Logical Fallacies

Read time: 2 mins

Despite what most people think, Ancient Greeks were avid perfumers. The streets of Athens were infused with the delicate herbal scents of almonds, coriander, bergamot and conifer, steeped in olive oil over many months and liberally applied to skin and hair.

Compared to modern chemical and alcoholic perfumes, these scents were more natural and herbaceous. The concoctions were often blessed by the ancient Greek gods of women, wisdom, love and hunting, and left in open containers for people to waft and enjoy as they went about their days.

Smelling good was important, but it was only a small part of surviving in Ancient Greece. In a highly social and litigious society, the ability to persuade was essential. And so, a group of teachers soon rose up who were concerned with helping the nobility survive by teaching them the art of rhetoric. They taught philosophy, politics, culture and most importantly, persuasion.

These people were known as the Sophists and, much like the modern spin doctor, their teachings were very expensive. Not a lot survives of their work. What does remain is in the form of eviscerating criticism from the likes of famous ancient thinkers such as Plato and Socrates.

Plato and Socrates believed that the Sophists were not interested in truth, but instead, only concerned themselves with power. Their techniques did little to help humanity and merely sought to manipulate and deceive. This negative influence has lingered. In English, a sophism is now defined as a fallacious argument.

Against Sophism

Despite the original texts being lost, many of techniques of the sophists survive, and knowing how to recognise them can help you sniff out bad actors before they do too much damage.

Below is a guide to the more common and more insidious fallacies:

• Strawman Argument – misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
  • E.g. “It is important to protect the privacy of our citizens online” the mayor exclaimed. “I know you love terrorists but if you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” retorted his opponent.

• Fallacy of composition and division – taking the qualities of a part of something and applying it to the whole or vice versa.
  • E.g.  “Petrol makes cars go fast, so, if I drink enough petrol then I will be able to go faster” (composition) or; “I like watching Netflix on my computer. My computer is made up of lots of parts. So I must be able to watch Netflix on this keyboard” (division)

• Bandwagon– stating that an argument is valid because a lot of people believe it.
  • E.g. “Everyone knows the sun revolves around the earth,” thought everyone before the 1500s

• Argument Ad Hominem – literally meaning “to the person”, this fallacy attacks an argument based on the person stating it.
  • E.g. “Bert is a liar and a thief so not only is his argument false but he probably stole it from someone else”

• Slippery Slope – an argument that says if A happens, it will inevitably lead to Z, despite the two outcomes bearing little to no causal relationship to each other.
  • E.g. “if we allow same-sex marriage, Norfolk will become flooded” a genuine line of reasoning from a fart of a man in UK politics.

• Begging the question – this is where the argument is based on its own premise and conclusion.
  • E.g. “Vodka is the best drink because all other drinks are worse.”

• Circular Reasoning – similar to begging the question, the argument begins with the conclusion it is trying to prove.
  • E.g. “All single men are bachelors because anyone who is a bachelor is a single man”

• No True Scotsman – known as an argument from purity, this fallacy invokes some ideal or standard to prove a point.
  • E.g. “Greg doesn’t douse his cornflakes in whiskey in the morning like a REAL Scotsman. Therefore Greg is not a Scotsman.”

• Ignoratio Elenchi – Latin for “chatting shit”, this refers to an argument which may have valid statements but fails to address the point.
  • E.g. “I’m not allergic to peanuts which means that they are, in fact, a legume”

• Tu quoque – this evades dealing with the argument by turning the argument back on the accuser.
  • E.g “I know I had loads of illegal parties constantly during lockdown while people were dying in droves, but you had that pizza and a beer that time so it’s fine.”

• Appeal to authority – this is the idea that if a credible source believes something, it must be true.
  • E.g. “ the president thinks that immigration is a problem for the economy and he’s the president so he must be right”
  • This does not mean that research and evidence done by experts should be simply disregarded. But, it does support the ideas of scrutiny and independent review.

There are many more. A quick review of PMQs will demonstrate how heavily politicians lean into these sophistic techniques. They are, at best, lazy attempts to hide a dangerous lack of knowledge and at worst, a systematic assault on logic and reason made by bad actors in order to hide the truth by any means necessary.

Pro tip: A great way to get out of talking to someone you don’t like is to point out all of their logical fallacies during the conversation. You can see a full list of logical fallacies by following this link: https://www.logicalfallacies.org/