Arguments, Assertions, and Logical Fallacies.
Whether you’re browsing the internet or sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with the family, it doesn’t take long to realize that people love to argue. Arguments, when used properly, can be very beneficial to our intellectual development. The purpose of a true argument is to persuade. Even more nobly, arguments can be used to discover the truth. Each party involved in an argument should be ready and willing to adopt a new point of view when presented with new evidence.
Unfortunately, most of us are unable or unwilling to divorce emotions from our arguments. And once our emotions become involved, we quickly lose our ability to think rationally and critically. These types of arguments devolve into quarrels, squabbles, bickering, or even fighting, and little can be accomplished. Tempers flare, people get upset or become condescending and insulting, and people only become more entrenched in their original points of view.
So, if we hope to have logical, respectful, and objective arguments, we must first know what that would look like.
A proper argument is a statement that contains two parts: premise(s) and conclusion(s). The premise is offered as evidence for the conclusion and, thus, the validity of the conclusion rests on the validity of the premise. For example:
Birds can fly. Ostriches are birds. Therefore, ostriches can fly.
As we will see, there is an issue with this argument. However, it clearly has both premises and a conclusion. Properly stated arguments can contain words like “therefore” or “thus.” This is an easy way to identify an argument. The conclusion usually follows one of those words.
However, arguments can be a little more complex. For example:
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, during the three decades leading up to 1981 (the Reagan era) — when marginal tax rates were higher on the highest income earners than they were after Reagan — the economy grew faster on average, per year, than it has since the implementation of “trickle-down” economics. Under FDR in 1942 and 1943 — with a marginal tax rate of 94%, the growth rate of the US GDP was 89.93% and 117.22% respectively — the highest at any point since 1933. Higher taxes on higher income earners do not have a negative effect on economic growth.
The argument above contains premises and a conclusion based on that premise. The conclusion of the argument above is that higher marginal tax rates on higher income earners do not have a negative effect on economic growth.
Unfortunately, not all statements that are uttered during the course of a discussion contain premises. Assertions are frequently used in discussions in place of properly formed arguments. An assertion is a conclusion only, with no evidence to support it. History has shown us some excellent examples of assertions and the harm they can cause.
During the Salem witch trials in the late 1600s, assertions were responsible for the death of many, many women who were accused of being witches and sentenced to death, all without evidence. No evidence of witchcraft was ever produced, yet many lives were destroyed by these baseless assertions.
Similarly, during the 1950’s McCarthy era — a more recent and thoroughly embarrassing period in American history — assertions were used to restrict political dissent and silence criticism of the government. Accusations of treason, subversion, and “communist sympathies” were made, yet no evidence was presented. Those who were accused were often fired and/or and frequently became victims of violence in spite of the lack of evidence to support the accusations. Just like in the Salem Witch Trials, the search for “communist sympathizers” was a proverbial witch-hunt.
As we can see from the examples above, assertions can be dangerous when taken seriously. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, assertions that offer no evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Unless evidence is produced, assertions should not be taken seriously.
For example:
Donald Trump recently asserted that President Obama ordered his phones to be tapped during the election. No evidence was offered, and since the claim was made, no evidence has been produced. This is an assertion and yet another witch-hunt.
Part of me wants to believe that the irony of this statement is not lost on our current president. His tweet is a literal example of McCarthyism and he himself says, “This is McCarthyism!” Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. Trump is referring to his own tweet when he says “THIS” is McCarthyism.
Anyways…
Now that we can separate assertions from arguments, how can we determine if an argument is a good one?
- Weak premises produce weak conclusions.
- Facts produce strong premises and strong conclusions.
- Broad generalizations and overly vague claims do not produce strong conclusions.
- Unverifiable statements do not produce strong conclusions.
- Subjective premises are not reliable.
- Errors in reasoning (logical fallacies) produce weak conclusions.
To further determine the validity of an argument, we can also apply our tests of evidence to the premises we encounter.
