Common logical fallacies
In today’s world, we are exposed to more information than any other generation before us. The Internet, media, and your friends feed you with more data than you can possibly consume. With that degree of exposure, you need to become picky and filter information that either does not interest you or is somewhat suspicious - like fake news. In my opinion, the ability to detect fake news or invalid arguments is one of the most crucial skills now.
Even since I was fascinated with eristics, I loved to hear people debating or arguing, dismantling their arguments to tiniest pieces in order to find where the truth lies in statements they make. It has taught me some basic skills which I can use now to filter out discussions, information, or statements that are misleading and possibly false.
In this post I would like to present to you some of the most common logical fallacies. It’s very likely you unconsciously make them on a daily basis as well as all people around you. If you spot them in an argument, it might be a great hint for you to question the validity and truthfulness of the questioned statement.
Argumentum ad hominem
source https://sheepforcomics.wordpress.com/
This fallacy describes a counter-argument that attacks the personal traits of the interlocutor instead of addressing the merits of the initial arguments made. Even if the statements in the attack are true, they don’t undermine or cancel the interlocutor's arguments. However, the listener might be misled and agree that the attacker made a valid point, therefore the initial argument is false.
Look at an example:
After Sarah presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Bob asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married and hasn’t dressed nicely.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
source http://commcourses.com/www/argument-everyday-life
It’s an argument where X is proven true as it has not yet been proven false. It’s common in unfalsifiable claims and can be used by both sides of the argument.
Another example:
Adam and Kayli are having a discussion about whether Russell’s teapot exists.
Adam states that Russell's teapot must exist as Kayli can not provide any arguments proving the teapot does not exist.
Argumentum ad populum
source https://sheepforcomics.wordpress.com/
It is an argument proving truth based only on common beliefs and status quo. It is exploiting the conformist nature of people.
Another example:
Copernicus presents arguments to Alice that our solar system is heliocentric. Alice denies Copernicus’ arguments asserting that it is known for thousands of years that the Solar system is geocentric and no other person supports his reasoning.
Straw man
source https://strategiesandfallacies.weebly.com/
It is a counter-argument to assert X, based on the truthfulness of statement Y, where Y is a simplified, similar, or misinterpreted denomination of argument X.
Another example:
Tom states that we should be nice to kittens because they’re fluffy and cute. Helen responds that Tom is a jerk who wants to be mean to poor defenseless puppies.
Given four fallacies above are just a tip of the logical-traps iceberg. I highly recommend reading more on the topic, as there are dozens more to be discovered.
I hope reading that article will make you more cautious and aware when participating (even passively!) in your next debate or argument. The very important part is that you don’t have to use that knowledge aggressively, i.e. pointing to your interlocutor he/she made a fallacy argument, but just to evaluate your own beliefs and current perspective on the world.
Questions for you:
1. Have you already been aware of the listed fallacies? Or maybe it just provided you with labels for things you’ve already figured out on your own?
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of 21:39)
Comments
Yes, I heard abotu some of them a long time ago, but it is always nice to get a reminder.
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
I try to look for other sources especially some I know and put my trust in. Sometimes it get's really hard and I am left with almost nothing, which is not that great. You either take the information or dig deeper.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of 21:39)
Yes, there where a raport in Australia I believe about pay gap and the womens that present the raport to the court or some governor I believe where speaking about it for like ten minutes or so, that they gather data for months, years even! And then there was a simple question, from the governor of course, did they acknowledge the fact that some people work half-time and some work over-time. And they were simple thrown off the trail, like a falling train, but with mental devastation on their faces.
2. Often during a conversation I try to ask and ask for deeper explanations to indicate to the interlocutor that he is wrong. Sometimes, however, I give up and let go knowing that someone is wrong and doesn't want to admit it or doesn't want to know the truth. When I learn a new thing, I rely on whom I learn, from a person I respect from a good book or magazine - I don't need to verify. However, if I know something is not a good source of information - I ignore it.
