Yeah, I know. Logical argument? On the interwebs? It cannot be!
Really though, I am almost astonished at how little logic there is in people’s statements. Not just on the internet but all the time. This is my attempt to help clear up some of the cobwebs of bullshit that seems to encapsulate every morsel of fact and relevance (if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphor).
First, there are a number of extremely common points or concepts that are used in arguments and that are totally logically incorrect and basically invalidate any argument they’re used in. You can use these for good, and try to avoid them in your own arguments, or you can turn to the dark side and use them to win arguments by manipulating others. Up to you.
Straw Man: I see this one used all the time on the internet. It’s strategy is simple: Build a “straw man” version of the opposite side of the argument, then tear it down. This way, you don’t even have to confront the other side’s real argument, since you just created a fake one to destroy.
Example: “People pirate music because they don’t want the music but don’t want to pay for it. They screw the artists, and they don’t care about the industry, only their own needs.”
False Dichotomy: If you give your opponent two choices from which to pick, that’s almost always a false dichotomy. Rarely are things really black and white, even when they’re displayed as such by almost everyone.
Example: Pro choice and pro life. There are SO many different stances on the issue. For example, someone might think abortion is okay when it threatens the life of the mother or when the mother is out of wedlock, but otherwise it should be illegal. Is that “pro choice” or “pro life”? It’s neither.
Texas Sharpshooter: This fallacy is named after an old story: A man visit the farm of a friend of his, who lives in Texas. The man, as he’s being shown around the farm, sees a bulls-eye on the side of his friend’s barn, with five shots right in the middle. Amazed, the man asks his friend if he can show the man his shooting. The farmer smiles, draws his rifle, and shoots five shots right in a row at the side of the barn. Then, he walks back to his house, gets some paint, and paints a big bulls-eye around the shots.
This fallacy revolves around first deciding what you want to demonstrate, then hand-picking data that supports your point.
Example: People who claim global warming doesn’t exist. They ignore massive bodies of evidence in favor of a few studies which support their point.
Appeal to…: Many arguments revolve around appealing to a basic part of human nature in order to avoid appealing to their logic. Common appeals include:
- Appeal to Fear: No gun control could cause rampant murder and chaos.
- Appeal to Ignorance: Iraq doesn’t even have any oil!
- Appeal to Culture: Our parents had black slaves, so how can it be wrong?
- Appeal to Authority: When the Fuhrer says “Jump,” you jump!
- Appeal to Poverty/Wealth: How could he know how the stock market works? He doesn’t even make $20,000 a year.
Ad Hominem: Attacking the character of your opponent, rather than his actual argument. Especially common fallacy, and one that’s also particularly effective, especially when addressed to an audience hostile to your opponent.
Example: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/
Appeal to Probability: This appeal deserves its own piece, since it’s so important. People have trouble understanding probabilities. There’s always a feeling that if something can happen, it will happen (see Murphy’s Laws). This appeal takes advantage of that fear.
Example: If computers controlled our cars, there would be an estimated 10,000 car crashes a year. What if one of them was you?
False Analogy: Saying A = B when, really, A =/= B. This one I find difficult to describe for some reason, but maybe that’s just because its so simple. Don’t underestimate this one, though: always examine analogies and ask, “Are these two things really the same?”
Example: What are we doing in Iraq? It’s like Vietnam all over again.
Just because someone uses one of these fallacies in their argument doesn’t mean what they’re saying is wrong. Their point might or might not be sound, but their argument is not. Using the above example, the Iraq war might be a bad thing, as is insinuated, but it is definitely not like Vietnam. The argument is just wrong, although the conclusion is correct (just by chance).
For a comprehensive list of fallacies, most of which I have never heard of, visit wikipedia’s list.
