A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. Often, they are used by people who are attempting to be especially convincing. This usually can apply to politicians or people in the media, or even two people arguing over something. Whether we are aware of it or not, all arguments follow the same basic structure. They begin with a premise, then a principle of logic is applied in order to come to a conclusion.
Premise 1: If A = B
Premise 2: and B = C
Conclusion: A = C
By using these logical connections by the principle of equivalence, it is definitely not difficult to fall into the trap of believing this type of argument! However, if one is trained to be skeptic of his/her surroundings and question the premisses of the argument, being able to avoid logical fallacies is possible.
One very common fallacy that constantly appears in politics is ignoratio elenchi, roughly translating to "irrelevant thesis." It essentially refers to a rebuttal that fails to address any central argument. For example, during formal political debates, this is definitely the most common logical fallacy. Politicians might go on for hours and hours talking about the issues they might have wanted to been asked about, but never actually answer the questions people want to hear. However, by using the method of a Red Herring, they can draw out their answers so long, and make them so ambiguous, that people naturally fall for the platforms listed by the politician. For example, in a 2008 campaign commercial approved by President Obama, John McCain is attacked for hi lack of understanding with the economic system. However, there is little evidence to back this claim and the commercial instead focuses on the number of homes he owns. It is irrelevant to the original argument, but perhaps enough to trick the viewer into agreeing with the distracting argument. What do you think? Do you often fall for logical fallacies, or are you well-tuned enough to catch them?
Sources:
http://rhoman94.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/2008-presidential-campaign-commercial-red-herring/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
http://open.salon.com/blog/emagill/2010/04/09/top_10_logical_fallacies_in_politics
http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentation
I really enjoyed your point about being "well-tuned enough" to catch logical fallacies. I feel that this is, and has proven to be, particularly important in science. The classic logical fallacy of assuming causation for correlation can be detrimental to scientific theory. It is because of our tendency to fall for this logical fallacy that we are without true objectivity; we are never able to control all other variables in all possible situations and therefore are unable to make a 100% conclusion. We can find strong, truth-ish looking correlations, but we must always remain skeptical to prevent logical fallacies from falling through the cracks.
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciated your breakdown of the common argument. When talking about arguments in a political setting, it is interesting to inquire whether or not modern politicians are learning the art of convincing logical fallacies or an actual communication of a logical argument. While the latter is certainly more challenging, I feel it would show the more successful politician; a man or woman not only capable of finding the truth in what they stand for, but also having the ability to find the logical connections between their stances and the reality of its relevance to their country. I fear I may be asking too much of our modern-day politician, however unfortunate that may seem.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the fact that we can easily fall into the trap of logical fallacies if we are not aware of them. It is therefore important for us to be aware of these fallacies so that we can form better-structured and coherent arguments. However, it is also important to note that a logical argument does not automatically mean that the argument is true, and that an illogical argument must also be wrong. Logic is not the same as truth. Many definitions would say that the “truth” is what corresponds to reality, not what is logically sound. Though not very likely, a person’s argument can actually contain logical fallacies, but still argues for the truth. For example, some may argue that the arguments for religion are based more on belief rather than logic.
ReplyDeleteWhile the common argument seems to be quite an understandable concept, this I believe, is a common misconception. I also feel it is easy to fall into the trap of logical fallacy, even if we are aware they exist, and that is because they are convincing in various situations. In particular, I agree with Clare's opinion that politicians who are able to logically connect their morals and views have stronger and more persuasive campaigns, however, some of their political strategies are used for a reason, as in broader arguments. As a political science major, I find this difficult to grapple with, but it is how our politics works. As I just completed the LSAT, I know logic is very confusing and truly nothing to mess with, but I enjoyed your simple breakdown of the common argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely an interesting topic to think about. The brain is realistically designed to take shortcuts and come to decisions quickly and efficiently so falling for these "logical" fallacies is very easy. One has to truly question the things around them to not fall trap to them. I think it is very interesting how easily and quickly we fall in the trap.
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part that it is very easy to fall for this logical fallacy and with the recommendation to be knowledgeable of one's surroundings, though I think it is also fair to keep in mind that this kind of reasoning could still make a valid argument. Given credible research and data, it could very well be reasonable and true that A = B, B = C, so A = C. I think that the human mind, once warned against something (in this case, this kind of logical fallacy), would try to "counteract" falling for this seemingly logical reasoning. As a result, once recognising the A = B, B = C, so A = C argument, it is possible that we will reject the argument altogether, thinking that we are pointing out something illogical (and therefore "false"). So being a skeptic is truly important -- not just questioning the argument that we recognise is a logical fallacy, but perhaps even question whether the logical fallacy could, in fact, be true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your response on ignoratio elenchi, I have a better understanding about the power of logical fallacies. Whether the arguments being presented are true or false, the majority of people definitely fall into the trap of focusing more on these arguments than answering the actual question. I think this happens because we are all so focused on getting an answer quickly that we jump to conclusions rather than truly try and understand the concepts. Although this does not happen all the time, I find it to be a very common mistake we make at times.
ReplyDelete