MiloCast

Here are a few logical fallacies that I think are among the most important, and most commonly committed by people who are trying to support something irrational. I expect anyone who wants to debate/discuss/argue with me to read and accept these points. If they do not, then it will be a waste of time for both of us.

The fallacies have been identified and defined long before I learned of them. However, the examples given below are my own.

The burden of proof is on the party making a positive claim. Simple enough. Example: Fred says that he has a red Porche, but he keeps it in another state. If Barney doesn’t believe him, Fred can not respond by asking Barney to prove he doesn’t have a red Porsche. Either Fred has to provide evidence that convinces Barney, or live the fact that Barney doesn’t believe he has a Porche. Obviously this doesn’t mean Fred, in fact, has a Porche. He may or may not. But the burden of proof is on him if he wants Barney to accept it.

The argument from ignorance fallacy is when a person makes a claim and, when asked why they think it’s true, they respond that they can not conceive of any other explanation. This is a worthless argument. Example: Something is missing from my house, and I blame the cable guy who was here last week. When asked if I saw him take it, I say that there’s no other way it could have gone missing. This is a worthless argument, because I could have misplaced the item, someone else could have taken it, or I could be mistaken in thinking it was at home when I actually left it in the car, at work, or whatever.

Intellectual honesty means applying the same standards to your beliefs in all situations. Example: If I think that there should be a strict zero-tolerance policy on weapons in schools, and that any child caught bringing a knife to school should be expelled, I can’t then demand anything different if my own child accidentally brings a pocket knife to school. Either I believe one thing or the other, but it can’t vary based on the situation.

The ad hominem logical fallacy is attempting to dispute an argument by attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For example, if someone with a criminal record is arguing for or against a government policy, it is incorrect to attack their position by bringing up their past crime. If they’re wrong, they’re wrong. If they’re right, they’re right. But the actual item being discussed is objectively true or false, independent of the personalities involved in the argument. So not liking something about a person’s personality or actions is irrelevant.

An argument from authority is when someone claims that something is true, because the person they heard it from is an authority figure. For example, if my doctor tells me that I can’t put a swimming pool in my yard without a building permit, that’s not good enough, even if my doctor is much smarter than I am. Note that this doesn’t mean that something is less likely to be true — it could be perfectly true. But it’s true or false on its own — it doesn’t matter who says it. An important point to understand here is that not every appeal to authority is an “argument from authority” fallacy. If we were to bring a dead bee to a scientist who has studied insects his entire career and asked him to identify the species and sex of the bee, it is reasonable to say we believe we know the correct species and sex because of who told us. Obviously people can be wrong, so an expert’s claims aren’t to be assumed to guarantee the truth of a thing, but they can be a valid reason to sway our opinion in one direction.

If two things happen together frequently, people often detect the pattern and assume that one causes the other. This is sometimes true and sometimes not, so it should never be automatically assumed that one causes the other. Example: If a school starts buying the food for their lunches from a different company and student grades go up, it is incorrect to claim that the different food made them smarter. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn’t. Maybe there is another cause which caused both things to happen, such as an administrator trying new teaching methods and trying to improve school lunch nutrition.

At one time, people did not know what caused thunder, how water turns into ice, or what determines whether a baby is male or female. There are still a great many things that people don’t know. However, it is incorrect to claim that it’s impossible to know something, or that it will never happen.

This one is extremely common, and is very similar to the argument from ignorance. It happens when a person says that something is either A or B, and since it’s not A, that proves that it must be B. The problem is that there could be any number of alternatives they are not considering. So, if the last piece of cake is gone from the refrigerator, and I tell my wife that, obviously either she ate it or I ate it, and I know I didn’t eat it so therefore she ate it, then I am creating a false dichotomy. Despite the fact that I’m too lazy, stupid, or intent on being right that I claim it can only be one or the other, there are many other completely reasonable explanations.

This is taking an valid argument and applying it incorrectly to a clearly incompatible argument. For example, if I don’t believe in bigfoot because I’ve never seen one, someone might say that therefore I must not believe in air I’ve never seen that either. In one case, there is no reason to believe it. In the other case, there are many independent reasons to believe the claim.

A special pleading is making an untestable claim in order to defend a claim that has been tested and the test failed to prove the claim. For example, if I say I have an invisible friend, and you scatter flour all over him so you can see him, obviously you’re not going to suddenly see his form covered in flour. If I claim that there’s something special about him that allows flour to pass right through him, or not stick to his skin, that’s special pleading.

Circular reasoning. If I say I know something is true because you told me, and I know you’re honest because you told me you would never lie to me, that is circular reasoning.

When someone makes a demand, it is met, and they claim that this isn’t good enough and that they want more, this is moving the goalpost. It is dishonest and usually a clear indicator that the person will not accept any evidence they disagree with. Example: Fred tells Barney that he was at Woodstock. Barney says he doesn’t believe it, and wants to ask Fred’s wife. Fred’s wife confirms the story, but then Barney says that obviously she would lie for her husband, and wants to see a photograph. Fred actually has a photograph and shows it to Barney, but Barney says that the photo could be faked, or that the picture isn’t actually of Woodstock. In this case, Barney is asking for evidence he won’t accept each time, and coming up with a new reason to dismiss every piece of evidence that is brought to him. Note that none of this makes what Fred is saying a fact. It’s entirely possible that Fred is lying and faked the photo. But if Barney has a good reason to suspect Fred is lying, he should not pretend that he’ll change his mind if a certain condition is met and then add a new condition.