3. I think there is no statement that it stuck in my memory, but there are many that impressed me. I once watched a video on "Ciekawe Historie" channel: "Debaty - kluczowe momenty, które zmieniły bieg historii" and I think that this compilation shows how much impact on the future have the words we say and of course someone's ability to interpret our intentions.
That's what I've heard of most of these mistakes. I was aware that such mistakes exist. As for the errors that I did not know the names of, I felt in the subconscious that such a logical misunderstanding exists. To recall a logical error without argumentation is also a logical error.
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
If the information it has to influence what decision I will make or what thesis I will make on a certain subject, it will of course verify such an accumulation. However, if the information is not important for me, it does not verify such information so as not to waste time. I also do not verify information from people I consider to be experts in a given field.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of 21:39)
I didn't pay attention to such discussions or debates. At school, I learned about Thomas Aquinas' disputes about the truth. In my opinion, the Oxford type debate you presented is very interesting. An Oxford debate t is a kind of debate in which it is definitely forbidden to insult or mock the speakers of the opposite side. The task of the debate is to discuss the thesis. The opponents of the thesis and its defenders debate. I have listened to a few debates and rarely a particular big one wins.
2. It really depends on my humour that day and the person I talk with. Sometimes I feel the urge to verify some statements and sometimes I don't feel like it is even a sense of doind that.
3. I don't have anything special that comes to my mind now but for sure the debate you linked here was one of that kind of talks that I remember and that I feel is worth seeing.
2. If it's in middle of argument, then I'd just drag topic till other person makes mistake. It's not even about finding truth, but winning said argument :). Other than that, let's say e.g. information from internet, then I'll usually just check it on other, more reliable sources, or ignore it. Depends on my curiosity about topic.
3. Nothing's really coming to my mind right now. Which is a bit pity, because I really like watching debates. But I used to do it much more in the past, so maybe it's why I can't think of anything right now.
2. As it is said in the text we are facing a lot of information daily and a lot of then are not telling the whole truth and sometimes are misguiding. When i encounter such information i don’t verify them because sometimes it would take me more time than they really matter. In such situation i’d rather memorize fact that this source of information was unreliable and take it in notice in future while hearing new information from this source.
3. I think i cannot name any memorable debate but only think that comes to my mind is conversation between Misiek koterski and Kazimiera Szczuka on Kuba Wojewodzki show.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGaids_Rebs)
I think the second point will be the truth for me. I was aware of the mentioned fallacies and was faced them in everyday life, but they have never been so clean and structured in my mind as they are in your presentation.
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
It depends on the situation. For example, if it is a statement in the book, film, etc. I will try to search for more information about this topic browsing the articles with valid source links. My first reaction when I doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement while inlive conversation is to ask him/her to prove it in some way.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years?
To be honest, it is not easy to remember such a debate or conversation that made a big impact on me. The first thing that came to mind was the conversation with my friend about religion. Also, I remembered sarcastic dialogues in animated series between Rick and Morty :D
Yes, I heard about logical fallacies before, I think the first one what Sarah and Bob did is very common. I like every kind of math, in my opinion, the debate needs the support of logic, and logic should be based on reason, objectivity, and human nature, rather than winning(True) or losing(False). In other words: the debate with objective human nature as the bottom line is rational, and the debate with the goal of winning or losing becomes a fallacy.
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
If it is obviously wrong in logic, then I will just not care about their statements. I like math and logic, so I always like to verify difficult statements immediately. my default procedure of verifying things is to learn from some successful examples first, and then try to figure them out myself.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of 21:39)
It have not been proven wrong that pyramids are alien works, if you are curious, search about "142857" and "299792458", I also recommend Tesla's "369, the secret to the universe", moreover it is interesting that {3,6,9} and {1,4,2,8,5,7} are mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I have known some of them by name, others have been in my mind without labels, but in fact, I think it isn't necessary to remember them all the time cause it's a bit useless. But a classification should exist, for example, to teach people, show them examples, if they haven't discovered them on their own.
