This post is divided into two parts. This is the second of the two. If you haven’t read the first one, read it and get back here to finish it.
In the previous post, we started a discussion on the act of arguing; highlighting the need to be more aware of the agendas at play as well as implicit assumptions one might have. We concluded it with logical fallacies. Here, we mention some explicit examples of logical fallacies which I normally come across (and of course, those I know about).
Appeal to emotion.
This is a broad class of logical fallacies which seeks to use emotions to obfuscate the facts of an argument and win it. It includes an appeal to pity, fear, spite, flattery, consequences; wishful thinking, and others. For instance, a scummy business surfaced on Ghana Twitter some time ago, which led to victims of similar duplicitous businesses to voice out. However, to my surprise, a few people came out to defend these businesses. Their reasoning was simple: they made the case that calling out the business in such public fashion was unacceptable, as the organisation could go under from the bad press. These guys accused the victims and other well-wishers of sabotage. One person claimed the victims and their supporters had no idea how difficult it was to start and run a business. This situation is a classic example of an appeal to pity and appeal to consequences. They tried to shape the argument using guilt-tripping tactics and the fact that the criticism, however valid, might lead to a consequence they don’t want: the collapse of the said business.
Ad hominem.
This fallacy is characterised by personal attacks on the person of the one making an argument—their character, skill level, eloquence etc.—as an attempt to invalidate their position or claim. Here, one or more of the premises for an argument may simply be a personal trait or preference of the other party’s, that has been portrayed in some unfavourable light. As such, the conclusion of the argument will be untrue. An ad hominem attack uses a fact about the person, proven or otherwise, to undermine their credibility, despite there being no causal link between the two parts of the argument. This is especially common in politics and in social media discourses.
No true Scotsman.
No true Scotsman or appeal to purity fallacy is imposing an ideal or standard as a way to dismiss criticisms of a faulty argument. This is especially true where I come from, where ideals are perpetuated and enforced because of how entrenched religious and cultural values are in the society. There are ideals that speak to whom a real man or woman is, who a true tribesman (of a particular ethnic group) is, and so on. These ideals invade our conversations, and people quote these ideals as if they were fact to make their point.
Anecdotal.
The use of personal experience or an isolated case in lieu of a sound argument when establishing a claim or position is called an anecdotal fallacy. It arises when people pitch their personal experience as a universal phenomenon. It is common for people to think their experience is enough to verify their point. Consider the scenario where a parent tries to convince their child to pursue a particular program in an institution of higher education. Imagine the parent starts by talking about a friend’s son who studied the program and went on to get a job that pays well. If the parent states this as a reason the child should pursue the course in a bid to convince them, that would be a classical example of this fallacy. Just because their friend’s child was able to secure a well-paid job after the degree doesn’t mean their own child will be so fortunate.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority can be a fallacy when an argument, which can be well-supported by facts and logically valid inferences, relies on the testimony of an entity (aka the authority) instead. The key word is “can”, which implies that an appeal to authority can be legitimate or fallacious. A testimony is neither an argument nor a fact. However, every so often, an appeal to authority cannot be avoided because one may not have the expertise to verify some piece of information. A testimony can be strong or weak: the better the authority, the stronger the testimony will be. This kind of fallacy can take a few forms. A very interesting example which is relevant to me because of where I come from is God. God, or his holy book (depending on your religion), can be invoked as an expert witness for literally any argument in our society. This is a very sensitive subject. For many, God can never be a false authority for any situation, and we will not be going into that. But if someone invokes the authority of God to verify his side, such an argument can be subject to scrutiny. Sometimes, being an expert on the mind and intention of God is irrelevant to an argument.
Sunk cost.
With this fallacy, the arguer justifies their decision to continue a specific course of action based on the time or monetary investment already made in it. I have seen this fallacy being peddled by pastors and elders in the Ghanaian society who do not want to break up a marriage, regardless of the problems the couple might be facing. The argument is pitched like this: the individual who wants to leave the relationship is directed to look at what they have already invested in the relationship—be it financially or emotionally. Based on this, they are asked to continue with it even if it makes them unhappy, or they are being abused.
Straw man.
This fallacy occurs when an opponent’s proposition is covertly replaced by a false one, and that one is instead addressed. This can be done in many ways: opponent words may be quoted out of context, opponent arguments may be simplified or exaggerated, or may not be considered at all. For instance, suppose a lady and her boyfriend are having a dispute because she has noticed he doesn’t like to bathe. Seeing as something basic as cleaning oneself had devolved into an argument, she felt the need to delineate. So, she begins like this, “Taking a shower is beneficial.” The man hits back quickly, “But hot water may damage your skin!” Notice he has taken a stab at an argument that does not exist because his partner never said taking an extremely hot shower was beneficial.
Where does that leave us?
Arguing for no reason in particular is bad, even in academia. We should be self-aware and demonstrate we know the reasons underscoring the discourse. The ability to build good arguments and be relentless about them is only an asset in scholarly writings. Even as an academic, one should avoid being excessively dogmatic and argumentative about one’s work. It comes off as combative and obsessive behaviour. I have a few observations on why we shouldn’t argue in a vacuum. First, we have to realise there are many situations of grave importance in the world that will benefit from a consensus-oriented discourse; an exchange that is centred on empathy and tolerance. Second, it depicts an unwillingness to learn and grow, which can be especially detrimental in the workplace. Finally, an excessive desire to be right all the time alienates you from your community.
Although logical fallacies are essential, my official opinion is that good intentions trump them. Arguments should neither be strictly devoid of them nor be discounted solely on the basis that they contain these fallacies. The purpose of logical fallacies in the context of arguing is to expose flaws in the argument which play a part in establishing the conclusion. Wherefore, they make your conclusion less veritable, or in other cases, not veritable at all. However, as previously mentioned, sometimes the agenda is more critical. It is sometimes advantageous, necessary even, to use one or more fallacies to coax a desired conclusion. For example, let’s say political parties A and B are on opposing sides of a free universal healthcare bill in their country, where A is for the bill. Suppose that the bane of contention was whether it was good for the country to pass it or not. If we assume that A just wants more affordable healthcare for common people, some readers might agree with me that whatever arguments help A get the bill passed are irrelevant compared to this agenda. In this situation, several fallacies might crop up. An appeal to emotion may be made to everyone—maybe by getting a poor mother with a serious illness to be the face of the whole project—so they remember their humanity. Some ad hominem attacks may be launched against opponents in B to silence some of the loudest critics of the bill.
In conclusion, any discourse we have must also be laced with empathy and self-awareness. In my experience, you are most balanced when you mean well, and are willing you truly listen.
Let’s go further.
- Want to know more about logical fallacies? Have a look at the following: grammarly blog, logical fallacies, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, straw man.