I have a reason for sharing this somewhat troublesome self discovery, of course. Coinciding with my “adult” efforts to curtail my judgmental personality—and therefore be a more peaceful and likable person—is a growing desire to see situations from as many perspectives as possible. While this often results in seeking a highly objective perspective (which really sounds too oxymoronic to be used accurately), it also leads to playing the part of the Devil's advocate from time to time. I like to think that what was once a knee-jerk reaction to what I found to be unpleasant behavioral characteristics has become a permanent, empathetic sociological and/or psychological study. (Side note: I find it's harder to hate people when you can see their perspective, no matter how you may disagree with their behavior; that is a very freeing state of mind, I must say.) None of this is to say that I don't fall back into my old judgments, of course. I am a human being with much to learn and experience, after all.
I have, however, noticed a great deal about human behavior.
That having been said, I'd like to talk for a moment about the kind of thinking that I've witnessed in the last year or so of activism and really paying attention to the world around me. This will come in sections as a series of updates to this first post, as it turns out I have a lot more to say than I had originally thought (now that I've started writing and am returning to this paragraph some time later to make this addendum.)
I'd like to preface this post with the following: I make these blog posts to share my thoughts, in the hopes that it will serve others in some way. I know that I “use my words well,” and that my obsessive desire to express myself as clearly as possible may in fact help clarify some things for some people who find themselves perplexed by or perhaps even unaware of some of the behaviors around them. Perhaps readers will learn something about themselves. It's certainly been an enlightening experience for me. Understanding how and why we behave the way we do is often more important than just the behavior itself. I sometimes think about this not because I want to point out people's mistakes, but because I want to be helpful. I understand perfectly well that can be hard to believe, and I also understand just why that is. Knowing that, however, won't stop me from trying.
The subject of this “discussion” is the common use of logical fallacies to form arguments or even whole philosophies. I could spend days dredging up every single flawed argument I've heard in just the last few months, so I'll likely stick with those which have stood at the most and therefore come to mind most readily. I'd also like to add that I don't actually partake in these arguments very often. I really dislike confrontation. That isn't to say I'm particularly afraid of being wrong (though no one likes that feeling.) Rather, the confrontation itself makes me extremely anxious, as though I'm at the risk of being physically attacked at any given moment. I'd need a whole other blog post (or two) to explain from where my general anxiety stems. I'm pretty familiar with it (thanks a lot, Childhood Repercussions.)
- The Slippery Slope Argument, in which one asserts that allowing one thing to happen will inevitably and unavoidably lead to another, previously unforeseen result, and therefore that first thing must not be allowed. This is both fully self explainable and worthy of an entire blog post in and of itself. Simply put, the use of this fallacy requires one to draw a number of assumptions—assumptions which I have found to be based more out of personal fear than any real fact. Now that their fears are apparently right at the back door, that fear rules the rest of the conversation. There can be no focus on how far from reality their argument has been taken. The only focus, now, is the supposedly imminent danger brought about by the idea in the first place. The most obvious example of this fallacy at work is within the gay marriage debate. A broadened definition of the concept of “marriage” clearly leads to bestiality and, eventually, legal marriage between species. This must be true, despite the fact that those two fears have nothing to do with the matter at hand: the fact that two consenting human adult homosexuals want to have the same legal and social rights as consenting human adult heterosexuals. The leap to bestiality has absolutely no basis in the reality of the original argument, but that Slippery Slope argument consistently stops progress on the discussion as though it actually means anything.
Not to mention the fact that this argument assumes that every possible idea/demand that every member of the public could ever possible conjure up must immediately be accepted by the law, and that there's no possible way such a legislative decision might be avoided do to its complete illegitimacy. - The Strawman Argument, in which someone's argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack them. I see this constantly. Common examples include the belief that wanting universal healthcare for all makes you an democracy-hating communist/socialist; the belief that women who speak out against misogyny are men-hating feminists (helping to create the resultant belief that “feminism” has a direct correlation with “hating men,” and thereby producing the “straw-feminist”); and the belief that those who speak out against the present plutocratic state of America (protesting the abuse of resources and privileges made by the wealthy both in terms of economic and government affairs) are either too lazy/unmotivated to work hard enough to earn true (i.e. monetary) success, or hate capitalism and money and therefore probably America (or all of these things, simultaneously.)
