Logical fallacies: Seven ways to spot a bad argument
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Javier Hirschfeld
When people are trying to persuade you, they sometimes reach for underhand tricks like the 'appeal to ignorance' or 'whataboutism' to seem more convincing. Amanda Ruggeri explains how to identify these logical fallacies.
Scroll social media, tune into the news, or simply raise a hot-button issue with an acquaintance, and within a matter of minutes, you're likely to encounter a trap. These traps are so time-worn that they date back to ancient Greece.
They're called logical fallacies. Simply put, a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that, despite having no bearing at all on a claim's actual merit, can - very confusingly - make that claim sound more convincing.
Using a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong. It can, however, indicate either faulty thinking and flawed logic, if used unintentionally, or an attempt to manipulate the truth to be more persuasive, if used deliberately. Either way, it's a red flag that should prompt further questioning and discussion. That includes, crucially, in your own thinking - and in arguments that you're inclined to agree with.
Once you know about logical fallacies, you'll see them everywhere. Why does this matter? Because the more practised you become at spotting them, the better you can be at identifying flaws in people's thinking, and refocusing dialogue back to an argument's merit. You'll also get better at thinking critically yourself.
Here are seven fallacies to look out for. Some are errors of logic (known as "formal" fallacies), while others are about the misuse of language and evidence ("informal" fallacies) - but the consequence is always a faulty argument.
Javier Hirschfeld
1. Appeal to ignorance
This is when a lack of evidence is interpreted to mean a claim is real - rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim. It's a fallacy that commonly underlines arguments for conspiracy theories. Ask one of the estimated 10 million-plus people who believe that lizards run the world about the evidence for their claim, for example, and they might counter, "Well, these lizards are too clever to leave any evidence - that's what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it's not true?" You might wind up scratching your head, but, hopefully, it's not because you've been persuaded; it's because they've set you the trap of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy.
2. Ad hominem
This is a fallacy in which a claim is rejected on the basis of an aspect of someone's character, identity, motivations, or even the relationships they have with others. Think of the health professional who is told that they are only recommending vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists being dismissed on the basis that they must be ideologically motivated. The most obvious (and absurd) kind of ad hominem, though, is the sort that not only attacks a person instead of dealing with their argument, but goes after something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand - like a political candidate in a TV debate saying their opponent's clothing choices, golf prowess or hairstyle mean they can't possibly be a good leader.
Javier Hirschfeld
3. Slippery slope
This is the argument that taking one step, or putting into place one measure, will inevitably lead to more and more drastic measures - like an object sliding down a slippery slope. It's particularly common in debates over policy. Think of the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage made against legalising it in places like the US or Europe. In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity across society, and threaten their own way of life. This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalised), the policy was dismissed because of the fear of its predicted outcome (the breakdown of traditional society).
4. Strawman
I see this one on social media, especially, all the time. It's misrepresenting the argument of the other side to make it seem more ridiculous, and therefore easy to defeat. Think of someone who puts forth a nuanced argument that excessive sugar intake may raise the risk of health issues like heart disease. A strawman response would be, "Oh, so what, sugar is killing everyone and should be outlawed? That's absurd!" This distorts the original argument, making it easier to defeat - a strawman. One intriguing way to not only fight this tendency, but sharpen your own thinking, is to try a "steelman": you present your opponent's argument in the best possible way (perhaps even better than they have themselves) before you state why you disagree.
Javier Hirschfeld
5. Appeal to authority
This pernicious argument holds that someone's credentials, fame or reputation alone prove that they must be right. If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias to assume they have expertise in all things (even subjects they have no background in). Like many logical fallacies, it feels like it could, or should, be relevant: if someone has credentials and expertise in a certain area, shouldn't their opinion on that area be more trustworthy? To be clear, it should. What makes this a fallacy is when someone buys into an argument solely because of who the person is, rather than because of the argument's evidence or reasoning.
More problematic still is the version known as "appeal to irrelevant authority". Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity states it, even if they have no expertise at all in the topic at hand - a classic tendency in today's influencer-obsessed world. But "irrelevant authorities" aren't always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when sceptics quote someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert - despite the fact that theoretical physics generally has very little to do with climate science.
