Dakota Beacon

Daily we meet people persuading us to believe as they believe. Are their arguments valid? Can we discern valid arguments from fallacies?

Often our skill at distinguishing fact from fiction fails us. That’s why advertisers make big bucks from consumers and why we keep electing politicians long on bull and short on brains. Lacking the skill to recognize fallacies from people seeking our allegiance, we are at the mercy of charlatans. Alas, we end up making bad choices by accepting fallacious arguments.

Thinking takes work. Physical work builds strong muscles; mental work builds strong minds.

Functionally, reasoning splits into both formal and informal logic. Formal logic deals with inductive and deductive reasoning (snore). Informal logic manifests as the everyday garden variety we call critical thinking. Some folks are better at informal logic than are others. But all can improve.

Those committed to building mental muscle might consult the following references as an easy introduction. “The Fallacy Detective” by two homeschooled boys, Nathaniel and Hans Bluedorn, presents an embarrassingly simple overview. Also, the following link proves very useful. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html.

This brief space cannot cover all the particulars of informal logic. But it will point the way. Four major categories of fallacies may be identified. Some fallacies overlap in function. Thus, the flexibility of these four could produce different groupings. For sake of discussion, these four groups are 1) assumptions, 2) avoiding the question, 3) statistical fallacies, and 4) propaganda. Again, for brevity, this discussion will include two of the four groups today and the remaining two in the next column.

First, a definition. A fallacy clearly represents an error in logical reasoning. Be on the lookout for assumptions in arguments. Seek objectivity when making an argument or when confronting one. We might assume something to be true when it really is not. Often we take something for granted without proof. Assumptions unconsciously create biases when forming the basis of an argument. Reflect on the summary of fallacies with examples below.

Circular reasoning assumes too much. An argument becomes circular when a person tries to support the argument by repeating the main premise instead of addressing the question. A politician is uses circular logic when she says, “You can trust me. I’ve never lied in my life.” You can trust her because she never lied. Yet, how do you know this isn’t her first lie? Her argument went in a circle.

Equivocation is another fallacy based on assumption. Equivocation changes the meaning of a word in the middle of an argument. Benjamin Franklin was equivocating when he said, “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.” The meaning of the word “hang” changed in the middle of the argument. A politician engages in equivocation when he changes the meaning of “contributions” to mean “taxes.” I may choose not to contribute to my favorite charity. But, shame on me if I fail to “contribute” to the IRS what they say I owe.

Avoiding the question is another major category of fallacy. Introducing something irrelevant into an argument diverts attention from the main issue thus avoiding the question.

A red herring is a point introduced that is irrelevant to the argument. It is a distraction used to avoid the question. Here is a red herring. The President says, “Now, some in Congress believe the national government has no business helping communities improve their schools....But I think strengthening education is a national priority.” Improving schools and strengthening education are not the same issues.

Another way of avoiding the question is to attack the messenger rather than the message. An ad hominem attack challenges an opponent’s character or beliefs rather than his argument in hopes that others will think poorly of the person and, therefore, think poorly of his argument as well.

Attacking President Trump’s Russia connection using forged documents was an ad hominem attack with the intent of discrediting the man’s character and with it any supportive argument.

Branding a person a racist is an ad hominem attack. It closes down any legitimate discussion thereby avoiding the question.

Building a straw man by revising the argument is another way to avoid the question. Exaggerating or changing an opponent’s argument makes it easier to refute thereby avoiding the question. Like the red herring, a straw man creates an irrelevant position which no one really believes in the first place. The straw man is then attacked and the real question never addressed.

In recent years, some politicians argued fallaciously that a reduction in the rate of growth of spending for school lunch programs was actually a budget cut. The basic argument was an exaggeration setting up a straw man to attack thus avoiding the question.

We owe it to ourselves to value good reasoning, spot bad reasoning, and avoid being suckered by fallacies.

Next week we will consider statistical fallacies and propaganda.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).