While my previous novella (Arguments
with Fools) was a humorous attempt at classifying the fools who use
idiotic arguments, this here is a more serious and elaborate attempt to classify
the illogical arguments itself. I
have used my own words for describing
the various criteria, unless and until a very popularly known alternative for
the same phenomenon already existed. As any attempt towards such has been
severely limited by my own lack of formal knowledge on the subject, I apologize
in advance to some of my more knowledgeable readers for any slights that might
have crept in. This is not a textbook but only a common-sense classification,
and is intended to be read as such. While coming up with all the different
classifications took barely an hour of concentrated thought (that too during a very
distracting FEM lecture), the shuffling and reshuffling of the same took
considerable effort on my part. Pondering over the Argumental fallacies so
critically for the first time, I was amazed at the relationship shown by them amongst
themselves as well as by the many different uses and varieties the same
fallacies regularly propagate under. The fact that at times the logical
fallacies seem almost identical made deciding the headings under which to put each
of the arguments a decidedly tedious task. Conflicts, wherever arising, were
resolved based on the nature of the fallacy more than their general popularity
of use. I hope this gives a sense of fluency to the reader while going through
the text.
Having said that, I once again wish to convey my deepest regards to all
those who have wasted precious hours in discussions with me– mostly superficial,
but highly valued nonetheless. This book has been inspired by you guys, and if
at times I use particular examples (which you might remember) to illustrate my
point then please know that I do it only to rub on the fact that you made me
suffer through those ill-formed logics- and my pride upon survival despite
being present for enduring the same. I won’t lie- I have used the same
argumental fallacies as you have, multiple times, just to prove my point- the
only difference being that I did it knowingly. I realize that stating it
explicitly makes me seem evil, so please note that my intentions were not so,
and that any resemblance to any incidence or satanic superpower, living or
dead, is purely coincidental, and the product of a feverish imagination.
So, without further ado, let me get started.
Humans share 96% DNA with Chimps. The rest 4% is what makes us the most
superior species our Solar system has ever seen. The difference, when it comes
down to it, has only been our brain. The fact that humans have evolved to think
for themselves, to wonder, to ask questions, and to have an opinion, makes us
who we are- the la crème de la crème. And the best way to continue to carry
forward the moral obligation that has been granted to us (forced, upon some) by our ancestors is
to further exert the mind- to argue, bicker, debate, dispute, contest, rebut,
hassle, and to (if it is still possible after doing all of the above stated) try
and discuss various matters. While doing the same, here is a guideline of what not
to do. The points stated below not only make for a poor conversation, for a
feeble formation of logic, an episode not worth remembering, and for a pitiful
show of the individual’s brain, but they also make a contemptible joke of our
evolutionary history as well- a concept much colossal than the poor halfwit. We
will not only look at the fallacies here, but also try and ascertain a cause
for them as well as look for possible solutions, if present. And hence, once
again, I urge the reader to look for these fallacies and avoid using them in
arguments.
·
Violence, and Shouting
This has to be the primary condition of any
argument. Do not, in any case, reduce the argument to any of these.
Shouting is the tool of the cornered. It does not make for a better
logic, and is not to be endorsed. Violence in an argument, on the other hand,
is quite simply the proof of lack of brains, temperament as well as patience.
If you frequently need to resort to these in logical arguments, then in all
probability counseling is soon going to be your thing.
·
Making Specific Statements General
This is the most common fallacy and the one
most easy to avoid. They mostly result as stereotypes propagate, and engulf
logic along with them. Just like the fact that you ate a sweet apple does not
make all apples sweet, similarly not all persons from a particular race need to
be hard workers just because you know one; extending the same, money not earned
rightfully can also not get spent or wasted, and not all who do
wrong are punished one way or the other.
The simplest way to solve this fallacy is to
take a larger sample space. Just like there is no point in making an opinion/exit
poll with 3 persons, similarly there is no point in making generalizations
without a sample space big and diverse enough.
ü Corollary-
Making General Statements Specific
While most of
the statements general enough have specific utility, it should never be assumed
that each and every specific singular case will be the same as general. The
world is full of diversity, and it is often the singularities that make it so
special.
E.g.: As most
vowels have a ‘an’ preceding them, it is general enough to forget that the rule
calls not for the vowel word but the vowel sound (I attend a
university every morning, wearing a uniform, and am always an
hour late).
