For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations, please subscribe.
If you would like to support the channel and become part of our ancient history fan community,
visit patreon.com/worldofantiquity.
Welcome to the Writing About History series in which we discuss the ins and outs of historical
argumentation, so that you can better assess historical claims
and write history better yourself.
Last time we talked about logical fallacies - how to identify them and how to avoid making them.
We’re going to talk about some more of them today.
The ones featured in this video fall into two categories: fallacies of relevance
and fallacies of omission.
They are just as common as the ones I discussed in the previous video, if not more.
So let’s consider them.
First up: fallacies of relevance.
These occur when an argument is supported
or strengthened by statements that, on closer look,
have no relevance whatsoever to the argument.
You may have heard of the ad hominem.
It's known as Poisoning the Well when it's done at the beginning of a presentation.
An ad hominem...
An ad hominem occurs when an argument is supported by either praising a person who previously has made it
or by attacking a person who has previously disagreed with it.
An argument, of course, should be judged by its own merits and not by who has said it
or who has knocked it.
Have you ever heard someone say something like, “Well, that argument was made by so-and-so,
and I don’t believe anything he says”
or “That argument originates with this group of people, and I don’t take them seriously.”
This sort of persuasion works on some people because of their existing disdain for certain
people or groups, but it has no relevance to whether an argument is valid.
“Well, wait a minute," you might say.
"If a person has been wrong before, surely it’s fair to say you can’t trust them.”
But everyone has been wrong before.
Your safest bet is to judge the argument by its own merits.
A more common form of ad hominem reasoning is when someone dismisses another person’s
argument because of their perceived bias: “Well, of course you would say that.
You’re a [fill in the blank].”
To be sure, we need to beware of people’s biases and certainly take them into account
when hearing their opinions, but an argument cannot be invalidated
simply on the ground of bias.
Otherwise, all arguments would be invalid, because we are all biased.
Another example of a fallacious argument of relevance is the Appeal to Improper Authority.
Last time I talked about how some arguments from authority are valid.
If a person is known to have expertise in a certain subject, their viewpoint should
be taken into consideration.
It doesn’t mean they are automatically right, but their expertise has value.
Sometimes, however, you will see a historical theory that bolsters itself by quoting a scholar,
or even several scholars, as authorities on the subject.
But when you take a closer look, such ones are not scholars of the subject under consideration.
They may be authorities in another field, but if it’s not the field being discussed,
so they are improper authorities.
Another fallacious argument of relevance is the Appeal to Emotion.
This approach often works on people who have not been trained to assess arguments strictly according to reason.
Have you ever seen a video showing someone performing a horrific deed on some innocent people?
This video is being shared to rile up the viewer’s emotion, to get them disgusted
and angry.
Oftentimes the text or commentary associated with the video make claims about the circumstances
that are not true or are exaggerated.
The aim is to build a case against someone or a group of people.
The viewer is so outraged by what is seen that the commentary is accepted as trustworthy
without further investigation.
Examples of this being done in the history field might be showing academics scoffing
at an alternative historian in order to turn the viewer against academia and toward alternative history.
Or talking about how a country was mistreated by another country in an effort to discredit
a historical theory originating in the oppressive country.
Another fallacious argument of relevance is the Argument from Incredulity.
This fallacy assumes a proposition is false, because it is difficult to for a person to imagine,
or it goes against their personal expectations.
It’s sometimes called “appeal to common sense,” because people using it will often
say, “Come on, just use your common sense!”
It wants you to go with your gut reaction instead of stopping to research it.
But many subjects require some amount of understanding
before one is able to make an informed judgement about it.
Common sense is not going to help them in this situation, because it relies on your
personal experience, and if you have no experience in the subject you’re considering,
it will do you no good.
Okay, our second category of logical fallacy would be fallacies of omission.
When an argument leaves out a necessary component
and sometimes even deliberately misdirects others from the missing information, it falls into this category.
Always be on the lookout for missing information.
So what are some examples of fallacies of omission?
How about Stacking the Deck (a.k.a. the Narrow-Minded Fallacy)?
This common tactic occurs when the presenter of the argument deliberately leaves out
any examples that would harm the case being made.
Only the most useful facts are selected, and the others are swept under the rug.
The only way you would know this is being done is if you were well-read on the subject.
So be well-read!
And when you are making a case for something yourself, don’t do it,
even though it might be tempting.
Another fallacious argument of omission is the Appeal to Lack of Evidence (a.k.a. Argument from Ignorance).
If someone tries to prove a point by saying that the opposition can't disprove it,
this is an appeal to lack of evidence.
It is quite common in conspiracy theories.
This is considered a fallacy, because it does not take into account the many competing arguments
that could exist, which also cannot be disproven.
I can’t prove that there are no invisible, noiseless, immaterial aliens in the room with me,
but that doesn’t mean that there are.
Last time we talked about the "possible proof" fallacy.
And it kind of overlaps with this one a little bit as an argument from ignorance.
Because someone might claim that someone else’s proposition is false because they can’t prove it.
If someone cannot prove a claim, that means the claim is unproven.
It doesn’t mean the claim is false.
Sometimes you might hear people say something like, “If you can’t explain how it happened,
then it didn’t happen.”
But in such a case, there might be evidence to support the idea that it happened,
even if there is no evidence whatsoever to explain how it happened.
If your grandma says she baked a delicious apple pie, and you did not see her do it,
and you have no idea how she made it, does that mean she didn’t make it?
There might be clues in the messy kitchen - leftover pie crust, dirty dishes used to
make it, or a receipt for ingredients on the counter.
This might not be the first pie she made.
She has given you no reason to doubt the truthfulness of her words.
Your not being able to explain how she made it does not prove she didn’t do it.
If the way that ancient people made something HAS been explained, sometimes you will hear
people fall back on this argument: “Unless you can replicate exactly this ancient object
with ancient tools, then you haven’t demonstrated the ancients could have made it.”
This ignores the fact that replication is not the only way to demonstrate
that the ancients could have made it.
It can be demonstrated, for example, by recreating the technology that made it, by mathematics,
or by showing similar artifacts that we know the ancients made,
which were created with the same tech.
You don’t have to recreate grandma’s apple pie to demonstrate that your explanation for
how she made it is correct.
If you are a food historian, but a terrible cook, no need to worry.
You can use the clues in the kitchen to figure out the basics of how she did it, even if
you could never bake a pie so good yourself.
I could continue to provide examples of fallacies you might encounter, but these, I think,
represent what you will see most often.
Keep an eye out for them, because they are not always obvious!
If you enjoyed this video, please give it a like.
If you haven’t seen the earlier video on logical fallacies, go check that one out!
And I will see in the next video.
You might like my little e-booklet, Why Ancient History Matters.
It's designed to persuade people that the subject is important, even in the modern world.
You might also wish to use it to help spread the word,
so feel free to share it with someone you know.
It's free for anyone who wants it.
I've left a link in the description box below the video for you to grab a copy.
Catch you later.