Understanding Logical Fallacies
Through ignorance and irrationality we tread on the most vulnerable
Whether you know it or not, logical fallacies underpin much of our day-to-day lives. They are woven into our everyday conversations, often without our noticing. Advertisements for products recommended by "experts," politicians’ declarations of “how it has always been done,” and other fallacies like these simplify complex issues and hinder genuine understanding by appealing to emotions or biases rather than encouraging reasoned analysis.
There is much more at stake than just daily inconveniences, however. Logical fallacies are found at the core of many of humanity’s greatest atrocities and injustices. It is crucial for individuals to be able to identify and remedy fallacious thinking in their personal lives and apply those same principles to broader societal movements as well. It is through ignorance and irrationality that we tread on the most vulnerable and find ourselves at our worst.
There is not a definitive number of logical fallacies, and although some are more common than others, there are numerous deviations that address increasingly specific errors. There are five umbrellas that most fallacies fit under: Formal fallacies–arguments with structural issues, informal fallacies–arguments that relate to the content or context of an argument as opposed to addressing the argument itself, fallacies of relevance–points that are made to distract from the argument, fallacies of ambiguity–terms or language that are used to confuse the argument, and fallacies of presumption–when an argument relies on unwarranted assumptions.
Now that you are a little more familiar with logical fallacies, let’s run through some examples. First, let’s take a look at fallacies that deal with fallacious appeals.
Prevalent proof, or an appeal to popularity, is a fallacy where someone assumes that something is true or right simply because it is commonly believed. It involves using the popularity or prevalence of an idea or belief as evidence of its truth, without considering whether the belief is actually well-supported. An early American defending slavery because of its widespread practice or a modern American defending abortion because of its popularity in polling would both be examples of prevalent proof fallacies.
An appeal to freedom is a logical fallacy that argues for a position or action simply by appealing to the concept of freedom without addressing the actual merits or consequences of that position. This fallacy assumes that any action or choice is automatically justified if it is framed as a matter of individual liberty or freedom. For example: “It is a woman’s right to choose abortion."
An appeal to futility is a logical fallacy in which someone argues that an action or effort is pointless or should be abandoned, simply because they believe it will not lead to a completely successful outcome. One example would be if someone argued abortion should not be outlawed because abortions would still happen behind closed doors.
Other fallacies focus on attacking the individual making the argument instead of actually addressing their claims.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character, motive, or other personal traits of the person making an argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The goal is to undermine the person's credibility or distract from the issue at hand. “You want to ban abortion because you hate women” would be ad hominem.
A circumstantial ad hominem fallacy occurs when someone dismisses another person’s argument or opinion by attacking the person's circumstances or personal situation to debase their claim rather than addressing the argument itself. “You can’t have an opinion on abortion if you don’t have a uterus” would be circumstantial ad hominem.
The courtier's reply is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a critique or argument by claiming the person making the critique is not qualified or knowledgeable enough to understand the subject. It suggests that only those with deep expertise can comment on or challenge the issue, without addressing the substance of the criticism itself. An example would be responding to the comment “abortion is murder” with “you’re not a doctor.”
Perhaps the most common type of fallacies are those that aim to manipulate emotions and alter the perceptions of certain words or ideas.
The definist fallacy occurs when someone defines a concept in biased terms for the sake of narrowing or altering the scope of the issue. The person making the argument hopes the provided definition will be accepted, allowing them to side-step the central claim. One example of this fallacy would be defining the issue of abortion as a women’s rights issue (political) despite the crux of the matter being personhood (moral).
A persuasive definition is a type of rhetorical fallacy in which a word or concept is defined in a way that subtly influences emotions or attitudes toward it to sway opinion or manipulate belief. The definition is crafted to elicit a specific response or perception, rather than to provide an objective or neutral explanation. For example, referring to an embryo as a "clump of cells" or a “parasite” may persuade people to see it as less human.
A loaded label is a rhetorical device used to influence opinion by attaching an emotionally charged or biased label to a person, idea, or group, often without providing supporting evidence. The label is intended to provoke an emotional response, either positive or negative, and can shape how the the subject is perceived, regardless of the actual merits. For example, referring to oneself as "pro-choice” may lead to one’s beliefs being misconstrued as virtuous.
Some fallacies are used simply to muddy the waters of a conversation and detract from the matter at hand.
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion, is a logical fallacy where an argument is presented that may or may not be valid but does not actually address the issue at hand. Instead, it goes off-topic, ultimately leading to a conclusion that is irrelevant to the original question. Responding to a criticism of abortion with a criticism of the adoption system would be an Ignoratio elenchi.
A thought-terminating cliché is a phrase or expression used to dismiss or shut down further discussion or critical thinking on a topic. It often oversimplifies complex issues and discourages deeper exploration or questioning. Examples include phrases like "It is what it is" or “My body, my choice.”
Misleading vividness is a fallacy where someone uses a striking or emotionally charged example to make an argument seem more convincing. The dramatic nature of the example can distort perception, making the argument seem more compelling than it truly is. This fallacy often relies on anecdotal evidence or exaggerated cases that are memorable but not statistically significant or logically sound. For example, describing circumstances involving rape or incest to advocate for widespread access to abortion.
Lastly, I would like to leave you with one more fallacy, which I believe to be one of the most dangerous.
I'm entitled to my opinion, or I have a right to my opinion, is an informal fallacy in which someone dismisses arguments against their position by asserting they have a right to hold their own particular viewpoint. This fallacy often arises in debates on controversial or sensitive topics, where someone may feel personally attached to their viewpoint, experiencing cognitive dissonance. Asserting "I'm entitled to my opinion" undermines constructive conversation and rational analysis because it dismisses the need for evidence or logical consistency. This fallacy not only halts productive discourse, but it allows the perpetuation of unethical, immoral, and outright evil beliefs.