 2: My joints started aching.
• Conclusion: There must be rain coming.

In essence, the premises of an argument are meant to provide us with enough reasons to accept the conclusion. The cause for most (but not all) arguments failing is that they don’t offer strong enough premises to achieve this.

Types of Fallacies

A logical fallacy is the use of erroneous reasoning that renders the argument either invalid or unsound.

As Dave Kemper summarized in his book Fusion: Integrated Reading and Writing:

A logical fallacy is a false statement that weakens an argument by distorting an issue, drawing false conclusions, misusing evidence, or misusing language.

Dave Kemper et al., Fusion: Integrated Reading and Writing. Cengage, 2015.

As mentioned at the beginning, they may be committed unintentionally due to carelessness or lack of a better understanding of them, however, often they are committed deliberately in order to persuade someone.

The word “fallacy” comes from the Latin word fallacia, which translates to “deceit”, “deception,” or “trick”. These words describe them quite accurately: they are deceivingly persuasive and are frequently used to trick or fool people.

Moreover, classifying specific fallacies accurately is challenging because of the large variety of their application and structure. There are, in fact, hundreds of them and more than two dozen types and sub-types. However, they are mainly divided into two broad categories: formal and informal fallacies.

Origin

The origin of logical fallacies goes all the way back to Ancient Greece and, more specifically, to the well-known Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), who laid the foundation by identifying the first thirteen fallacies in his On Sophistical Refutations. In his work, he didn’t only aim to show how one can win debates by making logically valid and sound arguments but also demonstrated how to refute various claims.

Formal Fallacy

Deductive arguments intend to provide a necessarily true conclusion given that the premises are also true. Hence, its validity is dependant on the structure of the argument. Furthermore, they can be valid or invalid, or sound or unsound:

Examples

One common type of formal fallacy is the affirming the consequent, and its logical form looks like this:

• Premise 1: If A is true, then B is true.
• Premise 2: B is true.
• Conclusion: Therefore, A is true.

An example would be:

• Premise 1: If it’s raining, then the streets are wet.
• Premise 2: The streets are wet.
• Conclusion: Therefore, it’s raining.

There is a clear error here because the conclusion doesn’t follow from the given premises; it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s currently raining, even if the streets are indeed wet. As such, the truth of the premises doesn’t logically guarantee the truth of the conclusion, making the argument fallacious.

Another non sequitur would be denying the antecedent. It’s quite closely related to the previous one, but here the mistake arises because it incorrectly deduces the inverse of the conditional statement:

• Premise 1: If A, then B.
• Premise 2: Not A.
• Conclusion: Therefore, not B.

Or:

• Premise 1: If he’s a human, then he has a brain.
• Premise 2: He isn’t a human (he’s a dog).
• Conclusion: Therefore, he doesn’t have a brain.

Similarly, this argument is invalid due to a flaw in the structure; even though both premises are true, the conclusion is still false.

Informal Fallacy

Informal fallacies deal with the non-structural flaws in arguments. Essentially, they deal with all the other errors that formal fallacies don’t. Furthermore, although they typically occur in inductive arguments, they may also apply to deductive ones.

An inductive argument is one that is meant to provide strong enough premises to support a probable truth of the conclusion. As such, the success of an inductive argument relies on the evidence supporting the conclusion, that is, on the strength of its premises.

This is a reasonable inductive argument: Since the accuracy rate of the pregnancy test is as high as 98%, it is justified to assume that Chloe is pregnant.

Assuming it’s true that the car has never broken down in 5 years, then it would be unlikely that it will break down tomorrow; the premise is strong enough to warrant a probable truth of the conclusion.

Now, due to the fact, there is almost an unlimited number of ways the premises can actually fail at backing up the conclusion, there is a very large variety of identified informal fallacies. As such, they are organized into three sub-categories: fallacies of ambiguity, fallacies of relevance, and fallacies of sufficiency.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

These types of fallacies are caused by a lack of clarity. Some examples include:

• Accent fallacy — placing unusual stress or emphasis on certain words to change the meaning of a sentence.
• Composition fallacy — asserting that if something is true of the parts, it must be true of the whole.

Fallacies of Relevance

Fallacies of relevance attempt to persuade by using non-logical means. They often use emotional appeals as evidence for the conclusion. For instance:

• Appeal to pity — using the feeling of pity to persuade.
• Appeal to force — using force or threat of force to persuade.
• Straw man — distorting an opponent’s argument in order to make it easier to attack.

Fallacies of Sufficiency

In essence, fallacies of sufficiency occur when the evidence fails to provide, in one way or another, adequate support for the conclusion.

• Hasty generalization — drawing a conclusion from an insufficient sample size.
• False dilemma — presenting only two possible choices when in fact, more alternatives exist.
• Weak analogy — drawing a connection between two things, even though the connection is insufficient for making any conclusions based on it.

Benefits of Studying Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are a common occurrence in debates and discussions everywhere — from politics to media to advertising to philosophical debates. They are an important aspect of argumentation, as well as logical and critical thinking.

Ideally, whenever we are expressing our opinions to other people and, in effect, attempting to persuade them that we are right, we should be doing it with sound reasoning and relevant facts. However, in reality, this doesn’t happen most of the time; people argue for things without proper reasons and end up using various tactics to bypass logic — for reasons such as lack of evidence and personal gain.

This applies to both verbal and written persuasion. As William R. Smalzer explains here:

There are three good reasons to avoid logical fallacies in your writing. First, logical fallacies are wrong and, simply put, dishonest if you use them knowingly. Second, they take away from the strength of your argument. Finally, the use of logical fallacies can make your readers feel that you do not consider them to be very intelligent.

William R. Smalzer, Write to Be Read: Reading, Reflection, and Writing, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005.

More precisely, some of the benefits you may gain from studying logic and fallacies include:

• It’ll help you develop your vocabulary and form better, more persuasive arguments of your own, which, in turn, will make you seem more credible and can help you reach your goals.
• You’ll be better able to evaluate other people’s arguments and spot and counter poor reasoning.
• It’ll help you defend yourself from people who wish to influence your beliefs, values, or actions in a way that may be against your self-interests.

Examples of Logical Fallacies

Now, let’s take a closer look at some of the most common types of fallacies.

Ad Hominem

Ad hominem occurs when someone attacks the person behind an argument instead of addressing the actual merit of their argument. The attacks may be directed toward the person’s character, morals, background, intelligence, or reputation.

Red Herring

Red herring fallacy happens when one derails the original issue to a different, irrelevant one. It’s a deliberate attempt to move the focus away from a certain topic in order to gain an advantage.

John commits the red herring here because he tries to distract Joanna from the real issue, which is the fact that he exceeded the budget that they had both agreed upon.

Straw Man

Straw man occurs when an opponent attacks a distorted version of the original argument that they themselves created. More accurately, it’s an intentionally misrepresented or exaggerated version of the issue that better suits the arguer’s agenda.

Bandwagon

Bandwagon fallacy, also known as “appeal to popularity”, is when something is claimed to be good or true solely because it is popular. In other words, it’s based on the assumption that a majority’s opinion must be correct.

Slippery Slope

The fallacy of slippery slope works by taking the argument from a relatively small first step to an ultimate conclusion via a number of inaccurate connections. The conclusion is typically some sort of extreme.

Appeal to Nature

Appeal to nature is based on the belief that if something is natural, it must be good or the right thing to do, and conversely, if something is unnatural, it must be bad and should be avoided.

The post Beginner’s Guide to Logical Fallacies (With Examples) appeared first on FinMasters.

What Is a False Dilemma?

A false dilemma occurs when a limited number of choices, outcomes, or views are presented as the only possibilities when, in fact, more possibilities exist. As such, it unjustifiably puts issues into black-or-white terms.

This is a false dilemma as there are other emotions people may feel for each other than just these two extremes.

