Logical Fallacies

Have you ever, after hearing one's argument in a conversation or reading a comment on social media, and think, "Hmmm....I can't identify exactly where, but it just doesn't feel right?" If you do, it is very likely that you've encountered a logical fallacy. Before understanding logical fallacies, we must grasp first what logic means and why we need it. Being logical means that you are able to assess and identify the validity of a set of information, and then draw a conclusion from it. Consider the example below:

1. People who are good at time-managing arrive on-time for work (major premise)

2. Alfred always arrive on-time for work (minor premise)

3. Therefore, Alfred is good at time-managing (conclusion)

Obviously, we can't conclude about one's time-managing ability solely depending on one piece of information. However, this example demonstrates the steps of logical thinking:

(Step 1 & 2) Make a major and minor statement/premise

(Step 3) Draw a conclusion from your premises.

It is important to note that what we experience as reality is not only base on logic and reasoning, but also on empirical, emotional and creative levels. Therefore, We should nevertheless NOT undermine any of these components as we evaluate our experiences. However, we must also acknowledge that biologically, our brain is often hardwired to favor shortcuts over mass examinations, and emotion-appealing stimuli over reason-appealing ones. This can significantly sabotage us, if not regulated properly. Why, then, does our emotional brain responses more intensively than our logical brain? This is due to the fact that we haven't (or we can't at all) reach the state where humanism can override our basic drives instantaneously. Human have only reached behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago, and human civilization has only lasted for around 6,000 years. This means that certain automatic responses and survival instincts is still deeply wired in our brain. Consequently, even though technology has speeded-up the transformation of our surroundings, the way our brain responses to certain stimuli, such as our fear toward an unknown event, remains the same . We know that public speaking, for instance, wouldn't murder us like a lion we encounter back in the wild would, but we still need to invest many practices to overcome stage fright, an example of "fight or flight" mode produced by our brain. Being well-aware of this mechanism, advertisements, marketing strategies, the media, and politicians tend to incorporate stimuli that direct our perceptions and behaviors to what works in their favors. The more we depend on these "shortcuts", the more we allow ourselves to be susceptible to these distractions and manipulations.

Logic and reasoning help us to arrange the relationships between pieces of information into a well-organized blueprint that serves as a fundamental guidance for thinking. This ultimately deliver us from the chaos and conflicts caused by ignorance and uncertainties.The more we open ourselves to these evidences, the more we can direct our vision toward the truthfulness of an event, and the more we know how to regulate our behaviors in correspondence. The less we think for ourselves, the more we allow others, who probably don't know what's more suitable for you than you do, to take-over. Understanding logical fallacies, as a result, helps you identify the "bugs"in our thinking patterns, and how we can intercept them when we are formulating our thoughts, arguments, and decisions. There is a great number of logical fallacies. Below are several commonly-seen ones.

---

(1) Fallacy of Composition

Racism is perhaps the most straightforward example of this fallacy. Fallacy of composition refers to making a hasty generalization of a component's characteristics to the whole that encompass it; therefore, it is also known as the part-to-whole fallacy. In other words, we assume that A possess the same qualities as B merely because A is part of B. Consider the following examples:

"I once met a Christian lady who attacked the LGBTQ community. Therefore, all Christian people must have prejudices against the LGBTQ community"

"My African American friends from high school are all in the varsity basketball team. Therefore, African Americans must be generally great athletes!"

"This dish tastes horrible. I bet that everything else on the menu would be disgusting. After all, they are all made by the same restaurant!"

The fallacy of composition is an example of the "shortcuts" that our brain loves to make. It is the automatic retaining of memories about incidents that are meaningful to us. Forming these circuits allow us to quickly recognize similar condition and apply our experiences. This generates a shorter reaction time which benefits us in terms of solving similar incidents. However, one (or several) incident only reflects a small degree of truth regarding the nature of the subject; there is a very high chance that the characteristics it displays are due to randomness and chances. Without examining enough sample scenarios, we can't know whether the event(s) we encounter is representative of the big picture.

(2) Fallacy of Division

Also referred to as the whole-to-part fallacy, we can simply interpret this concept as the opposite of the fallacy of composition. This fallacy assumes that "the whole is the same as its parts." In other words, our understanding/premise toward the whole (A) arrives first; then, we make the assumption that the part (B), included in A, must possess the same qualities. Consider the following examples:

"Stanford (A) is a prestigious university. Therefore, any graduate (B) must be an excellent thinker!"

