The “Logical Fallacy” Fallacy
Political discussion in 2019 is difficult already. With the 2020 US election race starting up, and the calamity of Brexit on the other side of the Atlantic, politics feels more polarised than ever. With dialogue between opposing sides feeling pointless at the elected level, conversation at the level of the electorate is of growing importance. But along with these discussions has come a desire to “win” the arguments, of which we are all guilty. One tactic has framed itself as the paragon of debate and trump card against any argument — that tactic is the “logical fallacy”.
First aggregated into a list by Aristotle to help with epistemological discussion, logical fallacies are sometimes depicted as a rule book for formal debate, trying to apply blanket prohibitions against certain argument tactics. While this may seem to be a sincere attempt at streamlining discussion, the slow creeping of this format into everyday political discussion is ultimately problematic. Here’s an example of some popular logical fallacies to give you a taste of what I’m talking about.
1. Ad hominem
Described more simply as a “personal attack”, this is one of the less egregious of the list. A popular tactic of Donald Trump, recently displayed in his description of Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, as “little pencil neck Adam Schiff.”
2. Slippery slope
This fallacy focuses on taking a premise and following down an ever more increasingly unlikely chain of events. For example: “If you tax sugary drinks, soon you’ll be taxing every food. Then we’ll all be too poor to buy food, and eventually will all die of starvation.”
3. Red herring
A phrase that is somewhat more common in everyday conversation than the other logical fallacies, this describes when someone tries to distract from an argument by bringing up a seemingly relevant point without actually addressing the question or argument that has been put to them. A common sight in just about any political TV interview, some politicians have been particularly talented at getting these to slip by an inattentive audience, others having less success.
4. Reductio ad absurdum
Another fallacy in Latin, beginning to sound like a complicated legal document, this can be translated as “reduction to absurdity”. This encompasses a tactic of reducing a complex argument to extremely simplistic explanation lacking any nuance, usually to make it seem stupid.
It’s normal at this point to see some of these logical fallacies and think “actually, that’s a good point that I should bring up next time I hear someone use that tactic”. However, here’s why you should hold back as much as possible if you truly want to convince someone of your argument, or have a constructive political discussion
The Ultimate Fallacy: The “Logical Fallacy” Fallacy
One simple fact remains regardless of how many crappy or underhanded tactics you hear from someone. Just because someone has used on of these “logical fallacies” doesn’t mean their underlying claim is wrong, and in most cases you can argue with their point conventionally, rather than spouting out Latin like some sort of 3rd century BC orator.
Not only that, most of these fallacies, despite being presented as some sort of objective set of rules, are entirely subjective in nature. For example, another logical fallacy is often referred to as “moving the goalposts”, usually described as “changing the level of proof demanded when your opponent has already successfully proved your original point.” When you lay it out like that it seems obvious, but the actual question of whether or not the original point was proven is entirely subjective to one side of the debate. It is certainly sometimes possible for two sides of the discussion to agree that there has been an unfair moving of the goalposts, but if you find yourself proclaiming that you have “won” the argument because another individual has “moved the goalposts”, consider whether or not you’ve really convinced anyone of anything, or if you’re in fact just smugly patting yourself on the back for a job well done.
It’s important to avoid the pseudo-intellectual obsession of using logical fallacies as the conclusion of an argument. It is far more productive for a conversation to simply explain the issue explicitly. Rather than shouting “Ad hominem!”, say “I think you are attacking me personally because you can’t address my argument”. Instead of “Slippery slope!”, say “I don’t think those conclusions are reasonable to assume based on your point.”
Nobody hears their opponent shouting a Latin phrase like a hotshot TV lawyer and immediately resigns to having failed in their argument. So while it’s a great idea to avoid logical fallacies yourself, this includes — rather paradoxically — the “Logical Fallacy” fallacy, of believing that someones failure to adhere to your set of rules makes them fundamentally incorrect.