Essentially, this fallacy can be committed in two ways: by suggesting that there are only two possible options when more exist, or by incorrectly presenting the choices as mutually exclusive (only one of the options can be true). Also, one of the given options is often clearly undesirable, while the other one — which the arguer may want us to choose — seems acceptable and rational.

Furthermore, it’s frequently characterized by “either-this-or-that” type of language, implying that if one of the choices is true, the other one must be false, or if you don’t accept one, the other must be accepted. In reality, however, both of the options may be false or could be accepted at the same time.

Why It Occurs

This fallacy is typically committed because one fails to take into consideration other possible options that would apply to the issue. This can be due to carelessness or, as it sometimes is, a deliberate persuasion strategy by the arguer.

As D. Q. McInerny noted in his book Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking:

The fallacy seeks to create a false sense of urgency in an audience, to force them to choose between the alternatives carefully selected by the perpetrator of the fallacy.

The post False Dilemma (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

It is also known as an “appeal to purity” as it aims to refute any arguments or evidence against a certain ideal by appealing to its “purity”. As such, this argument is used in an attempt to protect various groups from criticism, such as political parties and religious groups.

Definition

No true Scotsman fallacy occurs when someone attempts to defend a universal claim by excluding any counter-examples for not being “pure” enough.

In other words, they reject instances that don’t fit into the category by changing the definition to a more specific one rather than acknowledging the evidence that contradicts the generalization.

Note that in this fallacy, “Scotsmen” can be replaced with any other group.

A typical logical form of a no true Scotsman- argument is:

• All X are Y
• (It is shown that not all X are Y)
• All true X are Y

Use of No True Scotsman

This type of argument is common and can be made for any group. For instance, it is often used to defend a particular religious group by excluding those who behave in unfavorable ways as not “true” members of the religion.

This can also be seen as an example of cherry-picking, although in reverse; rather than choosing only the examples that are beneficial, one denies all the disadvantageous ones.

Antony Flew, who first mentioned the no true Scotsman fallacy and coined the term, gave the following explanation in his book Thinking About Thinking: Or, Do I Sincerely Want to Be Right?:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’.

Hamish is shocked and declares that ‘No Scotsman would do such a thing’. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly.

This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing’.

Not Fallacious

This fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and accepted definition of the group and what it requires to belong to that group, and this definition is violated by the arguer. For example:

1. “No vegetarian eats meat.”
2. “Well, my friend says she is a vegetarian but she still eats meat.”
3. “But no true vegetarian eats meat.”

This is not a fallacy because being a vegetarian, by definition, is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat; if she consumes meat, she is not really a vegetarian. Thus, this fallacy can only occur in a situation where the definition can be redefined due to a lack of clear understanding or agreement of the criteria.

The post No True Scotsman Fallacy – Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

Although the name “ad hominem” is widely recognized, the fallacy behind it is perhaps not as well understood. For instance, it is often not mentioned that there are, in fact, several different types of ad hominem fallacies. Each of them works quite differently, however, they are all based on attacks against the person making an argument instead of criticizing the argument itself.

Ad hominem, in all its forms, is an extremely common offender almost everywhere – from disagreements among friends to debates between state leaders. Keeping this in mind, as well as that it often occurs due to a lack of argumentation skills, it is clearly important to understand it; learning about ad hominem makes you better able to identify and counter it, as well as avoid committing it yourself.

In this article, we will cover everything you need to know about this reasoning flaw.

What Is Ad Hominem?

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy that is based on personal and irrelevant attacks against the source of an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

In other words, the attacker takes aim at their opponent’s supposed failings that are unrelated to the issue at hand rather than focusing on the validity of the argument or position they support.

The attacks can be directed toward someone’s character, background, past actions, intelligence, morals, physical appearance, or credentials. As such, this fallacy tends to appeal to people’s emotions and prejudices instead of intellect.

Here, Jamie’s response is not only insulting but also unrelated to Carly’s claim: pointing out that she didn’t go to college proves nothing about the truthfulness of her words. In other words, rather than address Carly’s argument, he simply dismisses it with an offending comment. This is an example of abusive ad hominem.