6. False dichotomy
Presenting a complex scenario as if there are only two either-or, often opposing options, rather than multiple options. Think of that famous, often-recycled and even ancient phrase, famously used by President George W Bush shortly after 9/11: "You're either with us or against us." It implied to the international community that they had only two options - back the United States completely, including in its invasion of Afghanistan, or consider themselves enemies. In reality, of course, there were a spectrum of other options nations could take, and kinds of allies (or enemies) they could be.
Javier Hirschfeld
7. Whataboutism (also called whataboutery)
Sometimes considered a type of red herring - a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to redirect away from the argument's flaws - whataboutism is intended to distract attention. It describes when, normally in response to an accusation or a question, someone responds with their own accusation. In an argument with a partner, for example, you might say, "It hurt my feelings when you did X." A whataboutism response might be "Well, you never take out the trash!"
How not to be manipulated
In today's onslaught of overwhelming information (and misinformation), it can be difficult to know who to trust. In this column , Amanda Ruggeri explores smart, thoughtful ways to navigate the noise. Drawing on insights from psychology, social science and media literacy, it offers practical advice, new ideas and evidence-based solutions for how to be a wiser, more discerning critical thinker.
In politics, one of the most infamous examples has been when Russia is accused of human rights violations, and its leaders respond "Well, what about the West?". While a whataboutism can serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deflects from the original argument. Two wrongs don't make a right, but a whataboutism can make it seem like they do.
Understanding and spotting logical fallacies like this these can be a really useful way to think critically about what you read or watch, and steer (and keep) conversations back on track.
However, because we started this with talk of nuance, let's underscore: if someone uses a logical fallacy, it doesn't necessarily mean their conclusion is incorrect. That, in fact, would be its own fallacy, and perhaps my favourite one of all: the "fallacy fallacy".
Amanda Ruggeri is an award-winning science and features journalist. She posts about expertise, media literacy and more on Instagram at @mandyruggeri .
Keep to the topic and not wander into personal attacks or your comments will be removed.
Tags
Who is online
33 visitors
The article is a few months old, but it is always important information.
would using religious justification be considered number 4 or 5?
I think that would depend on how it's used. There are logic fallacies referred to as the divine fallacy or an appeal to Heaven.
"God said so", is an appeal to Heaven fallacy
The arguments for an Intelligent Creator are examples of the divine fallacy.
so basically, a fallacy that's used as a fallacy ...
what about the "it says so in the bible" crap?
The same as "God said so".
... uh, god didn't write the bible. did we just connect both ends of a fallacy loop, or enter a culdesac?
or maybe it's 2 fallacy loops ...
∞
This article is badly needed here. I want to concentrate on using facts to back up an argument and once that is done we shouldn't have people continue to dispute proven facts.
My favorite example is the often repeated (by the media, Biden and most recently Obama) "fine people" falsehood: Namely that Trump called Nazis "Fine people." Trump clarified his remarks within the very next sentence on the same day he made them:
Context
In a news conference after the rally protesting the planned removal of a Confederate statue, Trump did say there were "very fine people on both sides," referring to the protesters and the counter protesters. He said in the same statement he wasn't talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be "condemned totally."
No, Trump Did Not Call Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists 'Very Fine People' | Snopes.com
I have posted that fact check many times, yet some refuse to accept it.
What do we call that?
I agree.
Stubbornness and best not to be engaged.
Similar to the slippery slop and straw man is the reductio ad absurdum fallacy where the arguer comes up with the most over the top comment. For example - Allowing drag shows leads to gay child grooming.
slippery slop...lol
Hahaha... nice catch, but still accurate.
I dont dispute any of this information, but I do think it has a very limited usefulness on a forum like this one.
Telling people, right or left, that they are illogical just isnt a factor on sites like this one, and you can end up looking "ivory tower"-ish.
Interesting reductio ad absurdum argument. What's the point of engaging each other if no one is going to support their posts with logic and facts?
I think one can support their opinions with facts and maybe not quite follow all the formal rules of logic.
But more than that, people who dont care about facts also dont care that they are being illogical.
I think the biggest reason for the political divide in the nation is too many opinions and too little facts.
I think that's what I just said. It's time to call out the bullshit in a measured and logical way and stop letting emotions dominate the conversation.