·
Ad-Hominem
Ad-hominem (of an argument or reaction) is
formally something directed against a person rather than the position they are
maintaining. What is means is that you prefer not to abuse the logic but
instead the person stating the logic. This has been the oldest tool of
politicians and results in the argument being undermined and neglected.
I personally will try to distinguish the
Ad-Hominem in two separate classes- one against the character/intention of
the person and the other against the expertise.
The abusing of character usually depends on
unraveling the moral fiber a person seems to be standing upon, and hence
proving that as the questioner is untrustworthy, his claims need no further
consideration. Similarly, when one tries not to malign the character of the
questioner but rather the intention (a tool very popular among women) it usually
goes on the lines of “You only want to fight/you´re only saying that to prove
me wrong”. Even if in both the cases the questioner is noticeably wrong, that
does not void the arguments put forward by him.
The other Ad-Hominem, the one against the expertise
of the questioner, is cruder. It makes it seem that until and unless a person
is not an expert in a particular field, he is not supposed to ask questions.
For me personally, such Ad-hominem sound like this “you are an engineer, so
stick to engineering, and don’t suggest solutions to fields that are not your
own”. For the broader public (just to show the wide spread use) they sound more
like “Income Tax Officials should not open political parties” or “Yoga Gurus
have no place in politics”. Such statements do not counter the questions being
asked by the individual, but rather focusing on separate entities which (most
of the times) take the focus away from the question.
ü Corollary
1-Blame by Remote Association
This trick
does not blame a person directly, but rather blame by association.
E.g.: A person
X is stating an idea very similar to an idea put forward by Y, under a very
specific set of conditions. As Y was a dictator and a bad person in general,
and as one of his ideas is similar to an idea of X, hence X must be a bad
person as well. This in turn also implies that X is a dictator too, and all his
ideas are to be condemned.
ü Corollary
2-Reflexive Blame
This one is
usually used to neutralize ones one fault more than any other use, and is hence
a more personal and one-to-one form of blame. As it threatens to abuse the
nature of another person rather than answering his question, this deserves a
classification under Ad-Hominem.
Eg: X is a
very unclean person. When approached by Y about the same, X instead rattles off
the blames and faults in Y (Y sleeps late, and eats slowly). Just because Y has
his faults, that does not make X’s fault (being unclean) legitimate.
·
Unstable Stance-
Like writing an article, a properly defined
reasoning also needs time- both conscious and unconscious. Changing statements
or rules in middle of an argument makes the whole process of debate/discussion
a long and tiresome one. If the person does a 180°, the debate ends. Any other
variation in the extent of the degree of change, and the resulting curry is one
long overcooked. Avoiding such situations is as essential for the argument to
take a proper course as it is difficult, specifically in conditions where the
argument starts impromptu. The views of the opposing parties may not change
very quickly, but to get the point across to the other side without any
preparation takes considerable effort and talent.
Unrehearsed and unplanned arguments can
never stop happening, and are the most fun ones to have. So the only way to
avoid getting stuck while explaining one’s argument is to know the argument as
well as the counter-arguments inside out. Framing of one’s statement should be
done excessively carefully as all the opposition’s ideas will be based on
logically refuting the statement only. Using similes and metaphors is highly
recommended, and so is reading extra text which gives one a context and similar
situations to compare to.
ü Corollary-Unstable
Circumstances
While given
here as a corollary, changing the base circumstance in the middle of an
argument is worse as compared to changing the stance during one, as at least
the sole purpose of the opposition in an argument is to ultimately logically
convince you in changing your stance. Changing the base circumstances under
which the events are being discussed refutes the arguments presented by both
the sides.
v Corollary’s
Corollary- Comparison under Varied Circumstances
While this
seems to fall by logic, this is quite a popular argumental fallacy too. Statement
of the same is quite simple: If X is true under M circumstances, and Y is true
under N circumstances, then X and Y both together, or each of them separately, must
be true under O circumstances.
i.e. If X
∈ M;
and Y ∈ N;
then (X, Y, XY) ∈ O;
where O is not related to M or N.
Obviously,
this is a fallacy. Some things, while true under certain closed sets, do not
remain true under other sets with varied parameters.
The beauty of
such layered fallacies is that, as it lies under multiple covers of conditions
(as I have tried to show here), noticing and hence avoiding the likes of such
becomes quite a challenge in real world conditions.