There are a number of different types of ad hominems, the abusive and the circumstantial being the most usual types. And, as mentioned earlier, although they are all based on criticism of the individual behind a claim, each of them does it in a different way.

Category

It belongs to the broad category of informal fallacies and falls into their subgroup of relevance fallacies. And, even more precisely, it’s also a type of genetic fallacy.

• Informal fallacies refer to arguments containing irrelevant or invalid evidence that renders the conclusion incorrect. They stem from an error in reasoning rather than an error in the argument’s logical structure.
• Fallacies of relevance occur when the evidence for an argument is not relevant to the conclusion and thus doesn’t provide adequate reasons to believe that the conclusion is valid.
• Genetic fallacy refers to attacks directed toward the source of an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.

Use of Ad Hominems

This logical fallacy is commonplace in a wide variety of discussions and situations. It is often committed out of desperation when one doesn’t have a decent counterargument or when one wants to avoid the topic at hand.

In the political arena, its use is also referred to as “mudslinging”, and it’s often the meat and potatoes of political campaigns. For instance, calling your opponent offending nicknames, such as “lyin’ Hillary and “crooked Hillary”, can be seen as fallacious ad hominems when they are used in an attempt to discredit the opponent’s arguments.

In many cases, criticizing your adversary personally is a powerful (although unethical) strategy if your goal is to pull focus off the real issue. Personal insults tend to have an emotional appeal, which can be effective in manipulating the audience’s opinion and possibly damaging the credibility of the opposing side.

Ad Hominem Fallacies

1. Abusive

Ad hominem abusive is probably the most frequently occurring type. It occurs when someone makes an abusive attack towards someone by criticizing their attributes such as character, background, morals, physical appearance, or hobbies. In other words, it’s an attempt to discredit an argument by insulting the arguer.

It is also known as “name-calling” and “damning the source”.

Its logical form goes as:

• Person A makes argument X.
• Person A is an idiot.
• Therefore, argument X is false.

2. Circumstantial

Circumstantial ad hominem, also known as “appeal to motive”, arises when someone says that since a certain claim must be predisposed by the arguer’s personal circumstances, it is, therefore, invalid.

This is logically fallacious specifically because it asserts that an argument must be false if there is such a connection between a person’s circumstances and their claim that could possibly affect their decision-making. In reality, however, it doesn’t disprove the logic or validity of the claim; a car salesman may really believe that the car he is selling is an excellent vehicle.

As such, its logical form is:

• Person 1 makes an argument X.
• Person 1 has a personal interest in X to be true.
• Therefore, X is false.

However, note that if there is strong evidence for a conflict of interest and enough reasons to believe that the individual’s position is indeed biased, it is reasonable to call them out on it.

3. Tu Quoque

Also called the appeal to hypocrisy, tu quoque (Latin for “you too”) is based on the claim that a person’s argument must be invalid because their past actions or words are not consistent with it.

In essence, rather than trying to refute the logic or evidence the person is using, one responds by pointing out that he or she has acted in the same manner themselves.

It’s considered to be a flawed line of reasoning because, even though it may show the opponent’s hypocrisy, it doesn’t really address the actual substance of an argument.

The logical form of a tu quoque is:

• Person 1 makes an argument X.
• Person 2 points out that X is also true about Person 1.
• Therefore, X is false.

4. Guilt by Association

Guilt by association is a type of ad hominem fallacy in which someone is discredited due to their supposed association with something negative; since the characteristics of something negative, such as a bad person or an evil idea, and the characteristics of the person that it’s associated with are said to be the same, the person is therefore viewed as “guilty” too.

The typical form for this argument is:

• Person 1 supports position X.
• Person 2, who is evil, also supports X.
• Therefore, Person 1 is evil too.

When this type of fallacious connection is made in a positive context, it’s called honor by association. The reasoning behind it is the same, only the person or a group is associated with something that is seen as positive.