If you say to the average person "you are using the logical fallacy of appeal to authority" they are likely to say to you "who cares?".
Doesnt necessarily make presented information false.
Honestly...when they say "who cares" you know they don't have any idea of what you're talking about and that person can be dismissed easily. From then on, ignore everything that person has to ssay
Then they have demonstrated they have no leg to stand their post on and the rest of us can go on with the conversation without them.
Do you not know what fallacy means?
That's one of several possible ways.
Over many years on social media, my experience has been that one of the most common tactics (especially when sometone is starting feel that they are "losing" an argument) is to derail the conversation by changing the subject. One of the more common ways of doing this is to engage in personal attacks.
It is possible to be both illogical and factually correct. That is all I am saying.
That would be an invalid argument that uses facts as premises. Here is an example:
⛬ Trump is fit to be PotUS.
I suppose that could be correct can you give me an example and explanation?
That's close to logic fallacy 'affirming the consequent'.
"If it's raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet. Therefore, it must be raining."
I suppose, but what I was trying to illustrate are two factual premises that do not lead to the conclusion. Basically illustrating an invalid argument (one that does not follow the rules of formal logic). In this case I was just trying to illustrate a non sequitur. The determination of fitness to be PotUS has nothing to do with the premises (which deal with eligibility and securing votes).
I think it's very useful. It helps you to form your own argument and avoid the pitfalls of debate.
I think this should be posted in Meta or someplace where it can be easily accessed for those of use wanting to learn to think better
Many statements expressed as facts are simply overwrought emotional opinions, not always based on reality. This is amply displayed on this forum on a daily basis
You made a declarative statement. Now please back that up with some examples to support it.
>poof<
Does Russia, Russia, Russia ring a bell?
How about Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!
How does that apply to the conversation? Just dropping that here tells me nothing in context to the article and the conversation thread. Please explain how 'Russia, Russia, Russia' applies to Greg's assertion.
'Russia, Russia, Russia' is not even a statement. I'm not going to assume what you are trying to say.
I'm leaving my comment there. I have to be sure everyone knows I'm a brat with a 7 year old mouth
You are engaging in a whataboutism argument in which neither side is actually using any logic.
LOL.
See comment directly above you. I knew what I was doing and did it anyway
Nice deflection. [deleted][✘]
You asked for an example. Surely you can tie them together........
I did. You have yet to provide one.
I'm not doing your work for you.
Let's bring it back...mkay?
I thought you wanted examples of this? ^^^^^^^^^^^
It was all orange man bad incarnate.
yes
I don't think you understand the exercise
You repeated a proper noun 3 times without making a cogent point. And when asked to make your point you want to argue about it to the point of deflection. Make your point.
Oh JFC you can't be that obtuse. You wanted an example. That you don't like the one given isn't my problem.
Would it have been better if I had stated the obvious by adding "What about the left and" prior to it?
Don't make it personal. Only warning.
You didn't give me an example you just repeated a word. It wasn't even a full fucking sentence.
No. Actually adding some substance to the post to make your point would be fantastic. Don't make readers assume what you are talking about. It's up to you to make your point. What about Russia, Russia, Russia is just overwrought emotional opinion not based on reality?
Have you checked the result of that bullshit?
I'm not going to ask again.
I can't remember the exact wording, but goes something like..."Voting for Trump is illogical, irrational, and unpatriotic"
That's an unproven opinion, not a provable fact.
based upon the senate hearings, that seems to be a common denominator for maga ...
It is an opinion backed up by overwhelming evidence and sound logic.
Most everything posted here is opinion. It is a common dishonest game by some to pretend that a comment is declared a fact (when no such declaration was made) and then engage in a strawman argument.
In the past, if I were to ask a GOP member if voting for a traitor who violated his oath of office and tried to steal a presidential election would be patriotic, the predictable answer (of the party that kicked Nixon out of office) would be "hell no!".
If we were to ask if voting for a vindictive, narcissistic, loose-cannon, scoundrel demagogue who cares more about his fragile ego than he does the nation and has demonstrated that he will throw the CotUS under the bus is a rational choice, the predictable answer would be "hell no!".
Voting for Trump with the expectation that he is going to take his office as a solemn duty and work for the American people is not only illogical, it is delusional.
What has happened to the patriotism, integrity, and moral clarity of the GOP?
One way to soften that is to preface the statement with "IMO" or words to that effect. For example:
IMO (or INMHO, or to be a bit more colorful: "IMNSHO"), voting for Trump is ...(etc, etc).
But the problem goes beyond debating the pros and cons of Trump's positions (& actions).
And beyond having various opinions of Trump--- people have different opinions of what qualifies as overwhelming evidence-- and what does not!
Ditto varying opinions as to whether one's opponent (in an argument) is using sound logic-- or unsound logic!
traitor? violating oath of office? actually trying to steal an election?
You are presenting all that as facual-- IMO those all all opinions!
Sound logic has a definition. To be sound, the logic must follow the rules of formal logic and the premises must be factual.
Those are allegations all of which can be (and have been) backed by overwhelming evidence.
You can play this game forever, Krishna. Every fact can be questioned at a lower level. While that might be amusing to some, it essentially is a game that concludes that everything is opinion.
In a practical sense, that devolves into nonsense.
I wasn'tclear.
Here's an example-- the question: "Is There a God"? (Does God exist? Yes? No?) And once we've decided that-- is the answer a fact-- or an opinion?)
Again-- I've seen many, many examples of what was "overwhelming evidence"-- or so I thought.
In some cases after making an extremely clear presentation of the facts, people agreed with me.
But in other cases when I had "overwhelming evidence" (what I thought was overwhelming evidence)-- most people said I was wrong-- they didn't accept what I was sure was "overwhelming evidence".
The answer is a fact, as we define facts, if the evidence is so substantial that the possibility of being wrong is extremely unlikely. In the real world, that is about as good as it gets. In formal systems such as mathematics, we can be more precise about what is a fact or not because actual proofs are possible since the system is closed.
So we need to understand what evidence and logic apply in making this determination. If someone decides that God exists because they simply cannot imagine how it is possible for our universe to exist without a God then the conclusion is clearly not a fact. If, however, we have precisely defined God and have quite strong, persuasive evidence that this God does indeed exist, then we have established a fact (again, as good as it gets in reality).
As an example, let's define God as that which enabled the existence of our universe. The definition makes no mention of sentience ... only that God existed prior to our universe and (somehow, unspecified) enabled our universe to emerge. In this case, we have all the evidence that we need to establish, factually, that God (as defined) exists. The facts are that our universe did come into existence and that something was there that enabled this to occur (even if the something was nothing more than an exotic substance at a level lower than particle physics).
In short, people disagree.
In the case of Trump, my opinion is that anyone who actually believes that Trump did not attempt to steal the 2020 election is delusional because the evidence is so overwhelming as to be considered fact (as close to fact as we get in reality).
Interesting...
First of all, let me say that I don't get very upset when someone uses one of these "illogical fallacies" in an online "discussion" ("argument"?) with me. But that being said, you (TiG) just used on of these "logical Fallacy Bad arguments" in your comment. Do you see which one it is?
Does anyone else?
(I'm not judging it a a "terrible thing to do"-- I'm just pointing it out...in the context of this topic).
In the case of Trump, my opinion is that anyone who actually believes that Trump did not attempt to steal the 2020 election is delusional because the evidence is so overwhelming as to be considered fact (as close to fact as we get in reality).
Well, my preference would be to not usewords like "delusional". Why? becaauce in a discussion such as this that'sbound to get some people angry. (Not that there;s anything wrong with that....but.)
But: Its inflammatory, get some people angry. To what end?
Well its a derail. because it tends to move the discussion away from the topic and into personal attacks.
IMO (based on many years of experience in Internet discussions) the most fruiftul discussions are those that stick to the topic-- and not move towards discussing the other members!
I'll go a step further--- beyond "Considered to be fact" IMO that because it is-- an actual fact!
Shown on more than one occasion. But here's one example that in and ofself proves he attempted to steal the election:
The incident in Georgia where he was on the phone asked someone "to find me X number of votes". (I fergert the exact number). Unfortunately for Trump, someone was recording the conversation.
So that is but one example.
No, I do not.