·
Black and White Argumentation-
Like gender, arguments do not always come in
just two flavors. Often, there is a third minority which might have functionality
of both the sides and which must be considered. Rarer still, there is a fourth
minority that has none of the functions of any of the arguments but is a
separate entity on its own, and is still a perfectly valid one.
What that means to say is, the argument
should not always be condensed into just two possible scenarios where a third
scenario can exist, and it should not be implied that as one of the scenario is
definitely faulty must mean that the other one is true.
Eg: All people are either good at driving,
or bad. If one is not good at driving, he must be bad.
ü Corollary
1: Morton’s fork-Such a
line of reasoning can also lead to something called Morton’s fork. “Either the
nobles of this country appear wealthy, in which case they can be taxed for
good; or they appear poor, in which case they are living frugally and must
have
immense savings, which can be taxed for good.” This is a false dilemma, as
there is no way out of this line of logic. Both the white and the black here
lead to the same conclusion.
v Corollary’s
Corollary: The Middle Ground
The middle
ground, or the false compromise, is a system where a middle ground is used as a
valid position between two extremes. This is the opposite of the Black &
White argument. The middle ground is not a valid argument under most cases, and
leads to a fallacy helping neither of the side.
E.g.: I
wanted a new car, but my wife did not, so we compromised and bought only half a
car.
ü Corollary
2: Catch 22
The catch 22
is a circular argument, seen most commonly in religious texts. “The religious
book says that there is only one true religion. Hence it is the only true
religion, as the religious book says so”. You can notice them easily enough
once you try and find your way out of it, as moving in little circles will make
you logical senses dizzy quite soon.
·
Comparing Apples and Oranges
Logic by definition is the reasoning
conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. And reasoning
by its very nature demands reason. Reason stands that the height of a person
not be compared to another’s weight; reason stands that the brains of a
chimpanzee not be compared to the wings of a butterfly; and the same reason
stands that an earthquake will not occur just because I refused to pray.
A similar reason stands that any comparison
between apples and oranges (which have some common denominators) must be made
either in a very finely categorized situation (like the prices in a particular
market on a particular day) or not at all.
ü Corollary
1: In Their Shoes
While
comparing separate situations or historic events, asserting that one should
have done X instead of Y, without knowledge of the workings or thoughts of that
particular society in the given era. Don’t forget that while events happen, one
does not have the benefit of hindsight that forms our current perspective. To
understand some actions, context is necessary.
ü Corollary
2: Side-Stepping Logic
Instead of
proving a person X wrong in statement M, the practitioner of this fallacy
proves that X is wrong in a completely unrelated statement N. Once the
statement N is proved wrong, M is assumed to be wrong as well.
E.g.: M→
Growth is low, as no new jobs.
N → Crowd gathered, so everyone supports
the cause
Here, the gathering of crowd fails to
note that some of them may be innocent bystanders, some might be protesting
against the cause and some might be undecided yet. So the statement N, while proved
wrong, does not entail that the statement M is false too. Increasing the number
of new jobs under certain circumstances will result in higher growth,
and has nothing to do with the statement N.
i.e. X≠N does
not imply X≠M
ü Corollary
3: All that Shines…
{X implies Y}
≠ {Y implies X}
This is a
fallacy well documented in history through various examples. Where there is
smoke, there is fire. But that does not imply where there is no smoke, no fire
exists. While the existence of fire is a precondition for smoke, the reverse is
not true. For me, J.R.R. Tolkien immortalized this fallacy in these lines-
“All that glitters is not gold, not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by
the frost”
·
Statements
Without Proof
This Argumental
fallacy has been used for millennia to scare the gullible. From a simple Solar
eclipse to every other natural disaster has been described as an act of God,
and no proof of the same has ever been given. Assumptions do not equal truth,
and finding out the facts before making claims or statements should be
paramount to the rational thinker.
In daily life,
claiming ‘Guns are bad’ (why?) without proof is the same as claiming ‘I have
always tried to fly to Mars’ (How?).
Misrepresentation of facts is worse than giving no proof, as until and
unless checked separately in an unbiased manner, the facts often form the
strongest proof towards a rational and valid conclusion of the arguments.
Integrity while stating facts is paramount while addressing any issue.
