Logical Arguments - A Primer
How To Disagree Peaceably
by Amy Wareham
Note: This Article originated as part of a discussion on the List Serve (our Social Group). I thought that it was so informative in helping us to understand when we're dealing with people who would argue with us about being gay that I asked if I could post it. If we understand the type of argument our dissenter is using, it gives us better control over our responses.
Debate is good because anything that is not challenged has a high probability of being wrong. However, when people challenge ideas, they need to be careful not to challenge each other instead of the idea. Being dogmatic on an issue, in this case, drives people apart usually because the person who is dogmatic comes to the table with very little proof of their conclusion because they have often learned their beliefs from others.
I am taking a logic class and it has helped me a lot to understand what a true debate is. A debate should not be an emotional event. If a debate becomes too emotional, then it is no longer fun for its participants and it usually becomes a very hostile environment. Also, if a person is 100% dogmatic on their position, then they are really not open to hear from people who believe something else, so there is really no point in a debate.
Here is a list of some of the fallacies that can be committed:
A fallacy is a error in reasoning. It doesn't mean necessarily that the arguer is wrong, simply that there is not conclusive evidence of what they are arguing.
Arguments from Ignorance - this is an argument that the person claims to be truth just because no one has proved that it is false, or it can be an argument that the person claims is false because no one has proved it to be true. A classic example would be the belief that the earth is flat. This was believed very dogmatically in the history of Europe simply because no one has gone beyond the so-called edge of the world.
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority - this is when a person's opinion is stated as a fact even though that person has no actual authority in the matter. A good example of this would be as follows:
- Person A saw Amy holding her girlfriend's hand.
- Person A thinks that being gay is a sin.
- Therefore, Amy is a sinner.
We know that this logic is flawed because Person A is probably straight and has never done enough study to be an authority on anything relating to being gay, but they have just accepted what they have been told. Person A is also not an authority on Amy's life so Person A is not an actual authority in this situation.
Argument Ad Hominem - this is actually an argument against the other arguer. It is an attack on the person and not on the idea. This requires two arguers and here's an example:
- Amy: Jesus Christ is Lord.
- Person A: Amy is gay. Therefore Amy is a sinner. So whatever she says
cannot be true.
You see this a lot in political debates. It becomes about the person and not about their ideas. We all know that any person has probably done something in their past that they are ashamed of, and this has no real bearing on who they are today other than the fact that they know better than to do the same stupid thing again.
Appeal to Emotion - this is an argument that tries to create some kind of emotion to prove its point rather than to actually present evidence.
Here's an example:
- Christianity provides a person with inner peace.
- Therefore, everyone should become a Christian.
A person should not become a Christian just because they are looking for peace because any of us who have been Christians long enough know that there are times that are far from peaceful.
Here's another example:
- Terrorists from Afghanistan attacked us on Sept. 11th.
- There are also terrorists in Iraq.
- Everyone knows that terrorists should be stopped.
- Therefore, we should go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.
This logic was actually used to some extent to justify our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Appeal to Pity - this is an argument where the arguer tries to get people to side with them out of pity, not out of actual reason.
An example would be:
- Person A killed both his parents.
- Person A should not be punished because now he is an orphan.
This is kind of ridiculous example, but I'm sure you get the idea.
Appeal to Force - this is when a threat is made to a person if they don't believe the other person's argument.
Example:
- If you want to live, you must give Person A all of your money.
- Therefore, you should give person A all of your money.
Irrelevant Conclusion - this is when the conclusion has nothing to do with the argument.
Example:
- Figure 1 has 4 equal sides and 4 equal angles.
- Therefore, figure 1 is a triangle.
The first part of this argument should tell you that figure 1 is a square, yet there is a conclusion drawn out of thin air that says that it is a triangle. This is not the best example, but I couldn't think of a really good one off hand.
Red Herring (changing the subject) - this when an arguer changes the subject of the argument.
Example:
- Wife: You don't help me enough around the house.
- Husband: I do plenty around the house. I take out the trash and
put the clean dishes away.