It is as much a fact as anything else in the real world.
I used it due to its objective meaning: delusion ≡ " something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated ". That is the exact meaning I intended thus I used an English word that properly expresses the meaning.
Delusional ≡ " believing things that are not true "
I frankly do not care if someone is offended by criticism of their ridiculous belief that Trump did not attempt to steal the 2020 election.
In your opinion . . .
(Others may or may not agree with what is "substantial"... and what is not.
Something that is falsely believed or propagated.
In your opinion!
The person youy accuse of being delusional may think that they are right-- and that you are delusional.
Just because you (or me, for that matter) believe someone is delusional is not proof that they are!
It seems that you may be belieiving that everything that you think is true reallly is true-- and therefore anyone who disagrees with you is delusional!
Consider this: sometime it may be possible that someone who disagrees with you might be right-- and you belief may be incorrect*.
(Or do you think that that would be impossible-- that you are never wrong, and its many other people are delusional?
and I apologize for my participation in childish behavior
An opinion - "Voting for Trump is unpatriotic."
A fact - "Trump is a convicted felon."
An opinion backed by a fact - "Voting for Trump is unpatriotic because Trump is a convicted felon."
If that was all that was provided in the conversation you would be correct. IF one listed the many factually negative things about Trump as to why they derived at that opinion it then it's the conversation I'm asking for with this article.
"Biden is a criminal" is an emotional unsupported declarative statement. No facts have yet come to light to support it.
"I don't trust Biden, because so much money surrounded his family's business dealings. Is an opinion derived from facts. Logically if one asked what those nerarrous business dealing were they can be listed.
Yes, in my opinion. Most everything we post is opinion. We (you too) do not prefix every statement with "in my opinion".
Where exactly do I state otherwise? Where do I state that my opinion is proof of something? Where do I state that my opinion is fact? Talk about fallacies.
Exactly!
Further, it would be unworkably awkward to prefix every opinion expressed in our posts with "In my opinion ...". It is normally taken as a given that a post is an opinion unless explicitly stated to be a fact. That is because most everything a human being offers is opinion. Even notions that we consider to be facts are ultimately interpretations of evidence. [ For example, it is a fact that Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. But that fact is actually an interpretation of (overwhelming) evidence and we can see that there are plenty of people who (somehow) conclude that Trump did not try to steal the 2020 election. ]
So this notion that one believes their opinions are fact merely because the phrase "In my opinion ..." did not proceed the opinion is nonsense. (And that is my opinion)
I don't take anything of fact from someone unless they have something to back it up
Same here.
A claim that is not / cannot be backed up is often labeled "bullshit".
When someone makes a claim, I never say "that is just your opinion". I know it is their opinion, that is obvious. What I do is challenge them to back up their claim.
Or the notion opinions do not need facts to back them up.
On NT?
OMG-- I am shocked!
Absolutely shocked I tell you!
Oooops-- my bad!
I "inadvertently" forgot to type the /Sarcasm tag!
I see a lot of the arguments used on NT on a daily basis…
Everyday all day.
Unfortunately, we could all change our tactics to be fully in compliance with these axiomatic rules of fair debate and still not manage to change a single mind. It takes half a lifetime of personal experiences to possibly make that happen. NT is just a place to pop off and reassure ourselves of who we think is an asshole and who isn’t.
I think you're right.
But while it might never change a single mind, it will probably occasionally help some people be more aware of what, exactly, other people are doing-- and in some cases eventually recognize the same thing in themselves (Over time, of course-- somepeople are so attached to belieiving that they are always right --no matter what!-- that they will never change, they may always consider that anyone else who has a different opinion than they do is necessarily delusional!
To cite a not too well known book that was popular a while back: "Some folks just want to be in the "right tunnel"-- but others are going after actually getting the Cheese!
True. My point is not to change minds but to have actual conversations that don't devolve into slap fights.
some minds can't be changed and conversations with some people are a waste of time and effort ...
That's what the ignore list is for.
That's exactly what the ignore list is for. It's also for preserving one's sanity and one's continued participation on NT
I don't want to ignore them. I like to see literal exhibitions of willful ignorance by the self-unaware ...
Another great article that I am posting to the help section! Thanks for posting this.
Thank you.