5. Poisoning the Well

Poisoning the well is a fallacy that arises when negative information about someone is presented preemptively in order to discredit or ridicule following claims made by that person.

It is also known as a smear tactic; rather than having to counter a claim in legitimate ways, one resort to smearing their opponent’s reputation and thus making their words less credible.

6. Ad Feminam

Ad feminam (Latin for “to the woman”) is also a specific form of ad hominem argument, albeit a lesser-known one.

It uses female stereotypes to attack a woman’s position. For example, suggesting that someone’s (who is a female) claim must be false or irrational because of pregnancy or menstruation hormones.

Not an Ad Hominem

Not every insult or criticism of a person is an ad hominem, or fallacious for that matter. Essentially, the distinctive factor is that, in every fallacious personal attack, the criticism is irrelevant to the actual issue under discussion.

• Relevant Criticism – An argument against a person is not fallacious when it’s clearly relevant to the discussion, i.e. when a person’s characteristics, credentials, skills, or such are directly related to the topic.
  For example, if someone who is in a position to enforce the law has acted against the law, then pointing it out would be relevant. This, of course, also applies in a case where the actual topic is about someone’s personal attributes.
• Conflict of Interest – As noted earlier, it is also relevant when to point out a clear conflict of interest; if there is reasonable evidence to believe that the arguer is predisposed to take a certain position, calling them out on it may not be fallacious.
• A Simple Insult – If the attack is not being used as evidence to support the counter-argument, then it’s simply an insult, not a fallacy.
  For example, if someone makes a sound counter-argument and simultaneously throws an insult at the other person, it wouldn’t be seen as fallacious (even though it would be rude and unproductive).

How to Counter

Ad hominem arguments are often committed emotionally because one lacks the skills and knowledge to legitimately refute opposing claims. As such, it can be difficult to prevent people from using them; we can’t have too much control over other people and how they will behave. However, despite this, you still may be able to lower the risk to some degree – and, as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure.

In order to achieve this, try to make your point politely and with consideration to your opponent’s point of view. When you come out as respectful and non-judgmental, the odds of your opponent wanting to offend you are lower, even if they disagree with your viewpoints. This applies especially when you are about to criticize something that the other side has a strong interest in.

Now, in a case where your opponent has already launched an ad hominem at you, you have a few different ways to approach the situation:

The post Ad Hominem: When Personal Attacks Become Fallacious appeared first on FinMasters.

It is also known as “ad hominem tu quoque” since it’s considered to be one of the different types of ad hominem arguments.

Overview

Tu quoque is a fallacy in which someone asserts that their opponent’s argument must be invalid because it is inconsistent with their past words and actions.

In other words, one points out that the opponent has acted in the same manner themselves and fallaciously uses the (alleged) hypocrisy as evidence to refute their argument.

This reasoning is fallacious because it dismisses the argument solely on grounds of personal shortcomings; it doesn’t disprove the logic of an argument, even though it may show the arguer’s hypocrisy. In fact, such arguments often don’t address the substance of the opposing claim at all, even though they appear as relevant counterarguments.

As such, its logical form is as follows:

• Person 1 makes argument X.
• Person 2 points out that X is also true about 1.
• Therefore, X is false.

Here, Maria commits the fallacy since she uses hypocrisy to refute Kate’s claim, but in reality, however, it doesn’t disprove or even address the actual claim Kate was making. It is irrelevant to the truth value of her point if she has smoked herself or not.

As Scott F. Aikin explained in his paper Tu Quoque Arguments and the Significance of Hypocrisy:

The hypocrisy of the arguer is not necessarily evidence of the falsity of what she argues. However, one may feel a gut feeling there is something right about tu quoque arguments in that the acceptability of the view proposed is challenged.

This fallacy is also known as the “appeal to hypocrisy”, the “you too” fallacy, and “pot calling the kettle black” fallacy. Also, it’s an informal fallacy and, more specifically, falls into their subcategory of relevance fallacies.

Pronunciation

Tu quoque is pronounced as “tyoo-kwoh-kwee”.

