Fallacies affect how we communicate our thoughts and ideas with others. They are the use of faulty reasoning in the construction of arguments and can be used intentionally or unintentionally. The point of an argument is to persuade your audience into agreement with you, and if you can do this through the use of fallacies, then that is fair game. It should be noted, however, that using fallacious arguments opens you up to the potential of someone calling you out for your faulty reasoning. Tread carefully. Conversely, be on alert for others (knowingly or otherwise) using fallacies in their arguments against you.
Fallacies are commonly divided into two categories: formal and informal. Formal fallacies are errors of logic where the conclusion doesn’t actually follow the premise(s). The flaw is in the structure of the argument itself. Informal fallacies, on the other hand, errs in the origination of the argument rather than the structure of it. More specifically, informal fallacies rely on false assumptions or irrelevant information altogether.
What follows are common fallacies that you are likely to commit or encounter in everyday conversation with others. By no means is this list comprehensive; that would make for a very long post indeed. But it’s a start from which you can build off.
Ad Hominem Fallacy
The ad hominem fallacy is a tactic where instead of addressing an argument, idea, or issue, you personally attack your opponent in order to undermine what they stand for. This fallacy can be outright overt, but it can also be used to cast a shroud of doubt around someone’s character. Ad hominem fallacy can allow the user to discredit his or her opponent without directly engaging in the matter at hand. Listen to almost any political speech or debate to see this in use.
Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy
The anecdotal evidence fallacy occurs when someone makes an argument based on evidence collected in a non-scientific manner, relying on anecdotes or testimonials. Anecdotal evidence is often based on our own personal stories but it can also be based on experiences or stories of other people or the media. This becomes problematic because of the limited sample size and that this evidence is based on human memory, which is not very reliable.
To explore an example of this, say a friend of yours has cancer and decided to switch to a plant-based diet and then goes into remission. Your friend swears that her new diet cured her cancer and that other cancer patients should do the same. It’s a compelling narrative but not one based on scientific evidence. To combat this fallacy we should look for more data tested evidence to support any anecdotal claims we hear before making any decisions.
Burden of Proof Fallacy
The burden of proof fallacy is where the person or group making a claim insists that their claim is correct if it cannot be disproved by others, regardless of the amount or quality of the proof the person or group making the claim actually has. For example, someone could claim that an item that is missing has been stolen. There are other potential explanations, however, such as it was misplaced, or the location of the item was forgotten. But the person claiming that it was stolen – having no evidence other than it is missing – insists that it has indeed been stolen, unless someone can prove otherwise, thus shifting the burden of proof onto others to disprove their argument rather than proving the validity of their own argument.
Correlation/Causation Fallacy
The correlation/causation fallacy occurs when one assumes that correlation equals causation. In actuality one can not legitimately deduce a cause/effect relationship between two variables based solely on a correlation between them. While it’s perfectly fine to note a correlation between two items, it’s important to remain diligent about not confusing this for causation. Below is a graphic example of a correlation that does not equal causation between highway fatalities and imported lemons.
False Dilemma Fallacy
A false dilemma fallacy is where a statement is constructed to only indicate two potential options instead of taking into account additional logically valid options. This is oftentimes used as an either/or statement, where the user says, “You can either do this, or you can do that.” Maybe you can choose between five options of things to do, but you are only presented with two. They are presenting you with a map that doesn’t reflect the territory. Therefore, it is important not to take the options someone presents you at face value and instead ask yourself what other options there may be.
False Equivalence Fallacy
The false equivalence fallacy where two different things that share something in common are treated as the same. A common phrase for this is, “comparing apples and oranges.” Yes, they are both fruit, but they are not the same thing. A brilliantly absurd example of the false equivalence fallacy is in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where a woman accused of being a witch is weighed against a duck to determine if she is indeed a witch.
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
The hasty generalization fallacy is when a general statement or rule is made based on an insufficient or unrepresentative sample of data. This commonly happens when you observe an instance of something exhibiting a certain trait and then conclude that all similar instances of that thing must exhibit that same trait. Below are a few examples of this fallacy.
- “Did you see that teenager just run a red light? Teenagers are awful drivers.”
