top of page

Fallacy Follies: Unmasking the Tricks of Faulty Reasoning

POV: You’re on social media and you see a popular influencer talking about why Christians are homophobes, transphobes, and every other kind of phobe. You’re listening, and then you hear him talk about how every Christian hates anybody who disagrees with them. You think, “That’s not really what I or my church thinks at all!”


Then, it makes you wonder if some of your friends who aren’t Christians feel that way about you or your church. Little did you realize that the influencer, like many people today, held to a few logical fallacies in their statement. What if your friend or teacher actually happened to say that to you or your class in person? How would you respond?


It is essential to equip ourselves with the tools to navigate these discussions effectively. Understanding logical fallacies is like having a superpower that allows us to identify flawed reasoning and strengthen our own arguments. In this article, we'll explore some common fallacies, provide relatable examples, and offer rebuttals to help you become a logical-thinking champion.


Most popular fallacies:


1. Ad Hominem: Attacking the Person

a. Example: Ben is an idiot and transphobic because he thinks there are only two genders.


Rebuttal: Personal qualities or unrelated incidents don't necessarily invalidate someone's ideas. Instead, focus on evaluating the evidence and reasoning supporting their arguments.


A serial killer could say the sky is blue. Are they wrong because they are a serial killer? Of course not!


Many times, people resort to name calling or attacking the individual rather than addressing the point. Make sure they always address the point.


2. Straw Man: Misrepresenting an Argument

a. Example: Emily is pro-life and doesn’t believe women should have abortions. She hates women.


Rebuttal: Exaggerating or misrepresenting someone’s argument weakens your own position. It's important to address the actual claims made by others and engage in fair and accurate discussions.


Just because Emily is pro-life doesn’t mean she hates women. In reality, she just doesn’t think an innocent life should be killed.


3. False Dichotomy: Oversimplifying Options

a. Example: Either you support total gun control or you want criminals to have unlimited access to firearms.


Rebuttal: There are more than two options for most situations. Creating a false sense of there only being two solutions negates the reality that there are other solutions to a complex problem.


Are there more than 2 possible scenarios here? Absolutely. Neither of these two extremes are our only options when it pertains to a citizen’s access to purchase firearms.


4. Appeal to Authority: Blindly Trusting Experts

a. Example: Dr. Smith says eating ten bananas a day will make you smarter, so it must be true.


Rebuttal: While experts can provide valuable insights, it's essential to critically evaluate their evidence and reasoning. Relying solely on authority without questioning can lead to accepting unfounded claims.


The reality is that many Drs. and scholars disagree on important issues. It is important to research ideas and conclusions that many experts have, but it does not automatically make something true just because they say it is so.


5. Slippery Slope: Predicting Extreme Consequences

a. Example: If we allow students to have cellphones in school, soon they'll be using them during exams and cheating all the time.


Rebuttal: Asserting an extreme outcome without solid evidence ignores the possibility of reasonable limits or regulations. Evaluate each step independently instead of assuming a chain reaction of negative events.


While cellphones in schools can be a distraction, just because a student has a cellphone in their pocket does not automatically mean that they will cheat all the time on their tests. Each step must be independently addressed. It is important to point out observations and see if there has been any documented or recorded trends heading in that direction.


6. Circular Reasoning: Repeating the Same Claim

a. Example: You should believe me because I'm always right. How do I know? Because I'm always right.


Rebuttal: Merely restating the same claim without providing new evidence or logical support is not convincing. Seek external evidence and logical reasoning to strengthen your arguments.


This one speaks for itself. Some people try to say the same thing in a more emphatic or convincing way to make it sound like there is more to their argument. In reality, they’re just repeating themselves.


7. Hasty Generalization: Drawing Broad Conclusions

a. Example: I tried sushi once, and I didn't like it. Therefore, all Japanese food is terrible.


Rebuttal: Drawing sweeping conclusions based on limited personal experiences or insufficient evidence is unfair. To make accurate judgments, consider a broader range of examples and individual differences.


It is important to not lump all people into one group. Each person is a unique individual with unique experiences. It is essential that we converse and reason with each individual and not make sweeping generalizations.


If you learn to recognize common logical fallacies, you can enhance your critical thinking skills and engage in more meaningful discussions. Recognizing and rebutting fallacies allow us to evaluate arguments objectively, challenge faulty reasoning, and foster an intellectually honest environment.


~Cameron F.


10 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page