Spot the Bad Arguments
There are numerous bad arguments, commonly known as fallacies or sophisms. In fact, you can find as many as 300 types.
Author Dr. Bo Bennett references all of them on the Logically Fallacious website using the following categorization:
Fallacious arguments: arguments containing factual errors.
Fallacious reasoning: using something other than logic to convince.
Fallacious tactics: morally dubious method to force someone into engaging in fallacious reasoning.
Some fallacies are more common than others. Here are a few:
The straw man: misrepresenting someone’s argument.
Ad hominem attack: attacking opponent’s character.
Equivocation: using different meanings of the same word during demonstration.
Slippery slope: if A happens, then B, then C...then Z will as well.
Don't feel overwhelmed, you can still have fun while spotting fallacies!
It's Your Turn
It's time for action! Find a fake article and try to identify the following three types of sophism:
The argument from authority (or argumentum ad verecundiam): citing an individual who is or appears to be an authority.
The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam): claiming that something is true merely because it hasn't been shown to be false, or that it's false because it hasn't been shown to be true.
The false dichotomy: wrongly reducing the problem to two choices in order to lead to a contrived conclusion.
Find Sophisms 1, 2, and 3 in the Following Fake Article.
Working From Home: Many Problems to Be Solved
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, the number of people working from home increased dramatically. There are two types: remote workers, and those who refuse. More people than ever are gearing up, but the choice of connection methods remains limited: cable or wireless.
Ms. Denoisia, HR manager at a European toy giant and president of the European Association for Internal Communication, is unequivocal: the flexibility of wireless solutions among internet service providers will never equal a 10 Gbps ethernet cable! Meanwhile, Prof. Chartier, an expert in musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and head of pathologies and workstation ergonomics at Heidelberg hospital in Germany, has warned: "[...] poor home installations will quickly generate posture problems due to the increasing number of remote workers." His colleague and head of the phytotherapy and well-being laboratory at the National Foundation of Alternative Medicine, Dr. Malouani, added in an interview: "Our test protocols are just waiting to be used. Until the studies we recommend are carried out, it's not possible to show that homeopathy is of no benefit in the treatment of MSDs. For some years, we have been developing very reliable solutions, such as BOTANICA MUSCLA 9 CH and ALOE MINUSICA 13 CH." Finally, good news for our readers contemplating working from home.
Well? Where Were the Bad Arguments in the Text?
The argument from authority appears twice. The first time Ms. Denoisia is cited as an authority on a subject that seems to be outside her field of expertise. The second time was citing Dr. Malouani, whose title of doctor does not presuppose medical knowledge. This doctor is only the laboratory head at a foundation, which is not sufficient to credit what he says.
The same Dr. Malouani uses the argument from ignorance. He implies that nobody wants to research the lack of beneficial effects in the homeopathic products mentioned. But that’s because the proposed procedures are unscientific. That does not prove any of the claimed beneficial effects.
False dichotomies: there are two in the text. The first is when the author insists on just two categories of workers: remote workers and “those who refuse.” It’s easy to imagine numerous alternatives apart from these two sets of people by just considering those who only work from home occasionally. The second false dichotomy is used by Ms. Denoisia when she sets the flexibility of 3G, 4G, and soon 5G solutions up against a cable connection’s reliability. Again, a simple alternative example is enough to show the false dichotomy. So, business Wi-Fi can be extremely reliable and, at the same time, very flexible (for users as well as IT managers).
This exercise illustrates the problem raised by Brandolini’s law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
Analyze a Debate
Maybe you watch online debates or participate in them personally. But can you accurately evaluate the arguments’ quality?
Watch the following debate between podcaster, neuroscientist, and famous atheist Sam Harris and psychologist, thinker, and best-selling author Jordan Peterson.
This debate spans deep questions such as morality, religion, psychology, and freedom of speech.
As you watch this debate, do the following:
Write down which arguments sound most persuasive to you intuitively.
Put these arguments in a syllogistic form.
Determine whether they are both factually valid and logically sound.
If they are not, which fallacy do they fall victim to?
Were the intuitively more persuading arguments true and logical? If not, why do you think that is? Did you manage to spot fallacies? If so, which ones?
Stephen Woodford’s Rationality Rules analyzed the debate and gave his perspective in this video. Do you agree with him?
Now you can use this method when analyzing any debate you witness or are a part of.
Marcia Goddard’s Interview
We asked neuroscientist Marcia Goddard how to avoid biases during a conversation or a debate. Listen to her interview to learn more about this.
Dig Deeper
As this chapter closes, you have the opportunity to acquire one last tool: how to combat conspiracy theories and spot science denialism.
The tool is called FLICC. When a speech or proposition seems “too something” to you: too pretty, too easy, too simplistic, too obvious, too ranting, too startling, too passionate. When information seems to be aimed more at your emotions than your reasoning, your “bullshit radar” should be immediately activated!
Let's Recap!
With a bad argument detector, a commercial, political speech, or debate with your aunt will never be the same again. You can counter poor reasoning and avoid using these underhanded arguments yourself. Once again, the main pitfall to avoid is the “beam in the eye.”
Preventing sophisms in discussions and debates calls for metacognition. It’s up to you to listen to yourself arguing and spot lapses. In this chapter, you learned that:
We sometimes resort to fallacious arguments to persuade someone, whereas a good argument helps to convince them.
A discussion can be framed by some rules of the game (and that’s good!).
Sophisms can be categorized. That’s very useful for identifying the type of answer needed.
Tools like FLICC help tackle several problems, i.e., conspiracy theories.
You’ll learn how to build a critical analysis kit in the next chapter!