"New York is a prosperous city (A). Julian (B) comes from New York. Therefore, he must has a high quality of lifestyle.

"Apple (A) is a leading technology company. That's how I know that this product (B) must have the most innovative qualities."

Again, equating the qualities of two subjects merely because one comprises another is often how prejudices arise. This is one reason that makes brand image so powerful. The conventional impressions are often propagated repeatedly to hypnotize us. Consequently, we feel less need to assess the actual qualities of the product because the "image" seems already provided a high degree of guarantee. The whole and its parts would nevertheless have some similar ingredients. However, it is up to us to decide which ones are realistic enough for us to take into account.

(3) Bifurcation

This is also known as the black-and-white fallacy, whose name clearly indicates how it is presented. This fallacy reduces an argument down to two choices, aiming to persuade the listeners with the "either X or Y" assumption. The ultimate goal of the arguer is usually to push his audience to make a quick decision or to categorize a subject into a specific group. Consider the examples below:

"You are either with us or against us!"

"You are not a Republican? You must be a Democrat, then."

"Here we offer a 20% off deal that you can't find anywhere else. If you don't want to pay an original price, don't miss out your chance here!"'

It is impossible for an event to have only two (or a few) outcomes. However, the less options are presented in front of us, the easier and the quicker our brain is able to process and distinguish between the given choices. Consequently, politicians and sales people love to enclose your thinking in a zone where you think you have no other options but to take one side out of two. The trick is to always think outside the box, to always assume and to look for alternative possibilities other than those that people feed you with.

(4) Weak Analogy

In this fallacy, the arguer aims to better communicate a subject by comparing it with something that he regards as "similar", often using the word "like" or "as." However, either this comparison is too vague, or the two subjects chosen for comparison don't possess enough similarities for this analogy to be established. Consider the following examples:　

"Worshiping the bible is like believing in a fantasy novel."

"Camila Cambello is like a Cuban version of Ariana Grande."

"Expecting to find a job without a college degree is like going fishing without the bait."

Analogy is sometimes a great method to provide clarity for the audience. However, when an easier-understood subject is provided, our attention tends to focus on the similarities between the original subject that it's compared to, and we draw an equation with disregards about other characteristics. The reason is that we tend to look for familiar pattern when we are exploring a new concept. Consequently, we tend to accept the easier-understood example as an anchor that paints a rough picture for our understanding. However, bear in mind that, as we allow ourselves to be pulled by the gravity of familiarity, we often fail to examine whether the two concepts compared possess enough similarities to be put together. Try to analyze each concept independently, and think about whether the picture that the arguer seeks to paint is objective or not.

(5) Straw Argument

Straw argument /straw man argument is perhaps one of the most commonly made fallacies, both intentionally and unintentionally. It refers to misrepresenting a belief, value, or position, often aiming to make an argument more persuasive. Consider the following examples:

"How could we possibly support the LGBTQ community when they are advocating for generalizing sexual activities to animals?"

"The reason that I don't believe in Christianity is because they condemn anyone who believes in other religion to hell."

Just as how a scarecrow is used as a fake figure to drive the birds away, the straw argument serves as a decoy of emotional triggers. Politicians, for example, often seek to paint pictures of their opponents that seem hateful, fearful, and provocative. Once we accept those impressions, it becomes very unlikely for us to listen to the other sides of the story. We become blinded and easily-manipulated. Hence, when somebody introduces of refutes another's belief, value, or position, especially when it involves languages that appeal to our emotions, it is always a good idea to conduct your own research before accepting that argument.

(6) Appeal to Tradition

This fallacy is often associated with a specific value or norm of a group of people. This group can be as large as a culture or a society, or as small as a company or even a family. Appeal to tradition refers to assuming something is true or reasonable merely because "that's the way it's always been done in the past." Consider the following examples:

"Our family has always maintained a prestigious status in the medical field. Therefore, becoming a doctor is best for you."

"I don't think we should start collecting membership fee because non of the club presidents has ever enforced it in the past."

"In our culture, women are obligated to serve men, so it's perfectly reasonable for me to be the decision-maker in this relationship."

It is often true that traditions contain certain values and meanings that are worth respecting and adapting. However, on the other hand, traditions might also involve contents that aren't suitable to be applied to our current cultural and social contexts, or they just simply don't possess enough evidences to support an argument entirely on its own. We have the habit of believing that "things are passed-down for a reason" but we should also be aware that traditional values can be abused as a token of power or become a comfort zone for avoiding responsibilities.