Spotting Logical Fallacies ― Logical Fallacy Slippery Slope

Spotting Logical Fallacies ― Logical Fallacy Slippery Slope

Spotting logical fallacies is an indispensable skill.  Learn this critical thinking skill that can help you avoid the logical fallacy slippery slope of religion and politics.

Arguments sell ideas.  Ideas can set us free.  Or, ideas can imprison us.   Being able to identify the most common fallacies will help you avoid many pitfalls.  It will keep you from buying into spurious and invalid claims and arguments. A logical fallacy is a tactic of persuasion.

“Before the truth can set you free, you need to recognize the lies that make up your prison.” ― Guru Tua

Spotting Logical Fallacies

As mentioned above, being able to spot an illogical argument is a valuable life skill.  So, we’ll take you through some examples.  This will help you see these tactics.

This list of tactics is just one aspect of logic.  We recommend the study of all the logical tools.  This toolkit includes this article containing the tools for spotting logical fallacy. The companion mental tools, logical reasoning, and logical axioms.  Together they provide a type of mental inoculation against a host of harmful things.

Spotting logical fallacies is the best way to protect against groupthink manipulation programing in our modern culture.  This propaganda shows up in many kinds of media.  To be sure, these analytical sciences do not have all the answers. However, these sciences provide tools to identify fact from fiction.  This list isn’t exhaustive.  It contains the ones you’ll encounter the most.

Strawman Fallacy

This is misrepresenting someone’s argument, thus making it easier to attack.  Here we see exaggerating, misrepresenting, or fabricating an argument.  By distorting the other person’s argument it’s easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid.  This kind of dishonesty serves to undermine rational debate.

Example, “A” says we should put more money into health and education.  “B” responds by saying, “A” hates our country.  He wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending.  In the above example “B” misrepresents what “A” said.  Then fabricates assumptions.  This follows a similar tactic to the slippery slope tactic below.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Asserting that if we allow “A” to happen, then “Z” will happen as a consequence.  Therefore, we should not allow “A” to happen. The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue “A” presented.  Instead, it shifts attention to the baseless extreme hypothetical result. The merits of the original argument are then tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Rod says to Emily, if you believe in climate change, then the policies it requires will destroy our way of life. Consequently destroying our whole country and we will die, destitute and homeless.  In this example, we see how Rod attaches unsubstantiated conclusions to the acknowledgment of climate change.

The Poor Argument Fallacy

Presuming the substance of the argument is invalid because of the poor presentation of the facts. There are few things more frustrating than watching someone poorly argue a valid point. Much of the time a debate is won not because the victor is right, but because they are better at debating.  They are better at presenting a compelling argument, even if it is completely wrong. No example necessary.

Substituting the Burden of Proof Fallacy

Saying that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove their hypothesis or claim. The burden of proof lies with the person making the argument or claim, not upon someone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not make the claim valid.

Example: Bertrand claims that there exists a God sitting on a throne in another dimension. Since it cannot be disproven, it must be true. Similarly, Bertrand claims God wrote a book and because we cannot disprove that God didn’t write it, it must, therefore, be true.  This is an argument from Ignorance. This is the assertion that their conclusion is true because there is no evidence to prove it is false.  Don’t fall for this.   The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim for the existence of something.

Logical Fallacy Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is Latin for “to the person.” This is a tactic where one attacks the character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument. Ad Hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone without having to engage with their arguments.

Logical Fallacy Ad Hominem

Logical Fallacy Ad Hominem is becoming a common tactic in politics.  Discrediting the person is always a distraction from the substance of other arguments.

Example calling someone a demeaning name when addressing them, “She’s bad.” Using repetition works.  Even if this slander has no basis.  The common person will associate “she’s bad” with her, whoever she is, regardless if she’s done anything bad. You would think this simple tactic would be too transparent to work but sadly it still does.  Watch the Presidential debates of 2016 in the United States.

Personal Incredulity Fallacy

Saying that because one finds something difficult to understand that it’s therefore not true. Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding of how they work before one is able to properly grasp them. So, this fallacy is a fall-back strategy when one does not understand the complexity of the subject matter.

Example: Kirk draws a picture of a fish and a human. Then with effusive disdain asks Richard if he is stupid enough to believe a fish somehow became a human through random things happening over time. This example also shows how the Ad Hominem attack is incorporated in order to imply that Richard was stupid to give credence to the theory of biological evolution.  Nice going, Kirk!

Loaded Question Fallacy

Asking a question that has a built-in assumption. In this way, you cannot answer the question without appearing guilty of something. The loaded question fallacy is particularly effective in derailing rational debate because of their inflammatory nature. The recipient of the loaded questions is compelled to defend themselves.

Example: In a verbal sidewalk debate, Phillip asks Ron, Have you had sex with our teacher all you want? No matter how Ron responds, he appears guilty. If he responds no it sounds like an admission that he has had sex with the teacher.  It’s just not as much as he wanted.  If he doesn’t respond he “appears” guilty.  The correct answer would be, that is an absurd loaded question.

The Gambler’s Fallacy

Believing that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as a roulette wheel spins. This fallacy creates an entire city in the State of Nevada USA. The overall odds of a big run happening are low and improbable.  Because each spin of the wheel is itself entirely independent from the last spin.

Example: Red had come up six times in a row on the roulette wheel. So, Greg presumes that it was close to certain that Black would be next.  Greg has a 50/50 chance of losing again.

Black and White Fallacy The False Dilemma

Black and White Fallacy The False Dilemma

Presenting two alternatives as the only possibilities or choices.  Thus, the answer must either be A or B, black or white.  This tactic is presented in the correct form of a deductive argument. However, under closer scrutiny, there are more possibilities than presented.

You can spot this one because the two possibilities are cloaks for bias and prejudice. The black and white fallacy is a tactic is often used as ploy to illicit an emotional response from an audience rather than as a believable set of alternatives.   This is why some call it the False Dillema.

Examples: Either believe in the same God that I do, or you are a Devil.  If we feed the poor people, we’ll run out of money to protect the nation.

Begging the Question Fallacy

A circular argument in which the conclusion includes invalid premises. The logically incoherent argument often arises where people have ingrained assumptions.  These assumptions are often things that cannot be questioned.  Consequently, they must be defended regardless of the other possibilities. or despite evidence against their deeply held belief.

Example: The word of Apollo is flawless and perfect. We know this because it says so in the great and infallible book of Apollo. So, Apollo exists.  And, furthermore, because we give Apollo offerings and prayers he blesses us with miracles. This is evidence of the greatness of Apollo. Around and around it goes.

In Conclusion

Spotting logical fallacies is a necessary skill in our world.  We need to learn how to identify these tactics so that we are persuaded by these mind control tactics.  We suggest reviewing this list from time to time.  We also recommend a thorough understanding of Logical Reasoning and Logical Axioms.

If this article resonates, there are more on our blog. To find out more about our organization, see our page FAQ.

Interested in spiritual exploration?  Check out the blended learning process at the core of our teaching process. It reflects what Joseph Campbell called the Hero’s Journey.  Our learning options include both face-to-face and virtual learning sessions.  Please consider donating and supporting our mission. This helps others learn the knowledge for developing their own path.

References

Joseph Campbell & Joseph Campbell’s Book The Hero’s Journey, Wikipedia

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *