Hi, it's Mr. Sato. I'm going to explain logical fallacies.
Your teacher has probably taught you different ways to persuade your reader to agree with
you. Supporting your arguments with strong, reliable evidence, that sort of thing. And
that's good.
But there are ways to cheat. These methods aren't part of an honest, good-faith discussion.
They are rhetorical devices to persuade people that don't actually prove anything. They're
called logical fallacies, or as I call them with my students, rhetorical B.S. (which of
course stands for baloney sandwiches)
Logical fallacies are like Jedi mind-tricks in that they only work on the weak-minded.
They're often used when people are defending the indefensible.
You should not use these (because they're baloney sandwiches) but you need to know them
so you know when someone is trying to use one on you.
Here's a list of 10 logical fallacies. There are more kinds, and you can find more at these
excellent websites.
First, changing the subject. I have to confess that in my video on counterarguments, I suggested
that if you can't knock down your opponent's argument because, frankly, they're making
a good point, try changing the subject. So, that's not fighting fair. It's a trick. When
you change the subject, you're hoping your opponent won't notice you've steered the argument
away from where you're vulnerable.
For example, "You say I'm benefiting from institutional racism, but the real problem
is the government micromanaging everything we do or say. "
Do you see how this person changed the topic so you're no longer talking about institutional
racism? Don't take the bait. Remember what the argument was originally about and bring
your opponent back to it.
Number 2 is Denial. This is a blunt force instrument. There's nothing subtle about denial.
"It s a hoax! " "That s fake news!"
Denial is just saying that the other person's argument has no merit, without supporting
that claim with any sort of evidence. In fact, denial is often used when all the evidence
supports the opposite claim. Denial is frequently used by conspiracy theorists.
"NASA didn't land on the moon in 1969. That was all just a hoax."
All you need to defend yourself from this one are facts that support your claim. But
don't be surprised if your opponent lives in a fact-free world and never acknowledges
your legitimate evidence.
Number 3, False Dichotomy, is when two alternative states are presented as the only possibilities,
as an either/or question, when in fact, there are other possibilities.
"We can either eliminate safety procedures or make this company profitable. We can't
do both."
Your move is to call that out, say it's a false dichotomy, and say that there are other
possibilities. It isn't just black and white. If you can identify a specific third possibility,
that's even better.
4, False equivalence. This is when you compare two things that are fundamentally different
as if they were equivalent, hoping that you'll accept that premise.
"I understand systematic racial oppression because I have been discriminated against
as a white man."
While that may be true, he may have been discriminated against, but the discrimination he has suffered
is not comparable to 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and institutional racial oppression.
Call it out and then steer the conversation back on course.
5, Loaded question. This is when someone asks a question that has an assumption built right
into it, so you can t answer it without seeming guilty.
"Why are you such a racist?"
You can't answer that question without confessing to being a racist.
Or "What do you think is the reason for the government's failed policies?"
Just don t answer. Turn it around and pose a real question.
6 is Name-calling (or "ad hominem"). This is tagging your opponent with a negative or
stereotypical label, so you don't have to listen to their reasoning.
"Oh, that's ridiculous. You're just another entitled millennial."
Once you've allowed someone put a label on you, it can be used to delegitimize everything
you say.
7. Projection is accusing your opponent of something you are guilty of yourself without
actual evidence.
An example would be a politician who secretly accepts bribes going on the offensive and
accusing his opponent of being corrupt.
This is a new one that I've seen a lot of in recent years.
8. Slippery slope (or the domino theory) is saying that if A happens, that will cause
a chain reaction, resulting in Z (a bad thing), so we shouldn't let A happen.
It's possible that A could in fact eventually lead to Z but it's just a guess based on the
speaker's own biases, ignoring the many variables that are likely to produce a different outcome.
"If we allow affirmative action, pretty soon we'll be allowing genocide."
That's a ridiculously huge leap. There's no reason to believe affirmative action will
lead to genocide, and a ton of reasons to believe it won't. It's a figment of the speaker's
biased imagination. Don't accept that assumption. Call it what it is: a slippery slope argument.
9 is the straw man. This is a straw man; see how easy it would be to knock this over? Straw
man is when your opponent misrepresents your opinion to make it easier to attack.
"Your attempt to give health care to all Americans is basically the same as Cuban socialism,
and we all know how that turned out."
This person has miscontrued the original argument, because it's easier to say that Cuban socialism
is bad than to address the actual complexities of health care.
To counter a straw man, you have to say that that's nonsense, and restate your actual argument.
Last, Whataboutism. This is when your opponent counters your assertion by saying you're guilty
of something just as bad.
"You condemn me for being a terrorist, but what about the bombing of Hiroshima? Isn t
that terrorism?"
Don't be pulled off track. Say that that's a separate argument that we can have at a
later date, but that right now we're talking about your original assertion.
OK, here are all the definitions. You can take a screenshot.
Now, here are five statements. What logical fallacy is being employed in each? Some of
these have more than one possible correct answer.
A mother criticizes her son for his bad grades in college. He responds, "What do you know
about it? You didn't even go to college!"
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem."
"Don't listen to anything she says. She's a right-wing radical."
"If we allow transgender students to choose what bathroom to use, before you know it,
sexual predators will be hanging out in the girls bathroom."
Last, "Those rioters at the Capitol are no worse than the Black Lives Matter protesters
who broke windows and set police cars on fire!"
Those are all logical fallacies. And here are what I think are the correct answers.
Knowing about logical fallacies, or rhetorical B.S., is an absolutely necessary form of self-defense.
If you don't know about them, you can't defend yourself against them and you'll find yourself
losing arguments in which you know you re right because you allowed your opponent to
hijack the debate.
Without this knowledge, you'll be weak-minded and you never know when you re going to run
into a Jedi mind-trick.