7 logical fallacies that help you spot an unfounded argument in a discussion

If you browse social media, tune into the news, or simply bring up a hot topic with an acquaintance, chances are that within minutes you’ll find yourself in a trap. These traps are so old that they date back to ancient Greece.

Called logical fallaciesSimply put, a logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that, while having no bearing on the actual merit of a claim, can (very confusingly) make that claim seem more compelling.

Using a logical fallacy does not necessarily mean that someone is wrong. However, it can indicate faulty thinking and logic if used unintentionally, or an attempt to manipulate the truth to make it more persuasive if used deliberately.

Either way, it’s a red flag that should prompt further questions and debate. This includes, crucially, your own way of thinking and the arguments you tend to agree with.

Once you know about logical fallacies, you’ll see them everywhere. Why does it matter? Because the more trained you are at spotting them, the more easily you’ll be able to identify flaws in others’ thinking and refocus the dialogue on what’s important in the discussion. will improve your ability to think critically.

Here are seven fallacies to watch out for. Some are errors in logic (known as “formal” fallacies), while others involve misuse of language and evidence (“informal” fallacies), but the result is always a flawed argument.

This occurs when it is interpreted that the Lack of evidence means that a claim is real, rather than placing the burden of proof on the person making the claim.

It is a fallacy that commonly underlies arguments for conspiracy theories.

Ask one of the estimated 10 million people who believe lizards rule the world about the evidence supporting their claim, for example, and they might respond, “Well, these lizards are too smart to leave evidence behind. That’s what makes this situation so dangerous! How can you be sure it’s not true?”

You may end up scratching your head, but hopefully it won’t be because you’ve been convinced: it’s because you’ve been tricked into the “appeal to ignorance” fallacy.

This is a fallacy in which a statement is rejected on the basis of a aspect of character, identity, motivations or even the relationships a person has with others.

Think of the health professional who is told that they only recommend vaccines because they must be a shill for Big Pharma, or the research of climate scientists that is dismissed on the grounds that they must be ideologically motivated.

The most obvious (and absurd) type of ad hominemhowever, is one that not only attacks a person rather than addressing their argument, but goes after something completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, such as a political candidate in a televised debate saying that his opponent’s clothing choice, golfing prowess, or hairstyle means he can’t possibly be a good leader.

This is the argument that taking a step or implementing a measure will inevitably lead to increasingly drastic measureslike an object sliding down a slippery slope.

It is particularly common in the policy debates. Think about the argument that some opponents of same-sex marriage have made against its legalization in places like the United States or Europe.

In 2016, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles found that many people who were against the policy were persuaded by the argument that it would lead to greater sexual promiscuity throughout society and threaten their very way of life.

This particular argument is fallacious because, rather than debating the policy change itself (whether same-sex marriage should be legalized), the policy was scrapped out of fear of the intended outcome (the collapse of traditional society).

I see this all the time, especially on social media. It’s when the other side’s argument is twisted to make it seem more ridiculous and therefore easier to defeat.

Consider someone who makes a nuanced argument that excessive sugar consumption can increase the risk of health problems such as heart disease.

One response using this fallacy would be, “Oh, so what? Sugar is killing everyone and should be banned? That’s absurd!”

This distorts the original argumentmaking it easier to defeat. One way to fight this fallacy, as well as to sharpen your own thinking, is to try the so-called “man of steel” method: present your opponent’s argument in the best possible light (perhaps even better than he can) before stating why you disagree.

This pernicious argument holds that the credentials, fame or reputation someone’s words alone prove that he must be right.

If people perceive someone as an authority, they have an innate cognitive bias that makes them assume they have expertise in all things (even topics they have no expertise in).

Like many logical fallacies, it seems like it could or should be relevant: if someone has credentials and experience in a certain area, shouldn’t their opinion on that area be more trustworthy?

To be clear, it should be. What makes this a fallacy is when someone accepts an argument solely because of who the person is, rather than because of the evidence or reasoning of the argument.

Even more problematic is the version known as “appeal to an irrelevant authority.” Our tendency to believe something because, say, a celebrity says so, even if they have no expertise on the topic at hand — a classic tendency in today’s influencer-obsessed world.

But “irrelevant authorities” are not always so obvious. Take arguments about climate change, for example, when skeptics cite someone like a theoretical physicist as an expert, even though theoretical physics usually has very little to do with climate science.

Submit a complex scenario as if there were only two optionsoften opposite, rather than multiple options.

Think of that famous line used by President George W. Bush shortly after 9/11: “You are either with us or against us”This meant that the international community had only two options: to fully support the United States, even in its invasion of Afghanistan, or to consider itself an enemy.

In reality, of course, there was a spectrum of other options nations could take, and types of allies (or enemies) they could be.

Sometimes considered a kind of red herring (a logical fallacy that uses unrelated information to divert attention from flaws in the argument), the whataboutism (a word taken from English what about:and what about…) is intended to distract attention.

Describes when, usually in response to an accusation or question, someone responds with their own accusation.

In an argument with a partner, for example, you might say, “You hurt my feelings when you did that.” A positive response whataboutism It could be “Well, you never take out the trash!”

In politics, one of the most infamous examples is when Russia is accused of human rights violations and its leaders respond: “Well, what about the West?”

While this fallacy may serve to illustrate hypocrisy, it deviates from the original argument. Two wrongs do not make something right, but one wrong does. whataboutism can make it seem like it is.

Understanding and spotting logical fallacies like this can be a really useful way to think critically about what you read or see, and to keep conversations on track.

However, as we started this note talking about nuances, let us underline: If someone uses a logical fallacy, it does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is incorrect. That, in fact, would be another fallacy, and perhaps my favorite of all: the argument ad logicam or argument from logic fallacy.

And remember that you can receive notifications in our app. Download the latest version and activate them.