At the same time, I also have seen—and have personally participated in—the reverse of that last fallacious argument. It's so easy to assume everyone who speaks out against public spending, true religious freedom, or sacrificing personal luxuries for the sake of making the world a better place (e.g. reducing/eliminating pollution, reducing material waste, preserving our resources, protecting other species, respecting other species, etc) feels that way for purely selfish, possibly even vindictive reasons, and that they are therefore bad, heartless people. It's easy to pigeonhole them into an inaccurate caricature and hate them.
But if we consider the perspective of the person trying to help free the world from powerful corporations, of the person trying to awaken the public to sexism in what is its most popular and institutionalized form at the present, and of the person trying to encourage more effort be exerted by everyone in order to be less of a constant cancer on the Earth (rather than instantly writing them off and assuming they have no idea what they're talking about or specifically want to hurt you), then we may just be able to fix some of our problems. After all, things have only continued to get worse with our current way of doing things. Trying something else, *gasp!* may actually be a pretty good idea.
Meanwhile, activists can't fall back on hating those who don't believe them. I've spoken extensively on the need to forgive and empathize, and to consider the preceding lifetime of every individual presently participating in these global conversations. Everyone feels the way they do for a reason. When we take the time to understand those reasons, we can then avoid boiling a whole person with a whole history which has made him who he is today, down into a simplified and hopeless strawman—and nothing more. - The Tu Quoque Argument (Latin for "You, also"), in which Person A avoids facing criticism provided by Person B by pointing out how Person B has made the same mistake(s) in the past. An appeal to hypocrisy should not be allowed to derail a conversation. Just because both (or all) parties have fallen into behaviors against which they are presently speaking out, that does not make those behaviors any less acceptable. Equal guilt doesn't negate the act itself. I saw an example of this very early on in the Occupy movement, when onlookers, news anchors, pundits, and internet comments appeared to take great joy in pointing out that so many of the folks protesting corporate greed and blind consumerism were utilizing the tools purchased in that same corporate environment.
Separately, there are actually three things wrong with that, however. The most obvious issue is the Tu Quoque Fallacy at work, which I have already explained. Another issue is the assumption that buying goods is itself a hypocritical act in that particular situation (which in a way is the Strawman Fallacy at work again, simplifying the demands and rallies of the masses to a simple “owning stuff and having money is bad!”) A third issue is the assumption that it is a) viable to avoid all of these products by also assuming there are comparable alternatives, and also b) hypocritical to use the devices of the “machine” in order to “get back at it.” In a world where instantly worldwide digital communication is often a person's only security against irreparable police brutality and “cover-ups,” there are literally no other options but to use these tools. - The Black-or-White Argument, in which someone creates and/or defends the illusion that there are only two possible solutions (or sides) to a given problem. Sometimes this is used to increase his/her chances of successfully “winning” the debate. It misleads those trying to partake, and suppresses what might otherwise have been a rational appeal to other circumstances, perspectives, variables, etc. Sometimes it's interesting to see how eager people are to limit themselves in this way, particularly when the only two sides/solutions they can see fail to serve them in any way. For many, there are only two options: Materialism of religion (which for some boils down to Science or Not Science); economic success or a failed life; Capitalism or Dictatorship (as communism and socialism are often perceived as forms of absolute control, and therefore little more than a “group dictatorship.”)
It doesn't occur to us to consider that maybe something that doesn't presently fit most obviously with our individual view of science can in fact be “scientific.” It doesn't occur to us that there may still be things beyond our current comprehension, or at the very least, outside of our current pool of ideas. It doesn't occur to us that we can be more happy with less, if we value quality over quantity. It doesn't occur to us that money is still just a tool, and therefore we control it, and therefore we can do whatever we want to with it, and so are not limited to just the (failed) attempts at a long term, stable economy thus far attempted by mankind. We limit ourselves, and harm ourselves in so doing. - The Anecdotal Argument, which I have discussed at length in a previous post, recently reposted here: Personal Anecdotes Often Do Not Negate an Argument.