It typically functions as a noun in the English language, although it may also be used to modify other nouns (for example, “tu quoque argument”).

Use of Tu Quoque Fallacy

Similarly to red herring arguments, appeals to hypocrisy are used as a distraction so that one may avoid having to deal with a certain issue or question. It’s quite common to hear “but what about X, look at what they did”- type of allegations in various discussions with both adults and children.

Furthermore, it tends to include a strong emotional appeal and thus can be effective in influencing people’s opinions and judgments. Such a strategy is often employed in the political arena: During the debate, a candidate shifts the focus to their opponent’s “poor” character while seemingly refuting their argument by pointing out that they are being a hypocrite.

Examples

To help you better understand this fallacy, here are a few examples from various situations.

Answering criticism with criticism, like in this example, doesn’t directly address the issue at hand, even though it may seem to do so. It simply shifts the focus to the opponent’s character or actions, which are generally irrelevant to the logic of their argument.

This is a textbook example. In discussions between a parent and a child there are different factors that affect the relevance of a claim, such as a parent’s authority and dissimilar needs due to the age difference.

The fact that Hannah drives an SUV doesn’t invalidate her argument or necessarily mean that she doesn’t believe in what she says.

However, note that if Hannah’s claim was that driving an SUV is harmful to the climate and therefore unethical, it would be a very unthoughtful argument from her – even if a tu quoque wouldn’t disprove it.

The post Tu Quoque Fallacy – Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

This type of question is an attempt to limit the possible answers to only “yes” or “no”, and choosing either response would end up hurting the respondent’s credibility or reputation. As such, loaded questions are frequently used as a rhetorical tool in various contexts, such as journalism and politics.

In this article, we’ll explain how this fallacy works and examine a variety of examples. But first, here are a few quick facts:

Overview

The loaded question fallacy is a question containing an implicit assumption – that is unverified or controversial – putting the person being questioned in a defensive and unfavorable position.

It’s a type of trick question: it is designed to imply something that the interrogee probably disagrees with and make the listeners into believing that the implication is true. Moreover, it is typically made in a way that protects the person doing the questioning. As Bo Bennet explained in his Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies:

A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims.

Not fallacious

It is important to keep in mind that not every assuming question is loaded. This logical fallacy occurs only if the implication being made is not a verified and accepted fact.

For instance, if the respondent in the first example below is known to be an abuser, then the question wouldn’t be fallacious.

Examples

The post What Is The Loaded Question Fallacy? Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

It’s closely related to the fallacy of begging the question, and the two work almost identically in practice. However, the latter is seen as a more specific type of the former.

Definition

Circular reasoning occurs when someone makes an argument in which both the premises and the conclusion have to rely on the truthfulness of the other.

Here, the point being made is backed up by what preceded it, which, in turn, is supported by the previous point; each part essentially tells us the same thing. Such reasoning creates an endless loop that fails to prove anything useful.

Circular arguments can be quite easy to identify when they are short, and it’s clear what the person is trying to convey. However, if the argument involves multiple, more complicated concepts, it becomes increasingly difficult to recognize them.

Furthermore, note that this can also be reasonable and useful when the circle contains a wide variety of relevant concepts, such as a dictionary. As explained here:

For example, a dictionary contains a large circle of definitions that use words which are defined in terms of other words that are also defined in the dictionary. Because the dictionary is so informative, it is not considered as a whole to be fallacious. However, a small circle of definitions is considered to be fallacious.

Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Read more: Circular Reasoning — Cognitive Science (PDF)

The post Circular Reasoning: Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

In short: Cognitive biases are our built-in patterns of thinking and affect how we interpret and process information from the world around us, and logical fallacies are errors or tricks of thought committed in an argument, and they relate to how we construct arguments and communicate ideas to others.

Now, let’s look at biases, fallacies and the difference between them in more detail.

Logical fallacy

Logical fallacies are flaws in an argument that weakens the argument or makes the conclusion invalid. These flaws, which may be committed deliberately or by accident, include drawing of false conclusions, distortion of an issue, an erroneous line of reasoning, misuse of evidence, or misuse of language.