ü Corollary 2- Quoting Misrepresented Authority;
Misquotations
Quotations,
whenever used, should be from a meaningful authority. Quoting Einstein in
matters of physics is fine, but in policies of the state is not; Quoting Obama
in matters of national defense is fine, but in sports training is not. Whatever
a brilliant scientist feels about just any subject may not be
correct just because he is a man of high intelligence (and hence stands to
logic the following statements that I hear often when questioning someone is a
logical fallacy as well—“You think you are more intelligent than him?/Who
do you think you are to question Him?”. Logic is not to be undermined by
a dictatorship but rather by logical and rational answers).
Similarly,
one should ensure that the quotes are not misquoted, fabricated in any way, nor
used out of context. The honesty and purity of a rationalist, just as that of a
scientist, is of utmost importance while discussing an argument.
ü Corollary
3- Assuming Answers When No Facts Found
Like stating
something without proof, assuming something to exist just because no answers have
been found is also an obvious fallacy. Facts are not assumptions by
their very definition- they are facts. Assuming answers only leads to
the wrong directions, and going east when the purpose is going North does not
really serves anyone’s purpose.
E.g.: As I
saw a light in the sky, UFOs must be visiting Earth!
·
Reductio ad absurdum
Reductio ad
absurdum is a Latin phrase
that means “to reduce to the absurd,” referring to an argumentative technique.
When someone uses this tactic in a debate, the person uses a series of logical
steps to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion, and argues that an original premise
must be wrong because of the conclusion. The same can be done by taking an
argument to unrealistic extremes, and then stating of the conclusion to be absurd
and hence defining the argument basis as false.
E.g.: Killing any life form leads to total
destruction of morality. Your son killed an ant just for fun. Soon he will
start killing animals and then one fine day end up in jail as a serial killer.
So stopping him from killing an ant is the only way to save his life.
ü Corollary-
Using Too Long Time Frames-
Avoid using
too long a time frame when making assumptions. Due to the extremely high number
of uncertain parameters that affect any event, the assumption in itself becomes
absurd just by the non-deterministic nature of events that may precede it.
E.g.:
Assuming there will be no earthquake in the next ten minutes is fairly easy,
and can be done with a very high degree of accuracy. But while the same degree
of accuracy can be theoretically maintained for each successive ten minutes,
when making predictions over a century one may find himself wrong enough times,
and hence the assumption that the conditions will remain the same over a
century inherently becomes absurd.
·
Morality As A Base Of Logic
Morality can and should not be used as a
base to logic. It is a very separate entity in itself, and not to be mixed with
anything else. Morality is subjective by its very nature, whereas logic needs
to have a more common denominator. Morality can justify a course of action,
whereas logic can determine which action makes more sense. Logic is more
unbiased, and hence at times seems crueler, but should usually be given
preference over morality for the rationality to hold true.
ü Corollary
1- Appeasing Random Authority
Appeasement
is usually one of the reasons morality should not be given preference over
logic. Once honor comes into play, morality for personal gain of honor takes
place over what is logically good. Thousands have died trying to appease a king
or a god.
ü Corollary
2-Appeasing Fear
Once again, a
trick used mostly by men to stop unwanted question or to encourage men towards
a particular direction/outcome. Consequences,
both in this life and after, stop most men from questioning what logic states
them to pursue and instead acting upon some ill-found base morality, usually
given by a person deemed of high social stature.
·
Tricks of Grammar/Language
Using tricks of language signifies the
complete end of thinking capability. A person, when using this technique,
understands completely what the argument is, and what is it supposed to
signify. But he, instead of finding faults in the idea, focuses all efforts
into finding faults in the language used. While such an attempt might work with
people not comfortable with the use of a language, not familiar with the
technical terms, not expressive enough, or simply a little confused- finding
faults in the language is more to do with personal ad-hominem than logical
reasoning and should hence be avoided. Ideas are to be proved/disproved based
on carefully articulated logical arguments, not on word-tricks.
·
Unwillingness to change
The unwillingness to change in a person
cannot be formed as a logical excuse for a particular course of action. Please
realize that you are no more than a random set of events and circumstances that
shaped your life. Morality, as much as thought process, is critically dependent
upon external factors and extremely respondent to it as well. A very small
change in the circumstances has a butterfly effect on the thinking of a child,
which may grow into refusal to accept new ideas and ultimately moralistic
stubbornness. The slightest events may imprint themselves upon the memory of a
man while the largest events are forgotten. The more one is willing to accept the fact
that his actions are only motivated by an ever changing random world, the more
he is willing to change. And change is a core of logic, as an unwillingness to
change opinions show an unwillingness to grow, and an unwillingness to grow is
to stop living a rational life.