- “My dad has eaten primarily pizza, burgers, and fries for the past 15 years and he has no health issues. Therefore fast food isn’t that bad for you.”
- “The first lecture of the course was boring, so I can tell the entire course is going to be boring.”
While not all hasty generalizations will necessarily be incorrect, it’s a better strategy to take a little more time to get a sufficient sample size. This way you have better evidence allowing you to come to more accurate conclusions so you can ultimately make better decisions.
Middle Ground Fallacy
The middle ground fallacy, also known as the argument to moderation, is the assumption that a compromise between two extremes or conflicting views is always true. This fallacy ignores the possibility that one or both of the extremes/views could be completely true or false.
While oftentimes the correct position on a topic is somewhere between the two extremes, this is not always the case and thus should not be assumed without considering all of the evidence and possibilities. Below are a few examples of this fallacy.
- John thinks vaccines cause autism. Michelle, a medical doctor, says that this claim has been proven false. Therefore, vaccinations cause autism sometimes.
- Sophia thinks the sky is blue. Jane thinks the sky is yellow. Therefore, the sky must be green.
- Jimmy’s parents get divorced and cannot agree on which parent he should live with, so they decide he’ll live one week at his mom’s house and the next week at his dad’s house.
Red Herring Fallacy
The red herring fallacy is when someone deliberately introduces an irrelevant topic into a discussion, with the intention of diverting attention away from the main, relevant topic. Politicians often use red herrings during political discourse and debates, although red herrings can be found throughout society. An example of this is the response Donald Trump gave when questioned about the degrading comments he made about women with Billy Bush of “Access Hollywood” in 2005.
The best strategy when faced with a red herring is to point out why the statement or argument is irrelevant to the issue or problem initially raised. Once you identify and verbalize the red herring, you can then attempt to redirect the conversation back to the original topic.
Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man fallacy is where someone takes the argument of someone else and exaggerates or distorts it in order to make it easier to attack. It is a straw man, much easier to attack than a real man. Similar to an ad hominem fallacy, when implementing a straw man fallacy, the real argument at hand is avoided. Here’s an example:
SENATOR A: Our national defense budget has ballooned and is preventing us from spending money on critical services. We cannot increase the budget further.
SENATOR B: My colleague is proposing to leave our nation defenseless. I, for one, cannot tolerate this, especially with all the dangers in the world.
Sunk Cost Fallacy
Sunk costs are costs (financial, energy, time, etc.) that have already been incurred. The fallacy is committed when you continue an endeavor because of the costs already sunk into it. This is also sometimes called the Concorde fallacy in reference to the supersonic jet named Concorde and the rationale that was used to continue the project despite evidence pointing to the abandonment of it. The problem with the sunk cost fallacy is that you throw good resources (time, money, energy, etc.) after bad simply because you already spent them. You think that to do otherwise would be wasting the costs you already sunk into the endeavor. In reality, you may be wasting more resources. A phrase used to avoid the sunk cost fallacy is to, “cut your losses.”
Tu Quoque Fallacy
A tu quoque fallacy (Latin for “you also”) appeals to the argument of hypocrisy; it attacks an opponent by indicating that that person’s behavior is inconsistent with their argument. It answers criticism with criticism, focusing on the personal shortcomings of the person rather than disproving the logic of the argument. Similar to ad hominem and straw man fallacies, a tu quoque fallacy averts directly discussing the issue at hand. Below is a simple example of this fallacy.
FATHER: You should stop smoking cigarettes, they’re not healthy.
SON: Why would I listen to you? You’ve smoked cigarettes since you were 14 years old!
Conclusion
Fallacies are committed in the pursuit of persuasion. Like many things, once you start looking for fallacies, you start seeing them everywhere. They surround us, and we commit them frequently. This isn’t necessarily bad in itself, but don’t fool yourself with your reasoning. See through it to the truth. If you don’t, you may be blindsided by an opponent who can. In the world of persuasion and argument, that can be a knock-out punch. Don’t fall victim to unknowingly committing fallacies. Conversely, you could be in the driver’s seat if you are able to quickly identify errors in the logic of your opponent’s argument. Regardless of the scenario, it behooves you to know about the various types of fallacies.