Person B commits the ad hominem fallacy by using an irrelevant insult as proof that person A’s claim is untrue; calling A an “idiot” doesn’t address their claim and does nothing to disprove it.

Cognitive bias

Cognitive biases are our systematic inclinations towards certain patterns of erroneous thinking (or “irrationality”) when processing and interpreting information in the world around us. They are largely products of evolution to help us survive by simplifying information processing.

As such, biases greatly influence our behavior, opinions, and the decisions we make – and have made in the past. For example, the way you remember an event may be biased and affect your behavior today. Also, how we behave socially is dictated by our own “subjective social reality” that is based on our subjective perception of the information and experiences we get.

Fallacy vs Bias

As mentioned earlier, the important difference between biases and fallacies is that biases affect how you interpret and process information, and fallacies relate to how you construct your arguments and communicate your ideas.

This means that they are closely related to each other; a cognitive bias is often the inclination to commit a logical fallacy in an argument.

Let’s look at a couple of examples of the relation between biases and fallacies.

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy that occurs when the popularity of something is offered as evidence for its truthfulness. Its logical form goes:

• Everybody is doing Y.
• Therefore, Y is the right thing to do.

The fallacy of appeal to popularity is mainly caused by the bandwagon effect – a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency to do or believe things according to their popularity. As such, when a fallacy is caused by a built-in pattern of thinking, it can be especially difficult to spot and correct.

In this example, person X has committed the logical fallacy of overextended outrage, which is a statistical error in reasoning when taking the actions of an individual and concluding that it is a norm within the said group.

This fallacy can be the result of a cognitive bias called group attribution error, which refers to the tendency to believe that the characteristics of an individual group member are reflective of the group as a whole.

The post Logical Fallacy vs Cognitive Bias – What Is The Difference Between Them? appeared first on FinMasters.

In rhetoric and argumentation, it’s a fallacy that is committed when someone deliberately tries to derail a discussion from the issue at hand to a new, unrelated topic.

In literature, “red herrings” can refer to any kind of misdirection used by the author. For example, they are often employed in mystery novels in order to add suspense to the story by misleading the reader from the right conclusion with false clues.

This article will focus on the logical error illustrating in detail how it works, how to counter it, and show relevant examples, but also briefly explaining the second meaning of the term.

Red Herring Fallacy

The red herring is an attempt to divert the attention away from the relevant issue by introducing another irrelevant issue. It is an intentionally made distraction to move the argument or a question to a different issue that is easier to respond to.

As such, these types of arguments have the following structure:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B, which is irrelevant to topic A, is introduced.
3. Topic A is abandoned.

Furthermore, this fallacy is also known as “ignoratio elenchi”, “irrelevant conclusion”, “beside the point”, “false emphasis,” and the “Chewbacca defense”.

Now, let’s look at some examples of red herrings in politics, media, and real life to better understand it.

Red Herring Fallacy: Definition and Examples

Click To Tweet

Examples

The politician in the example uses a red herring in order to avoid answering the real question.

Whether someone else would charge that rate or not is irrelevant to the real issue of it being unethical.

In this example, John uses a red herring in an attempt to distract Joanna from the real issue, which is the fact that he exceeded the budget that they had both agreed upon.

Similar Fallacies

Red herring is an informal fallacy and, more specifically, belongs to the relevance fallacies, which are a broad sub-category of informal fallacies. There are two particularly similar fallacies that may be confused with this one: the straw man fallacy and avoiding the question.

1. Straw man fallacy: This flaw in reasoning is a distortion or a misrepresentation of an argument in order to make it easier to defeat while still pretending to focus on the original issue. The difference is that, unlike the straw man, the red herring is an attempt to shift the focus to a different issue.
2. Avoiding the question: Similarly to the topic of this article, avoiding the question is a logical fallacy of presenting an argument or a response that doesn’t address the actual issue in question. However, the ignoratio elenchi is a deliberate attempt to divert the focus while avoiding the question occurs when someone misses the point unintentionally.

