AH finally the moment I’ve been waiting for: Logical Fallacies! Truly they are a fun game - Spot the Fallacies - when you start to get the hang of recognizing them. We‘re starting a scattered series of illustrating them - literally - and I would LOVE to receive feedback from folks as they start to catch them in conversations, on television (guaranteed you will hear them on news media, talk shows, and anything political) or if you see a meme or cartoon or advertisement that has one. Share them with the rest of us!
Logical fallacies can be frustrating, but most of the time they are cringe-funny in that eye-roll sort of way. Note: sometimes, even though a statement passes as a logical fallacy, it still may technically be accurate. The lesson would be how to state something more eloquently and precisely. Or it could be a red flag indicating there is something else going on in the statement to which we should pay attention.
Also realize that we ALL use fallacies frequently - usually in unconscious, casual ways that simply arise out of our personal biases and are not intended to harm or nefariously mislead someone. They are habitual rhetorical tactics used when trying to be persuasive. Formal debaters use them constantly and pray the opponent doesn’t call them on it. Are they trying to lie? Not necessarily, but they are trying to come out on top and will use them as a slippery means to an end.
FALLACIES IN DEBATE
I was just watching a debate on whether or not God is the source of morality, between apologist and Biblical scholar William Lane Craig and pop-neo-atheist Sam Harris. Craig was arguing that we cannot have morality without God being the one who sets the moral code in the first place, and Sam Harris - rather than trying to provide an explanation from his standpoint - simply started slandering and making fun of God. He came up with the typical laundry list of perceived atrocities in the Bible and all the evil in the world and how God is vindictive, cruel and dispassionate etc.
Harris was compelling and got some claps from the audience, moved by his punchy statements. But when Craig’s turn came back around, he immediately pointed out that the fallacy Harris had used was the “red herring”, meaning that Harris was metaphorically using a stinky fish to mislead the bloodhounds down the wrong trail, rather than the true scent of the target they were supposed to be hunting. Harris was off the beaten path of the topic of debate, trying to lure the audience - and perhaps even Craig - down that trail with him; even if God were those negative attributes, he was not refuting morality’s origin. This was done for multiple reasons:
To detract form Craig’s argument/defame Craig.
An inability to provide an optimal counterpoint.
To make Christianity look foolish because of his personal bias.
The more we get used to spotting fallacies, the more we will realize where our own speech is exaggerated and we will naturally become more integral with our words, which I believe is what a Christian should strive for when communicating. But hey, if you’re having a playful debate at a dinner party and want to see if you can be the most persuasive dude in the room, try one out and see what happens. You may notice just how easy it is to manipulate perception, and humbly realize just how gullible you yourself must likewise be in other situations.
Right off the bat we are unconsciously suspicious of this guy and judging his ability to call out criminality when he himself was a criminal; poisoning the well of his message by pointing out his past mistakes that have nothing to do with his present statement; guilt by hypocrisy.
AD HOMINEM: Appeal to Ridicule (“Cuz HAHA!”)
Possibly the most foundational and common fallacy is the ad hominem attack, which means “at/against/of the man.” It shows up in a number of different forms. If you look back to our post on the Hierarchy of Argument, you’ll notice that ridicule is the lowest level of the pyramid. It is pointing to the deliverer of the message rather than addressing the message itself. The reasons for it are pretty much identical to the reasons Harris used his red herring: if you cannot discredit the main point itself, it’s much easier to discredit the one who is delivering it, which will in turn make the point look bad via another fallacy, guilt by association. It will appear as if you’ve attacked the point, but it’s a slight-of-hand.
Harris actually did use a form of ad hominem appeal to ridicule during the debate by calling anyone who puts their faith in such a retributional, capricious God “psychopathic.” Craig called him out on this one too, saying it was unnecessary to resort to name calling.
Ad hominem is also good for getting the audience to laugh, which lightens the mood and gets them to perceive you as a sort of chum; everyone likes the jester, and there’s nothing more chummy than having a common enemy. In improv comedy, which I did during college, this was known as the “cheap shot” - gaining laughter/popularity from the audience at the expense of someone else on stage; it was to be avoided at all times (it was not 😑).
This one is clever: they are simply putting the Unabomber’s photo next to a statement so that you unconsciously associate a crazy person with an idea they think is crazy. Since there’s really no context for it and it appears random (are we supposed to assume the Unabomber is a climate activist?), it could also be called another fallacy: a non-sequitur - B does not logically follow A.
AD HOMINEM: Poisoning The Well
Another form of Ad hominem is called “poisoning the well.” If the water in the well is the message, you make it non-consumable by making the deliverer appear toxic; anything that can be drawn from that person/well must be unhealthy. Here’s a cute example from the Bible: If Nazareth is a town with a poor reputation, why would we bother to listen to someone from there?
Poisoning the well of “God is Love” by pointing out examples through which we are supposed to see how Christians, in the name of God, have done unloving acts. Good luck, Pastor Bill!
There are so many examples of ad hominem attacks in political debates, tweets, MSM reports, op ed pieces, and middle school bus rides. Have any been used against you? What’s one you heard recently on social media? How is this used to slander Christianity? I would love to see/hear your examples.
Even if it’s true that she can’t satisfy her husband, that doesn’t necessarily mean she can’t “satisfy” America. This is poisoning the well of Hillary’s potential leadership ability, and is also an example of another fallacy, false equivocation: maybe she can’t satisfy a nation, but not satisfying her husband has nothing to do with it per say.