subject: Common Fallacies of Philosophical Debate [print this page] Common Fallacies of Philosophical Debate Common Fallacies of Philosophical Debate
The following is a list of common logical fallacies of debate. While this reference is not comprehensive, the most frequently encountered are discussed briefly below with examples so that the thinker may become quickly acquainted with the ways people fool themselves and deceive others. Attempts to manipulate thought abound, and being familiar with logical fallacies is a healthy defense, especially when engaged in philosophical debate where truth is supposedly sought, despite whatever ulterior agenda is present. For the reader's entertainment, the examples are actual arguments the author has unfortunately been forced to confront.
Argument to Antiquity This argument supports a practice as correct because it has always been done that way. For example, "Most civilizations throughout history practiced some form of human sacrifice to secure a better crop. We're still here, so I think we should continue to sacrifice." This is an appeal to the wisdom of the ancients, attempting to draw a psychological boost from the myth that elders always possess a relatively larger vault of knowledge.
Circular Reasoning This line of thought attempts to use the conclusion of an argument as proof of the assumption. For example, "How do I know the Bible is true? Because God wrote the Bible. How do I know God wrote the Bible? Because it says so in it, and it's true." This may remind the reader of silly attempts to use a word being defined it its own definition.
Fallacy of Extension Also known as the Straw Man Argument, this fallacy creates an exaggerated variant of the opponent's idea and defeats it instead of the original subject of debate. For instance, "The Illuminati's alternative three and population reduction plans are proof that they have evil intentions they want to kill!" This supposed Illuminati could very well have good intentions, which could be to save all of mankind by bringing humanity into balance with the/a planet's ability to support life.
Appeal to False Authority This is an attempt to claim validity for an argument because someone who commands respect for his expertise in an unrelated field supports it. For example, "We shouldn't attempt to contact extraterrestrial intelligence, because Stephen Hawking said that aliens would most likely be hostile." Here, the problem is that, while Hawking is a theoretical and astrophysicist, he is not an exopolitician.
False Dichotomy This is the exclusion of a middle alternative, presenting only polarities. For example, "When you die, there is heaven or hell, and you're making your choice now." This argument denies the possibilities of the existence of purgatory, the many realms of the Buddhist and Hindu cosmologies, or of the non-existence of all of them.
Argument of Force This fallacy is often used in combination with the Argument to Ignorance. The fear and domination of adverse consequences lead the argument, as opposed to logic and reason. For instance, "Why not accept Jesus as your lord and savior? If Hell isn't real, then you didn't lose anything, but if it is real, wouldn't you rather be safe? Plus, nobody has disproved the reality of Hell yet anyways. I'd play it safe."
Genetic Fallacy This attempts to expose the origin of an argument to invalidate its veracity. It is similar to the Psychogenetic Fallacy which claims a biased arguer is wrong. This claim is irrelevant. For example, "A person receiving a vision has the same brain centers activated as a schizophrenic, thus it is nothing more than a hallucination." However, while the brain state may produce the vision, the perception of the vision may produce the brain state. Correlation never implies causation.
Appeal to the Majority This fallacy tries to prove an idea true simply by citing it's mass support. For instance, "Heaven and Hell probably exist. I mean, think about it. Fifty two percent of people on the planet believe in an Abrahamic religion. That's got to mean something." At one time, the majority believed the Earth was flat, but belief does not require truth, only faith.
Argument to the Man This error attacks some aspect of a person rather than the person's idea, which is the true subject of debate. For example, "Why should I listen to anything Alan Watts said, since he was an alcoholic?" Or, "Speaking of the ancient astronaut theory, did you know Von Daniken was convicted of fraud?" The impact Watts' words have in many individual's lives, and the existence of anachronistic artifacts and chronological anomalies are proper subjects to debate, whereas aspects of the person's private lives are not as they have absolutely no connection to the idea being discussed.
Naturalistic Fallacy This argument attempts to define morality based on an appeal to nature. For instance, "How can marijuana be worse for you than LSD? It grows from the ground! I'd rather use it than some synthetic any day." Tobacco grows from the ground, yet it is very destructive to the body. A synthetic can be absolutely identical to a naturally occurring chemical. There is no logical tie between alignment with nature and morality. This argument also assumes that human action lies outside of nature; an unprovable anthropocentric stance.
Reifying - An abstract concept is assigned concrete qualities in this fallacy, as in the following example: "Nature abhors the Higgs Boson, thus influence from the future has rearranged the initial conditions to disallow the appearance of this supposed god particle." This backwards causation was cited as a possible reason for the repeated failure to complete and operate the Large Hadron Collider. Nature is an idea, not an entity that exhibits some sort of preference.
Selective Observation This is the cherry picking of favorable circumstances, as happens often with believers of psychic phenomena and shallow synchronicity. "I was thinking of a certain friend today right when he called! I'm telling you, psychic events happen!" The arguer forgets the countless times that the telephone rang when he was not thinking specifically about the caller.
Special Pleading This is the utilization of arguments in support of a position while disallowing oppositional arguments. A regular example of this fallacy is a self-acclaimed psychic's refusal to be tested in a clinical setting because the presence of disbelievers impedes his power. The author has been told that believing is seeing when it comes to faeries.
Statement of Conversion This is a weaker form of the Appeal to Authority, in which a person is meant to have rejected one area of expertise for another. For example, "C. S. Lewis used to be an Atheist, but now he's a Christian. Ravi Zacharias used to be a Hindu, but now he's a Christian. Both of those men are extremely intelligent, and they chose Christianity over other belief systems."
