WHEN FALLACIES DO NOT APPLY
Monday Map
Update: I have decided to change my titling format. For Monday Map, I will now put the topic of the main essay as the title of the publication. This is to help myself and you the reader search for publications easily rather than seeing a long run of “MONDAY MAP.”
Anyways, you are still reading Monday Map on Busyminds Newsletter. Please subscribe below.
WHEN FALLACIES DON’T APPLY
Fallacies are called faults in reasoning. The term “fallacy” describes sloppy reasoning that produces thoughts and statements that range between blatant lies to truth-like statements in logical and theoretical contexts. Truth-like fallacies to be exact, are hard to spot because they sound or look so much like they are true. But upon close examination, you will realise how faulty they are.
Fallacies are domain dependent. I mean this in the sense that they are best applied in contexts that are arranged to arrive at truthful, logical answers. More like they are effective in sterile situations – where theoretical purity is favoured over practical mess. And with logic (simply defined as "if this, then that") as the way we arrive at these answers, it is easy to see how logical fallacies are important to ensuing discussions. But then, there are domains which reduce or sometimes snuff out the power of logical fallacies. That is what we will see.
As the demand for answers begins to move away from the domain of pure, unadulterated theory into practice, logical fallacies hold less power at describing sloppy reasoning. As we care less about what is simply true or false, and move towards actions and consequences, logical fallacies get less effective. It holds less sway and sometimes rightly lose any sort of consideration appeal.
I explain using two famous types: ad hominem and the slippery slope fallacy. But right before then, here is an example of when logical fallacies do not apply: when you perceive that someone dressed like your attacker from the past is following you on the same road where you were robbed once. As you conclude and begin to flee, you have just committed a fallacy of faulty generalisation. That person could be anybody else. He could be a preacher dressed in common clothes who just wants to return your wallet that you dropped. Or, he could be another robber who just wants to rob you. Do you wait to find out what is true or not? Nahh. You flee. Did you commit faulty generalisation by surmising based on insufficient evidence that this person is an attacker? Yes. But if you were right with this conclusion, did you just save your life?Yes.
In this instance you could argue that you were not reasoning hence you didn’t commit a fallacy. But yes you reasoned. You did so quickly by putting observations and evidence together, concluded, and made a decision. But let’s move on.
Slippery Slope Fallacy
The Slippery slope fallacy has been correctly identified as a fallacy. Slippery slope thinking is summarised thus:
“with this action that set B (where B is an objectionable position) in motion, we will eventually and inevitably descend into X (where X is a dangerous position)”
It is correctly identified as a fallacy because it does not follow that B always leads to X. At best, it is a speculation; a very possible chain of events but not necessarily inevitable. The Slippery Slope fallacy will cease to be a fallacy if you show that B will always, under every circumstance possible, lead to X. But when does this not apply?
Because the world is ridden with uncertainties, our speculations cannot be useless. For the exact reason that we cannot tell the chains of events especially when pertaining to human choice, you cannot afford to dismiss your slippery slope speculations. In fact, you may be stupid to throw them away just because they don’t follow a logical trend.
Take an act like theft for example. If your child steals, and you do nothing about it, you know that there is a chance that he/she may get worse and may possibly delve into more heinous crimes. It is also possible that your child finds something independent of your chastisement and self-corrects and stops stealing. These chances exist; though not on a logical plane of existence. How do you address the matter? And a better question: what matters to you more – finding a logical chain of truth on how your child will turn out? or the best possible actions with consequences? For me, it is the latter.
When true/false hides itself from plain observation, we must revert to using actions and consequences as judges of the case. As you drift towards actions/consequences, the weight of fallacies in calling people back to logical reasoning is lessened.
Ad Hominem: Attacking the Man
Ad hominem is probably one of the most popular fallacies out there. It is a simple recourse for when you run out of arguments. Simply put, you commit ad hominem when you attack the man instead of attacking the argument. Or when you ram into the messenger instead of taking on the message.
When you are simply looking for truth, and everyone agrees on the rules, please stay away from ad hominem. Reply the argument or concede. But when you are assessing your daughter’s boyfriend, you know that character takes precedence over how beautifully he can weave logical arguments.
I mean, I would be appalled when in a witty chat with the man and I ask for his source of income when he is rattling on about the evils of capitalism, and he tells me that he is waiting for communism to be established, and I tell him that he is an unserious fellow and he goes “thou faithful sir have just committed an ad hominem against me. Reply to the argument, not attack the man.”
Me: I see you like my daughter.
Fella: Yes sir I do.
Me: What do you do for a living?
Fella: Well sir seeing the evils of capitalism and its ensuing alienation of labour, I am a revolutionary who is passionate about ideas and establishing scientific socialism which Lord Karl Marx teaches. Once communism happens, your daughter has no problem. What do you think about capitalism and its evils sir?
Me: I think you are an unserious fellow.
Fella: woah woah, slow down old man. Reply to the argument, not attack the man.
Me: Get out!
I don’t care whether the evils of capitalism are true or not. I just want my daughter to be fine. (And to think of it, how did she end up with this guy? Should I be worried?).
All these things I have said are pointing to one fact: when we care about payoffs rather than finding logical chains, fallacies lose their rational pull.
In conclusion
Just as your weight on earth is different from your weight on the moon, the weight of fallacies depends on use and location. When you seek truth – pure and unadulterated, they mean a lot. In fact, you can’t do without them to navigate the course. Once you remove them from that environment, they lose their appeal.
So, “slippery slope” may be a fallacy but you will need that floating reason to speculate on your actions. And attacking the man may be gawked at. But when you have to choose who is in charge of the treasury in your organisation, you know what to look out for.
Mental Illness Doesn’t Make You Special
You should read this piece (the link is in the heading). It captures something that worries me about the glamorisation of mental illnesses. Here is an excerpt from the article below:
“Once enough people insist on mental illnesses as upbeat and fashionable lifestyle brands, then any of us who oppose it are guilty of the most grave sin of all, the sin of perpetuating stigma. It’s stigma to call autism a disorder, despite the fact that it renders some completely nonverbal and unable to care for themselves; it’s stigma to suggest that someone with ADHD bears any responsibility at all for problems at school or work; it’s stigma to speak the plain fact that people with psychotic disorders sometimes commit acts of violence under the influence of their conditions. It’s stigma, in other words, to treat those of us with mental illnesses as anything else than wayward children.”
I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.
Of course, here is your picture:
