8 Logical Fallacies that Mess Us All Up [Archive.org URL]

Logic is the bedrock of pretty much all human knowledge. As such, philosophers have killed many trees over the centuries, analyzing and determining the principles that define logic and reason. Their ambition has been to determine what we can know to be true and what we cannot know to be true.

What most people don’t realize is that logical fallacies—that is, errors in judgment and reasoning—are incredibly common in day-to-day life. Worse, we’re mostly unaware of how they disrupt and harm our lives, often in profound ways. These fallacies are right in front of our noses, yet we are so comfortable with our own thought processes that we fail to spot them.

Correlation is Not Causation

Let’s start with probably the most important fallacy to understand—the one you and I and everyone we know fucks up with abandon: correlation is not causation. Just because two things regularly occur together does not mean one causes the other.

Two things occurring together does not tell us much about whether one caused the other.

This is a huge problem in academic research. Scientists frequently present data in a way that suggests causation when all they found is a correlation. And even if they don’t present it that way, journalists will often take correlational data and write about it as if it’s causative.

The fact is, so much stuff happens at the same time and we have no idea why. You could argue that almost any correlation looks like causation if you wanted to.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

The slippery slope fallacy is when you take one mild negative consequence and tie it with a similar but extreme negative consequence and then argue that one will lead to the other. You see this fallacy show up in all sorts of places, especially within business organizations, foreign policy, and yes, paranoid parenting.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy often fucks us up because it generates a lot of unnecessary fear and anxiety. We mess up an assignment at work. The boss gets mad. You start thinking, “Well if the boss is mad, then she’s going to hate me. And if the boss hates me, then I’m going to get fired. And if I get fired, then I’m going to be homeless. OMG I DON’T WANT TO BE HOMELESS!!!”

False Dichotomies

There are some classes of arguments where there are legitimately only two options. For instance, I could say, “There are two kinds of people in this world: people named Ron and people not named Ron.” This is a true dichotomy (or division of two): you’re either named Ron or you’re not.

But a false dichotomy is when a set of options is presented as if only two possibilities exist but in reality, many more exist.

For example, if I said, “There are only two kinds of people in the world: people named Ron and fucking idiots.” This is a false dichotomy. Why? Because these two options don’t encompass all potential options.

False dichotomies are used to manipulate people into allying with the speaker. You often hear politicians or other leaders say, “You’re either with us or against us,” as a way to whip people into line. But this is a false dichotomy. You could be indifferent. You could be partially with them and partially against them. You could be against everybody. Don’t buy into this bullshit.

Begging the Question

Begging the question occurs when someone’s argument relies upon its own assumptions to make its case.

This is often called “circular reasoning” because if you follow the logic, it leads you in a circle.

Red Herrings

Red Herrings are arguments that seem relevant to an issue but actually are not. For example, we could be arguing about whether being vegetarian is more ethical than eating meat. Then, in the middle of a perfectly fine argument, I blurt out, “Well, Hitler was vegetarian! And he surely wasn’t ethical!”

This is a distraction from the real point of debate: whether eating meat is inherently unethical. These kinds of distractions from the argument are known as “red herrings.” And if you—god forbid—spend lots of time watching and reading the news, you will notice a large proportion of what is said and written is some form of a red herring.

Red herrings are also usually logical fallacies themselves. […] Red Herrings are often used by people to divert blame away from themselves.

Appeals to the Bandwagon, Authority, and Pity

When in an argument, it’s tempting to skip the logic and go straight to appealing to some outside source to make your point feel more resonant.

Well, unfortunately, logic doesn’t give a shit about your feelings. A bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of who agrees with you.

There are three common appeals that people make when trying to win points for their side:

• An appeal to authority: “Well, the president said it’s true, so it must be true!”
• An appeal to pity: “I know the data says that social media isn’t the problem, but these poor kids have so much anxiety, we should still get rid of their phones.”
• An appeal to the majority: “Everyone I know says that vaccines are dangerous, so it must be true.”

The hyper-social nature of our species causes us to appeal to outside influences. We all want to belong to a community. We all want to associate with high-status people. We all want others to know we’re kind and considerate.

The problem is that none of these things have anything to do with logic or truth. If something is true, it’s true whether anyone believes it or not.

Ad Hominem

Sometimes, rather than attack someone’s argument, we just attack the person instead. Tthat’s an ad hominem fallacy.

Sadly, the Ad Hominem Fallacy seems to be the fallacy of choice in political discourse and much of journalism these days. Political opponents rarely seem to be able to debate issues without launching personal attacks on one another that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Straw Man

If the Ad Hominem Fallacy is the bread and butter of politicians, then the Straw Man Fallacy is the bread and butter of social media.

Rather than debating a claim based on its merits, we sometimes substitute a distorted, exaggerated, or otherwise ridiculously misrepresented version of the argument to more easily attack it.

This is called the “straw man” fallacy because, like replacing a real person with a person made of straw, you’re replacing a stronger argument with a weaker one in order to more easily discredit it.

Straw men arguments are quite common—and shockingly dumb:

• “You’re pro-choice? So you enjoy killing babies, I see.”
• “You want to reduce the defense budget? You must hate the military and don’t support our soldiers.”

More subtle examples of the straw man argument are quite common too. […] The real damage of the straw man fallacy isn’t necessarily that it’s wrong—it’s that it distracts everyone horribly from the real issue at hand. People spend the entire time defending their beliefs from ridiculous characterizations and no one actually talks about the real issues.

The Importance of Sound Reasoning

This list is just a tiny slice of the logical fallacies pie but probably accounts for a significant portion of what we think and are exposed to each day.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make every effort to be better. After all, logic and reason are our life preservers in a vast sea of uncertainty and bullshit. To let go of the life preserver, to cling onto the latest, greatest fad or the dipshit who’s currently on your screen… well, that’s intellectual suicide.

Not to mention that a lot of these logical fallacies can turn you into an insufferable dick pretty quickly.

At best, fallacious reasoning keeps bad ideas alive. At its worst, it pits us against each other in a hopeless downward spiral of tit-for-tat where nobody really wins and everyone definitely loses.

Logical reasoning isn’t about “winning” an argument. It’s about finding the truth. And inevitably, getting closer to truth requires one to recognize and admit when they’re wrong. And that’s something you, me, and Ron could all be a bit better at.

Like this content? Why not share it?