ü Corollary
1- The Peer Group
Just because everyone
does something, does not make the act right in itself. The widespread usage
of wrong does not equate it to a logical right, and such thoughts and ideas
must be cleaned from the society at large.
Eg: Just
because racial discrimination, “Sati Pratha” etc were in
widespread use did not make them morally or logically correct, and must be
rejected by any rational thinker.
v Corollary’s
Corollary- Tolerance Is Not Acceptance
The fact that
something is tolerated does not make it acceptable, both logically and morally.
Tolerance of a regrettable action is not acceptance of the action. Arguments
stating the same should be cast aside comfortably.
ü Corollary
2- Weakness Is Not An Excuse
The fact that
you feel that you will be unable to do what is right, does not make it the
logic false. It only shows your weakness and your resignation to the task at
hand without even trying. This inclination to lose is something that must be
taken out from each of us,
so that we can live better. Arguing one is too weak
to attempt to do right will in no way undermine the power of the truth. Fear or
weakness has been used for eras to force ones way, or as a valid excuse for
committing wrong. Hence, I repeat: Weakness. Is. Not. An. Excuse.
v Corollary’s
Corollary- Strength of Idea vs Strength of man
The statement
stands for itself. The strength of an idea should and may not be compared to
the man proposing it. Ideas can develop in anyone, but it needs a great man to
follow them. Just because a man is unable to follow through on his own ideas
does not entail that the idea must be a false one. An idea is much bigger than
a man is. You can forget the man who stated it, but the brain once extended by
an idea refuses to go back to its original dimensions. Indeed, it is easier to
stop a bullet shot from a gun than it is to stop an idea whose time has come.
Conclusion
This concludes the various categories of arguments I can think of, and
I think encompasses most arguments that one can expect in daily life. Enabling
the reader to discuss and debate without falling prey to Argumental fallacies
has been the main aim of this essay. While debating, arguing, or even discussing
might seem impossible given the number or restrictions and contradictions
posed in this essay, it is the reader is expected not to get daunted by the
size of the text or to try and remember all the various categories- much more
important is to understand and get the general rhythm of the arguments
and its fallacies. Always remember that some of the arguments posted here are
contradictory in nature, and it is only through following one of them that a
person might reach at a sane result.
So, how does a man argue? There is no single rule, no gospel, and
no divine instructions. As long as a man side steps all of the above fallacies,
he can chose any way he might decide to argue. Still, given below are some of
the tools that universally form a part of any valid argument.
Proposition: A
statement that is either true or false, but not both. For example, Boston is
the largest city in Massachusetts.
Premise: A
proposition that provides support to an argument's conclusion. An argument may
have one or more premises.
Argument: A
set of propositions aimed at persuading through reasoning. In an argument, a
subset of propositions, called premise, provides support for some other
proposition called the conclusion.
Deductive argument: An
argument in which if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
The conclusion is said to follow with logical necessity from the premises. E.g.: All
men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. A
deductive argument is intended to be valid, but of course might not be.
Inductive argument: An
argument in which if the premises are true, then it is probable that the
conclusion will also be true. The conclusion therefore does not follow
with logical necessity from the premises, but rather with probability. E.g.: Every
time we measure the speed of light in a vacuum, it is 3 x 108 m/s.
Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant. Inductive
arguments usually proceed from specific instances to the general
That a man read through all of the above is an indicator that the man
is inquisitive, and looking to learn. The man who is willing to learn and to
change, to accept his mistakes and move forward, to be able to turn back and
smile upon his slights and forgive those who caused him pain, the willingness
to adhere to an idea and to let it go when the times so require, that
willingness is what makes a man what he is; that shows the courage he is
possessed of, the integrity he owns and the power he wields over himself and
the conditions that made him. It is only through such men that the human race
has evolved, and would continue to do so. Thanking you once again for your
precious time and hoping that I succeeded in making the world a slightly better
place by helping you today, here’s wishing you a warm goodbye. Happy
Argumenting!
No comments:
Post a Comment