I have argued elsewhere that studying logic is the surest way to become a shockproof, BS detector. Of course, training in logic does not guarantee you always think in consistent channels, or never reason validly from a faulty premise, but in today’s age, which is increasingly post-logical, we should take every reasonable and responsible measure we can to avoid succumbing to cheap political rhetoric, emotional manipulation, and cult indoctrination.
What follows are a list of fallacies I have noticed frequently on social media, as of late. (These fallacies should be considered both when formulating arguments, or defending yourself against unwarranted attack.) I will first explain the fallacies and then highlight common examples from both ends of the political spectrum, if only to demonstrate that fallacious thinking isn’t the monopoly of either democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives.
Finally, a word of encouragement, for those who need it: Never kowtow to public opinion or apologize to people calling you names, especially when reason is on your side. Instead, worry about believing false things because of social intimidation or threads from the mob. Truth will always remain unpopular among those who detest reality.
Some fallacies to be on the lookout for.
1) Hasty generalization.
Hasty generalization (a fallacy of induction) occurs when a person infers a general principle from specific examples without adequate representation (to quantity and/or diversity).
Example 1: This protestor is a rioter, that protestor is a rioter; therefore, all protestors are rioters.
Example 2: This cop is racist, that cop is racist; therefore, all cops are racist.
…
2) WhatAboutIsm.
WhatAboutIsm (a fallacy of diversion) seeks to distract from the point currently being argued, rather than addressing the argument itself. The diversion may, in fact, point out some other important issue, but is irrelevant to the argument at hand, and so cannot stand as a refutation thereof.
Example 1: If you care so much about unborn babies, then what about children in need of adoption?
Example 2: You say Black Lives Matter? Well, I say All Lives Matter.
Note: WhatAboutIsm can also be seen under an appeal to hypocrisy. Example: “You’re a liar because X,Y and Z.” Response: “Yeah, we’ll you’re a liar, too!” Notice that even if the accuser is himself a liar, that doesn’t mean his accusation is false. Hypocrites can still be right.
…
3) Argument from silence.
Arguments from silence (another fallacy of induction) attempt to draw conclusions from the absence of statements/reasons given. People can be silent for many reasons, after all – perhaps just wanting a little privacy, or maybe because their views on a position are too complex to articulate in the given time frame, medium, etc – and so, arguments from silence are notoriously weak. Further, just because a person is silent on one medium (say, social media) doesn’t mean they are silent on all mediums.
Example: “There is nothing on his Facebook wall speaking out against communism/anti-Semitism/racism/abortion/etc. So, he must be a communist/anti-semite/racist/pro-abortion/etc.
…
4) Appeals to Force or Fear.
Any appeal to force or fear (also fallacies of diversion) instead of reason is invariably fallacious. Not much else needs to be said about these types of fallacies except they are extremely common and especially pernicious.
Example: “For anybody who hasn’t spoken out on social media against issue X, Y, Z, we’re taking notice, and you will be held accountable!” (Notice how often statements on social media are what I call “fallacy smoothies” blending appeals to fear/force, along with arguments from silence, etc.)
…
5) Shifting the Burden of Proof.
Who has the burden of proof in any given situation is itself a matter of debate, but generally if you agree it is more heinous to hang some innocent people than to allow some guilty people to go unpunished, one should operate under the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty.” Thus, any person who has a serious moral charge levied against him is not obligated to prove his or her innocence; rather, it is the person making the moral accusation who has the obligation to demonstrate that person’s guilt. Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy of procedure.
Example: “Until you prove to me that you’re not [insert contributor to some moral evil] then I’m going to assume you’re part of the problem.”
…
6) Motte and Bailey Fallacy.
The Motte and Bailey Tactic (sometimes known as the inverse strawman) is a rhetorical strategy of retreating to a less uncontroversial claim when challenged on a more controversial claim, thereby conflating the two. Often the rhetorical technique is to advance an emotionally appealing slogan to support an otherwise controversial political position.
Example 1: Retreating to the slogan “But don’t you support our troops?” to defend the controversial position that all American wars are just.
Example 2: Retreating to the slogan “But don’t you believe black lives matter?” to defend the controversial political organization of Black Lives Matter.
…
7) Bulverism
Coined by C.S. Lewis, Bulverism (itself a fallacy of diversion) is attempting to explain *why* a person is wrong without first demonstrating *that* a person is wrong.
Example 1: “You only believe in God because you’re afraid of death.”
Example 2: “If you don’t agree with me on issue X or proposed solution Y, it must be because you’re a contributor to issue X.”
…
Consider sharing this post as a litmus test to your audience and/or friends list. Reasonable people from all sides of the political spectrum should be able to agree to everything explained here; honestly, anybody offended at what’s been articulated above is simply trying to be, in which case, such people may be beyond the reach of reason, argument, or conversation, altogether. It is then up to you if people who are utterly unwilling to think reasonably and argue charitably deserve the benefit of your high-quality friendship.
As for me, I’ve become decidedly less tolerant of such people these past couple years.
– Pat
PS – On a related note, here are some basic steps everyone can take to avoid being easily propagandized, or emotionally manipulated.
- Study logic and rhetoric. (Also, here.)
- Read the primary sources. Read the primary sources. Read the primary sources.
- Before forming (or venturing) an opinion, familiarize yourself with the statistics on relevant issues. Don’t rely on anecdotes or media reports alone. (This is not to say anecdotes/personal experience counts for nothing.)
- Obtain your news from a variety of sources.
- Avoid echo chambers. Keep people around who can intelligently challenge your position on certain issues. (I recommend joining cordial Facebook debate groups, if you spend a fair amount of time online.)
- Maintain a healthy skepticism. If claims are made, ask for evidence. But avoid cynicism and closing your mind off in advance. Make truth-seeking your primary virtue.