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
Yeah, I feel that I need to verify it as soon as possible. So it usually happens during a conversation and the best procedure there is to ask directly the person who did this statement and try to figure out its ground.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of
My friend is a fan of Jordan Peterson. We have a lot of conversations about his thoughts and debates. In fact, the best thing I remember was our dialogue with that friend where he was trying to imagine what he would do if he needed to figure out if something is an organism or a mechanism.
2) When somebody says some "fact" I firstly think if it could be real. For me, the easiest thing to do is to find a simple counterexample. If a counterexample is found, the thesis is invalid. Of course, it does not necessarily mean that the thing that the person said is false, but he might clarify it a bit and then it will make sense. When it comes to reading, I base on my previous experience and the things I read before to validate it. I also verify the source of the information. If I am still not sure, I google for it and find other sources that could confirm or deny this information.
3) I can't remind myself of any interesting debate, but I remember that in secondary school we discussed some things together during geography lessons. The thing was that the teacher was telling some "truths" to give us examples of how something works. She mentioned something like: "We had many companies which made bikes in Poland, but now we don't have" (I don't remember what it was an argument for). Anyway, the discussion started when somebody was interested in bikes and proven her that there are polish companies (for example Kross, Dartmoor) who make bikes here, in Poland. This was the moment that I realized much that simply trusting what somebody says can be wrong. The teacher was deadly serious and seemed to know the subject. I am wondering how many incorrect things I was told during my life and that I did not check, but simply trust. I don't know if it is an answer to your question ;)
Yes, a lot of. Actually it is really interesting subject in any sense. More of them we see and can understand more tricks we can bypass
2. When you doubt the truthiness of someone’s statement - what’s your reaction? Do you feel the urge to immediately verify it? What’s your default procedure of verifying things you read, hear, perceive, or learn?
Well I have to had in mind that any "fact" just told me by someone needs to be verified even if that person is well-known to me however there are exceptions f.e when I am talking with someone that I know from history data that he/she specializes about some subject. But in many disputes "the facts" aren't the main thing but just some kind of thesis.
3. What’s your favorite debate, conversation, or dialogue which got stuck with you for years? It might be a single sentence said by your primary school teacher, a presidential debate that impressed you, a great dialogue in a movie, or anything else you think is relevant. Please share a link if it’s something we can watch or read! :) (To give you an example, here is a part of “Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman debate” I admire, 2 minutes of the given timestamp of 21:39)
Well actually a lot of my family argues about politics are the best debates becouse everyone in the room knows that any argument the other side will use won't change general manner of someone else
I'm very glad you've found it useful to have small reminder about them :)
I felt the urge to immediately check on debate you've mentioned and indeed it was Australian governor. Couldn't spot the devastation on their faces, though, but I definitely imagine they've died inside hearing that repeated argument over and over.
I agree that time is the deal breaker in truth seeking individuals, you just can't verify every single information.
The argument, although I couldn't name it, had struck me every and each time I heard it in a debate. It's very counterproductive and touches the most primitive instincts. You can barely defend yourself from it. It should be officially banned from any political debates!
Religion debates are very tricky for me. Not only to be actively involved in them but also as "passive" listener (passive but my brain usually works at full speed). Many religion related statements are unfalsifiable and you got into the meta-trap of arguing about something that can't be argued about. It's counter-productive and I struggle every time to find a golden mean in such conversations
I'm a bit lot with your answer to question 3. I've queued Tesla's 369 to my youtube watchlist but 142857 and 299792458 are very puzzling to me. Could you elaborate or guide me in right direction with them? Where do I even start? Google leads to nowhere :(
Organism and mechanism sounds like a fascinating topic for a debate. What was the outcome of it? My first thought is... isn't organism a superset of mechanism?
What book have you chosen?
And for Ben Shapiro, yeah, he is second the best badass I admire :)