It important when analyzing and forming arguments to be sure they do not contain errors in reasoning known as “logical fallacies.” A logical fallacy is a common error in reasoning that undermines the logic of the argument and leads to a false or weak conclusion. Logical fallacies can take on a number of different forms:
Hasty Generalization:
The hasty generalization fallacy occurs when a conclusion is formed from a sample that is too small to be representative of the whole. The argument above regarding the airborne ostrich is an example of a hasty generalization. The premise that all birds can fly is a generalization. In fact, not all birds can fly.
Appeal to the Bandwagon:
This fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument relies on the number of people who believe the conclusion. Simply because many people believe something doesn’t mean it is true. We have dealt with examples of this in previous installments regarding widespread beliefs that turned out to be very, very wrong: geocentrism, flat-earth theory, hollow-earth theory, young-earth theory, etc.
This logical fallacy uses the number of people who believe in the conclusion of the argument as proof that the conclusion is true. This is not a valid argument.
Appeal to Tradition:
The Appeal to Tradition is a fallacious argument that essentially says something is correct because it is older, or traditional, or has always been done a certain way. For example, the fact that people have believed in gods for thousands and thousands of years is not evidence for, or proof of, the existence of gods. The Appeal to Tradition may be a testament to the endurance of certain ideas, but of their veracity it says nothing.
Appeal to Fear:
The Appeal to Fear plays on the fear of the audience by forcing them to think of a frightening event that might be a result of their failure to accept the conclusion of the argument. Rather than providing evidence that this event might actually occur, the audience is manipulated with propaganda, rhetoric, threats, or lies. This logical fallacy is particularly rampant in politics: “Politician X will confiscate your guns! Vote for me!”; ”Immigrants will destroy our country if you don’t vote for me!”; “Your wife will be assaulted by a transgendered person in the bathroom if we don’t pass this bill!” Again, these appeals to fear are not valid arguments. They do not provide any evidence that the events will actually take place.
On the other hand, here’s some actual congressional evidence regarding bad bathroom behavior.
Appeal to Ignorance:
This fallacy assumes a conclusion is true simply because there is no evidence that contradicts it. Since scientists don’t fully understand the origins of the universe, many people erroneously believe this lack of understanding is evidence for intelligent design. Lack of evidence for something is not evidence for some other conclusion.
False Dilemma:
The False Dilemma fallacy is an argument that only presents two possible categories and assumes everything must fall into one of those two. Essentially, “You are either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Those clearly aren’t the only two possibilities that exist, but this fallacy is attempting to manipulate people into choosing one or the other.
Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy, or False Analogy Fallacy, is an erroneous comparison of different things that claims they have something in common. For example, William Paley’s famous “Watchmaker Argument” falsely assumes that human beings and pocket watches have something in common and that they must both have been designed intelligently for a purpose. The pocket watch has nothing in common with the anatomy and physiology of a human being and is a very poor analogy that attmepts to prove the existence of an intelligent designer of humans. This is also an invalid argument.
Circular Argument:
This logical fallacy assumes what it is trying to prove. The conclusion of these types of arguments is assumed by the premises. Here is a classic example of the circular argument fallacy: God exists because the Bible is the word of God. This argument uses the Bible to prove that God exists because the Bible says so, because God inspired it. Another frustrating example of a circular argument comes to us from those who refuse to vote for third-party politicians: “I’m not voting for them because they won’t win (because I’m not voting for them).”
These are just a few of the many logical fallacies out there. However, it’s a good place to start when analyzing the arguments we hear in our daily lives. In such a media and message-driven society, it is crucial that we we can identify arguments, assertions, and errors in reasoning. By doing so, we can insure that we are not being swayed by erroneous reasoning or baseless accusations, while at the same time making sure our own arguments are not riddled with weak or false premises, generalizations, subjective statements, or logical fallacies.
We know that people will never stop arguing with each other. If the political landscape is any indication, we have barely scratched the surface when it comes to our capacity for disagreement. However, if more people can learn to engage in proper, civil, logical, and unemotional arguments, perhaps these arguments can be constructive and aid us in reaching deeper understandings and finding truth amidst new evidence, rather than further entrenching ourselves in our own beliefs.
For a more complete list of logical fallacies, visit this page.
