Common Informal Fallacies and Their Impact on Reasoning

The art of reasoning is paramount in our daily discussions and critical thinking. However, many people fall into common reasoning traps, often without realizing it. These informal fallacies can significantly weaken arguments and undermine logical discourse. In this article, we will explore some of the most prevalent informal fallacies, their origins, and why understanding them is crucial.

Introduction to Informal Fallacies

An informal fallacy is a type of error in reasoning that arises from a flaw in the structure of an argument. Unlike formal fallacies, which violate a strict pattern of logic, informal fallacies typically arise from a flaw in the content or context of the argument. Identifying and avoiding these fallacies is essential for clear and effective communication.

Understanding Aquinian Apologetics as a False Circular Reasoning

Aquinian Apologetics is an example of false circular reasoning: "The Bible says God never lies -> the Bible is the Word of God -> the Bible must be true."

Essentially, this reasoning forms a circular argument (or circular reasoning), where the conclusion is assumed in the premise, providing no new evidence or support. This is often referred to as a solipsism or ipse dixit fallacy, where one asserts a claim without providing a logically sound foundation.

Tolerance as a Social Contract

Another common informal fallacy is the idea that those who claim to be “tolerant” are hypocritical and not to be followed because they do not tolerate bigots. While this might seem logical, it is based on a flawed double standard. Tolerance, as defined by Rand Paul, is not about having no standards but recognizing the social contract and ensuring that the terms are upheld.

For example, a logical explanation is that tolerance is a factor in the social contract. Bigots who violate the terms of this contract effectively renege on their opportunity to be tolerated. This viewpoint suggests that an individual's behavior, not just self-proclaimed motives, determines whether they are tolerated within a community.

False Equivalency and Manichean Thinking

A significant contemporary fallacy is the false equivalency, which often arises from Manichean thinking. This fallacy is the belief that if one perspective is bad, the opposite must be equally good. For instance, the phrase "If it isn’t one thing, it’s the opposite" illustrates this fallacy. While this mentality might seem intuitive, it can lead to logical inconsistencies and oversimplified views that are often harmful.

For example, assuming that your enemy’s enemy is always your friend ignores complex relationships and contexts. In many situations, this approach can lead to unintended consequences and misalignments, as the opposition might have valid reasons for their actions or beliefs.

Key Informal Fallacies

False Dichotomy

The false dichotomy fallacy is one of the most common types of informal fallacies. This occurs when an argument presents two options as the only possible choices, often forcing a conclusion that is not logically inevitable. For example, saying, “If he didn’t turn left, he must have turned right” ignores other possibilities.

A true dichotomy would consider all potential outcomes, whereas a false dichotomy narrows the field of options unnecessarily. This fallacy arises due to a lack of understanding about logical structures and the importance of considering all possible scenarios.

Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Argument from Ignorance)

The argument from ignorance is another flawed form of reasoning where one asserts something is true because it cannot be proven false or vice versa. For example, claiming "there is no evidence the suspect is innocent, so they must be guilty" is a classic instance of this fallacy. This argument lacks validity because the absence of evidence does not logically equate to the truth of a claim.

A well-formed argument should rely on evidence and logical reasoning, not on the absence of conflicting evidence.

Strawman Fallacy

The strawman fallacy is one of the most clever and deceptively convincing informal fallacies. In this fallacy, the arguer misrepresents their opponent's position to make it easier to attack or ridicule. This typically involves taking extreme or misrepresented versions of the opponent's views and attacking those versions instead of the original argument.

This tactic often involves sarcasm and emotional appeals to make the opponent look unreasonable. It is a common debate tactic where the goal is not to challenge the logic of the argument but to undermine the opponent's credibility or confidence.

Call to Common Sense, Credentials, and Tu Quoque Fallacy

The call to common sense fallacy, the call to credentials fallacy, and the tu quoque fallacy are final examples of fallacies used to discredit arguments or opponents.

Call to Common Sense Fallacy

This fallacy suggests that a widely held belief or practice is evidence of its truth, which is not logically valid. For instance, saying "everybody knows that…" is a call to common sense and can be dismissed as an appeal to popular belief, not logical evidence.

Call to Credentials Fallacy

Attributing reliability or credibility to an argument based solely on the speaker's credentials can be misleading. Just because someone is a doctor does not automatically make their arguments about climate change valid. This fallacy often involves questioning the opponent's expertise rather than engaging with the substance of their argument.

Tu Quoque Fallacy

The tu quoque fallacy is a red herring where an opponent's argument is deflected by pointing out a supposed hypocrisy in the opponent’s actions. For example, accusing someone of being hypocritical because they smoked a cigarette after telling you to quit is a tu quoque fallacy. This approach diverts focus from the actual argument and instead presents a side point intended to undermine the opponent's credibility.

Understanding these fallacies and recognizing them in arguments is crucial for effective communication and sound reasoning. By doing so, we can ensure that our discussions are based on clear, logical, and supported premises.

Key Informal Fallacies:

False Dichotomy: Provides two options as the only possible choices. Argument from Ignorance: Claims something is true because it cannot be proven false or vice versa. Strawman Fallacy: Misrepresents the opposing argument to make it easier to attack. Call to Common Sense, Call to Credentials, and Tu Quoque Fallacies: Discredit arguments based on popular belief, credentials, or perceived hypocrisy.