Freedom to Think for Yourself

Most people are adept at protecting themselves physically, but not mentally. People face Fallacies on a minute by minute basis from self-declared experts, yet are unprepared to combat those fallacies and don’t even notice that they are fallacies.

fallacy |ˈfaləsē|

noun ( pl. fallacies )

a mistaken belief, esp. one based on unsound argument: the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy.

• Logic a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.

• faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument: the potential for fallacy which lies behind the notion of self-esteem.

The word fallacy comes from the Latin word fallere “deceive.”

Most folks have spent time, energy and money on guns, ammunition and locks on their doors, but have done little to nothing to protect their minds.

Not arming ourselves mentally leaves us to be victimized by others.

Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind, to be able to entertain a thought; without accepting it.”

There are many ways of faulty thinking that mislead oneself or another, but this article will point out a few of the most common.

Even if you can reason correctly all of the time, you can’t rely on others doing so. In logical self-defense, you need to be able to spot poor reasoning, and—more importantly—to understand it. To be able to correct others’ mistakes, or to refute them convincingly, you need to understand why they are wrong. And you also need to be able to find the fallacies in your own thinking so you can come to correct conclusions that will serve you.

If you are over 90 years old, you were probably taught a goodly portion of this in school. If you’re younger, you’ve had a smattering and not enough to protect you from the illogical arguments you’re faced with on a daily basis.

Dr. Michael C. LaBossiere has graciously allowed reprints of his book, “Forty Two Fallacies.” You can request a pdf of the book by emailing with “Book” in the subject line.

Fallacies

Ad Hominem

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive, Personal Attack Description:

Translated from Latin to English, “ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of the person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

Example 1:

Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”

Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”

Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”

Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief

The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

Example 1: X is true because if people did not accept X as being true, then there would be negative consequences.

“The banks are too big to allow them to fail.”

There is no reason why the banks are too big to fail, only that if they fail, there will be dire consequences for everyone. There is also no definition of what a “too big bank is.”

Appeal to Authority

1) Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2) Person A makes claim C about subject S.

3) Therefore, C is true.

Example:

I’m not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series “Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR.” You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Sometimes experts in one category are used as experts in other categories. For example: medical doctors have very little education in nutrition, yet are often conveyed by the media as authorities on nutrition.

Appeal to Belief

1) Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. 2) Therefore X is true.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Example:

At one time, most people in Europe believed that the earth was the center of the solar system (at least most of those who had beliefs about such things). However, this belief turned out to be false.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

There are, however, some cases when the fact that many people accept a claim as true is an indication that it is true. For example, while you are visiting Maine, you are told by several people that they believe that people older than 16 need to buy a fishing license in order to fish. Barring reasons to doubt these people, their statements give you reason to believe that anyone over 16 will need to buy a fishing license.

Appeal to Emotion

An Appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure:

1) Favorable emotions are associated with X. 2) Therefore, X is true.

This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples’ emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of “reasoning” involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they “feel good about X,” then he has fallen prey to the fallacy.

Example:

The new PowerTangerine computer gives you the power you need. If you buy one, people will envy your power. They will look up to you and wish they were just like you. You will know the true joy of power. TangerinePower.

Appeal to Pity

An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the “argument” is as follows:

1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity. 2. Therefore claim C is true.

This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because pity does not serve as evidence for a claim. This is extremely clear in the following case: “You must accept that 1+1=46, after all I’m dying...” While you may pity me because I am dying, it would hardly make my claim true.

Example:

“I’m positive that my work will meet your requirements. I really need the job since my grandmother is sick”

Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase

Description:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

Example:

“Argument” against a bond measure:

“We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous.”

Arguments for or against something are good, but they must be based on sound reasons.

Here’s a good one I just heard: “Darwin’s theory of evolution is false because if we were descended from apes, why do apes still exist?” This doesn’t mean that Darwin’s theory is false or true. If apes were successful in adapting to their environment, they would still exist while other apes that could not adapt to their environment might have evolved into humans. Neither of those premises were backed by facts so they could be true or false.

Knowing what commonly used fallacies are can protect you from believing false claims as well as correcting faulty thinking and defending your own arguments. This is especially needed when confronting Agenda 21 and other methods conceived to take your liberty.

Make the investment in yourself and community by learning the Classical Method of how the mind works: Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. The very affluent still teach this to their children while about ninety percent of children are trained to follow orders and be good workers, classically considered the education of slaves.