How to Counter

When it comes to countering red herring arguments, it is essential to understand how the fallacy works and listen carefully before answering.

In order to spot the fallacy, you need to remember that, essentially, an argument containing a red herring uses irrelevant information to change the topic of the discussion.

When you do identify one, make it clear to the other party that the new issue is irrelevant to the topic of the discussion and, if needed, explain why they are committing a fallacy. Then, direct the focus of the discussion back to the original issue by rephrasing your argument or question.

There may be various factors affecting your opponent’s behavior, and they may still be unwilling to return to the original issue. In this case, you have three options:

1. You can accept the new topic of discussion and continue with it.
2. Disengage from the argument.
3. Insist on continuing with the original topic.

It is not always possible to return to the original topic or even continue having a productive discussion. The most reasonable thing to do depends on the specific situation you are in.

Origin of the Term

The term “red herring” comes after a strong-smelling, red-colored fish and appears to have originated in 1807 when journalist William Cobbet told a story of how hunters train their hounds by using the smelly fish as a distraction. He compared this to the dishonest practices of politicians and thus popularized the term.

Red Herring in Literature

Red herrings are common in literature, especially in thriller and mystery novels. They are used as a literary device to make the story more interesting by misleading readers with false clues. This helps in adding suspense and keeping the readers from arriving at the right conclusions too early on. For example, the author might create an intriguing or provocative side character that grabs the reader’s attention and leads them toward mistaken conclusions.

The post Red Herring Fallacy: Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.

In this article, we’ll explain how and when this error in reasoning arises, what you can do to counter it, as well as show relevant examples of it.

What Is the Straw Man Argument?

Straw man argument is a flawed line of reasoning that occurs when someone substitutes an opposing argument with a distorted, oversimplified, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of it in order to make it easier to defeat.

As such, this fallacy takes the following logical form:

• Person 1 makes an argument X.
• Person B creates a distorted version of Person A’s argument (the “straw man”).
• Person B attacks the distorted version of argument X.

Typically, it gives the impression of being a reasonable counter to the original claim, but in reality, it attacks a position or views that their opponent doesn’t really hold. Moreover, the claim may be distorted by taking it out of context, focusing only on a single aspect of it, or being only remotely related to it.

Category

It is a type of informal fallacy and falls into their sub-category of fallacies of relevance since it is based on attacking a position that is irrelevant to the original argument.

• Informal fallacies refer to arguments containing irrelevant or invalid evidence that renders the conclusion incorrect. They stem from an error in reasoning rather than from an error in the logical structure of the argument.
• Fallacies of relevance occur when the evidence of an argument is not relevant to the conclusion and thus doesn’t provide adequate reasons to believe its truthfulness.

Steel Man Argument

The opposite of the straw man argument is called a steel man argument, or steelmanning. Accordingly, it arises when a person improves someone else’s position in a way that makes it harder to defeat.

Examples

Now that you know how the argument works, we’ll take a look at several examples. As mentioned at the beginning, the straw man fallacy is common in the political arena, as well as in any other type of debate over a controversial topic.

Politics

Hunting

Death Penalty

How to Counter

As in so many other things, prevention is more desirable than cure. As such, when it comes to combatting straw man arguments, it helps to state your arguments in precise language and with clear, valid premises to support them. This can make them less vulnerable to misinterpretation and more challenging to change without having to seriously justify it.

However, no matter how excellent your claims are, they may still get twisted by your adversaries. When this happens, a good practice is to respond calmly and try to steer the discussion back on its course. To refute it, you may point out the fallacy and how it is incorrect. You may challenge them to justify their distorted view of your original argument, which will, in turn, put them on the defensive: they’ll have to either defend it or discard it.

Keep in mind that choosing to completely ignore the straw man is often a bad idea: if your opponent keeps attacking it instead of your real position, it can get increasingly difficult for you to disprove it.

The post Straw Man Argument (Logical Fallacy): Definition and Examples appeared first on FinMasters.