This is an example of a red herring fallacy because the wife is asserting that her husband doesn't help her enough, and the husband changes the subject by talking about all the things that he does do when his wife's issue is that what he does do is not enough.
Straw Man - this is when a person distorts the argument of another and then attacks it.
Example:
- Original argument: There are many people without health insurance
in the US. Therefore, we should have universal healthcare so people
can get the care they need.
- Distortion - If we get universal healthcare in the US, the government
will have to pay for every little cosmetic surgery that people want
and taxes will be really expensive and so instead of some not being
able to afford healthcare no one will be able to afford their taxes.
So we should not get universal healthcare in the US.
Those of you in Canada know that universal healthcare actually does work, but this is one of the fallacious arguments that's been going around in the US.
Slippery Slope - this is when someone makes a argument that a chain of events will happen when there is no sufficient evidence to believe that this chain of events will actually happen.
Example:
- If we let gay people get married, then the marriage of straight people
won't mean anything.
- If straight marriages don't mean anything, then the very fabric of family
that holds the US together will fall apart.
- If the family falls apart, then it will be the end of the US.
This is actually an argument that people use against gay marriage and, again, as our friends in Canada know, allowing gay marriage does not lead to the end of a country.
Complex Question - this is when a question is asked that actually implies more than one question but a single answer is applied to both questions.
Example:
- Have you stopped cheating on exams?
If you say no, then it implies that you were cheating on exams before and you will continue to do so. If you say yes, then it implies that you were cheating on exams before, but you are not going to do that anymore.
False Cause - this is when two things are linked together just because of the order in which they occur.
Example:
- My favorite team wins the games when I wear my special blue underwear.
- Therefore, if I want my team to win, I must wear my special blue underwear.
Begging the Question - this is circular reasoning.
Example:
- Fossil A is 1,000,000 years old because it was found in the layer of rock
that is 1,000,000 years old.
- The layer of rock is 1,000,000 years old because there are fossils in it
that are 1,000,000 years old.
The age of fossil A is said to be proved because of the age of the rock and the age of the rock is said to be proved by the age of the fossils found in it.
This is actually the way that evolutionists justify their idea that the world is millions of years old.
Fallacy of Accident - this is when a general rule is applied to a specific case that it was not intended to apply to.
Example:
- Whoever thrusts a knife into another person should be arrested.
- Surgeons thrust knives into other people.
- Therefore, surgeons should be arrested.
Converse Accident - this is when what is true in some case is said to be true of a great many cases.
Example:
- In the US, we drive on the right side of the road.
- Therefore, everyone drives on the right side of the road.
Equivocation - this is when a term is used that has two different meanings.
Example:
- All factories are plants.
- All plants are things the contain chlorophyll.
- Therefore, all factories contain chlorophyll.
The meaning of the word "plants" is confusing because it can mean two different things and, as you can see, it is used to invalidate the argument.
Amphiboly - this is when there is a statement or phrase that, due to a structural defect, can be interpreted two different ways.
Example:
- He only runs at night.
- Therefore, he walks during the day.
There is nothing that guarantees that he walks during the day. Does this only apply to him running, or to nighttime being the only time that he runs? Does it imply that he ever walks? Maybe he doesn't move until nighttime. There is no guarantee of anything except for the fact that he runs at night.
Composition - this is when something that is true of one part of a group is said to be true of the whole group.
Example:
- Christian A is a Catholic.
- Therefore, all Christians are Catholics.
Division - this is when something that is true of a group of people is said to be true of each of the group's members.
Example:
- The LA Lakers are a good basketball team.
- Therefore, every player on the Lakers is a good player.
This might be true, but it is not guaranteed. The Lakers might be a good basketball team because of a few good players.
Another good example would be a group project. Just because a group presents a good project does not mean that all its members participated in the quality of the project. In all the group projects I've done, there has been at least one person who really doesn't do much at all.
Summary
So these are the main fallacies that can be committed in an argument. I think if people avoid these fallacies, that arguments will be a lot more civil, and maybe we can all learn to disagree peaceably.
Some things can't be argued completely logically because there are a lot of things that cannot be completely proved, but we can still avoid things like attacking the other person.
|