I'd like to add, here, that I have another example for the Anecdotal Argument that I did not mention in that blog post, and that is the assumption that because someone has not personally experienced something, it is therefore impossible. I was involved with (but mostly witnessed) a discussion within a group regarding bringing barter and trade systems back into local communities, rather than relying entirely on currencies. An individual assumed that because he personally could not recall a time in which people were satisfied with a good deed without monetary repayment (which he later realized was entirely untrue), he assumed therefore that deeds would only be done if money was promised in return, regardless of the necessity of the deed. This ignored the fact that with all of the people, labor, and resources available to a community, and with all needs met, there's little reason that a well structured community of empathetic individuals would be unable to function effectively and assist those in need. People assume that it's money that drives all good deeds, not merely because it's the right thing to do and they are more than capable of doing it. - The Bandwagon Argument, in which it is assumed that popularity makes something true, as though an idea's popularity automatically makes that argument more valid. (It is at times very similar to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, as we will notice.) I see this most recently in the form of quotes from famous political, social, and religious figures/texts. This is not to say that using a quote or reference from a reputable source is wrong. It also doesn't mean that it's wrong to share ideas or sources of inspiration via quotes. Not at all. When we have looked long and hard at an issue and find that a quote from a related, reputable source happens to speak this idea very well, that quote can be a very useful tool. However, simply relying on these quotes to decide an entire ideology, make whole decisions, or sway masses of people is not at all an intelligent way to solve problems or sculpt ones own philosophies. Just because someone says something well doesn't mean what they said was accurate, and it doesn't even mean that their words apply to the situation at hand. It seems to me that we rely on such quotes too often, rather than having meaningful discussions.
I'd like to stress one last time that there is nothing wrong with using quotes. Sometimes someone else says something we feel/think very poignantly, after all, and sharing a quote from a respectable source can really help make people think twice about the validity of their stance. People must always think for themselves, however. Quotes do not “win” an argument. - The Special Pleading Argument, in which the rules/guideposts of someone's argument constantly change in order to work around and therefore avoid any proof that is placed in the way of their reasoning. (At times similar to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.) I see this put into play all the time. While everyone uses fallacious thinking at some point in their lives, the Special Pleading fallacy is one which I would assume is particularly common for us. After all, we hate to be wrong.
The most obvious and immediate example I have for this involves arguments in which religion is used as a “reason” for someone's decisions and/or morals. It's actually a comical use of the fallacy, as the bible and other Christian works are so inclusively and exclusively contradictory that someone could go 'round and 'round a subject forever using excerpts to “prove” how something is right or wrong. Jesus said to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek, and not to condemn others to hell. That is what is expected of others when dealing with the speaker. But when it's time for the speaker to offer the same thoughtful self control, then it's time for “the bible says homosexuality is a sin,” or “it's my duty as a Christian to try to convert nonbelievers or inform sinners,” or “God says to destroy my non-christian neighbor, take his wife, and murder his children and livestock.” (Actually that last one isn't very popular, and I find that hilarious.)
There are so many more fallacies to discuss, but this has taken forever to write already and the ones listed above are the most obvious to me at the moment. I encourage everyone to take a look at this list of logical fallacies and to consider the ways in which you or people around you have relied on them in the past. (For an even longer list, check out this link.)Take care not to assume everything is a fallacy, of course. The goal is to learn, not to flay ourselves or others.
"Honorary mention" goes to the Argumentum ad Logicam, or "The Fallacy" Fallacy, in which one assumes that because a fallacy has been made, the entire argument is incorrect. (This is similar both to the Tu Quoque [above] and False Analogy fallacies [in which someone uses an analogy as proof of something, rather than as an illustration of something.]) I see this utilized most commonly when someone is searching for a reason to no longer have to absorb information which goes against the grain of his/her own beliefs, and so uses a person's bad choice of words or bad argument as a reason to ignore the truth.
I find it to be closely linked to a fallacious appeal to intelligence, in which a speaker might say "obviously this is the case," or "anyone can see that such-and-such is true." In making such a statement, the speaker urges listeners to assume intelligent people would have "gotten it," and because they may have thought otherwise, they must not be intelligent enough to "get it." This one is extremely common.
But please, don't abuse what you think you know about fallacies in order to stop listening to others, and don't judge yourself too harshly. It's all a learning process.
