Common logical fallacies - Part 01
In my discussions with active Jehovahās Witnesses, I often hit walls. I presume, they are the same walls everyone hits, who tries to argue with a devout ābelieverā of any religion. What I found especially interesting, is that there are recurring āargumentation pattersā. And many of them are classic logical fallacies.Ā Knowing that they exist, what they are, what they mean, and how they work, might not help us to convince other people, but it certainly helps us to not being shut up, it might help us to not run against walls anymore, identify these fallacies when we face them, and it also helps us to argue more consistently and honestly by avoiding these logical fallacies ourselves.
With that having said, letās start this little series withĀ āAā as in...
āAd hominemā is Latin for āto the personā or āagainst the manā, and is a very commonly used tactic for shooting down discussions by attacking a person instead of addressing the the argument the person made.
āWhat do you know, anyway?ā, āYouāre too stupid to understand this complex issueā, Ā āYouāre too young/too inexperienced/not educated enoughā, āYouāre a woman/a Liberal/an Atheist/a Republican/gay/... Of course you think that wayā, āYou just do this/say this because you want to do/say XYZā etc. etc. etc.
Using phrases like these as āargumentsā and without even addressing the point that was originally made, is called making āad hominem argumentsā because the argument is directed at the person who made the point rather than the point itself.
The ad hominem is used as if it were evidence against the point the opponent made, while in reality it solely tries to invalidate the opponentās point by demeaning the opponent. The ad hominem is often based on prejudice.
The āformulaā is very simple: āYour argument is invalid because _you_ made itā.Ā The focus is not on the argument but on the person who made the argument. Hence the nameĀ āad hominemā -Ā āto the personā /Ā āagainst the manā.
the āabusive ad hominemā - a more or less direct insult by attacking the appearance, intellect, or character of a person - basically:Ā āYouāre too dumb/ugly/selfish/... to talk about thisā
the ācircumstantial ad hominemā or āappeal to motiveā - appealing to personās circumstances -Ā āOf course you think that way, because youāre in this or that specific circumstance/youāre in this or that specific group/you have this or that specific mindset...ā - while this might (!) explain why a person made an argument, it says nothing about the argument itself.
āpoisoning the wellā - appeal to negative emotions -Ā āEat your lunch. The children in Africa are starving, and you donāt eat upā,Ā āYes, but science also brought us the h-bombā, āScientists were wrong so often before...ā,Ā āI wonāt listen to him. Heās an alcoholicā, ...Ā
āguilt by associationā -Ā also an appeal to negative emotions and/or motive. It applies when a person expresses a view similar to someone who is viewed negatively. So this person and their viewpoint will be viewed negatively as well. āYeah, but he was in prisonā,Ā āHe is a Communistā, ...Ā
āad feminamā - specifically addressing women, or female characteristics - basically:Ā āBecause sheās a womanā,Ā or theĀ āclassicāĀ "Are you on your period?ā
āTu quoqueā -Ā meaningĀ āYou alsoā - often made to point out hypocrisy -Ā āBut you/he/she did that tooā.
While pointing out the possible hypocrisy (āYou judge me even though you did it yourselfā,Ā āHey, but John did it tooā) might be legit but it still is not an argument against the point made. Just because someone did itĀ āalsoā can not be an argument.Ā āBut you smoke as wellā is not an argument against the hazards of smoking someone pointed out.
A variant of the ātu quoqueā is what is known as āWhataboutismā (āYeah... but what about XYZ....ā to distract from the original topic... āBUT HER EMAILS!ā)
the ācredentials fallacyāĀ is a bit tricky. It is based on the idea that if a person doesnāt have formal credentials in a certain field, any argument they make about this topic can immediately be dismissed. Which, of course, is dishonest but still this is a rampant logical fallacy in the academics world.Ā
The thing though is: While - for example - itās most certainly not a good idea to let someone with no medical credentials and training at all do surgery on you, arguments can be and should be verified. It is a good idea to question peopleās motives and also their credentials, and to be even more cautious with people who have no credentials, but the legitimacy of anĀ argument has nothing whatsoever to do with _who_ expressed it.
Like in all other cases before, it has to be about the argument itself and not about people. Just because someone doesnāt have a PhD or holds an academic chair doesnāt make their arguments invalid.
The assumption that a lack of credentials is a valid reason to assume a person is necessarily wrong and so their arguments can be dismissed is fallacious and dishonest. An argument has to be treated isolated from the person who stated it.
A good argument withstands scrutiny. No matter who made the argument. And dismissing an argument because a certain person made it, is dishonest.
kaledo-art
izzy806
gummygunk
areudirty
