Over the past few
weeks, I’ve been teaching my students about fallacies, which are errors in
reasoning and arguments. These fallacies
are easily located in nearly every discussion, whether it be a discussion
concerning favorite sports teams to political discussions to religious discussions. Often, when an individual who holds an unsupported
opinion is pinned down by logic and fact, they employ any tactic possible to “win
the argument.” When this happens, “truth”
is not the main objective, but rather the winning of the argument. Such arguments are “usually
plausible-sounding” and use “false, inadequate, or invalid evidence.”[1] Many times, such arguments are made on
purpose, but occasionally they are made due to ignorance (“lack of knowledge,
learning, information, etc”[2]). Whether done purposefully or not, such
argumentation has, generally, one of two effects; either it convinces equally
ignorant people as to the “rightness” of the argument or, more likely, it
causes an honest audience to question the credibility of the person arguing.
Consider a few of the
following forms of fallacies; have you either seen or employed them in the
past? Our age of digital media allows for such argumentation to occur before an
individual bothers to take the time to form a logical response based on facts
and truth, or, as is often the case, before they even read what they “disagree”
with.
“Bandwagon Fallacy –
Someone who argues that “everybody thinks it’s a good idea, so you should too”
is using the bandwagon fallacy. Simply
because someone says that “everyone” is “jumping on the bandwagon,” or
supporting a particular point of view, does not make the point of view correct.”[3] Often, people utilizing this form of
argumentation do not realize that they are doing it. It often takes the form of “well, this is the
same as that, and we all accept THAT as being correct, so therefore THIS is
correct.” Is that true?
Another fallacy is
based on attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument
itself. This is called an “ad hominem”
attack and it “involves attacking irrelevant personal characteristics of the
person who is proposing an idea rather than attacking the idea itself.”[4] This is perhaps the easiest fallacy to fall
prey to, because our natural inclination is to attack back if we feel attacked.
A particularly popular,
even if done subconsciously, fallacy is known as the “red herring”
fallacy. This is when “someone attacks
an issue by using irrelevant facts or arguments as distractions.”[5] In nearly any discussion, keeping someone on point
is perhaps the most difficult task there is to complete.
In many discussions, a
mixture of these logical fallacies is employed; in other words, individuals
often base their perspective off of what the “majority” believes rather than
facts, then, should that perspective be challenged, they attack either the
person (ad hominem) or throw irrelevant “facts” into the discussion in order to
distract from the topic at hand (red herring). If this analysis is doubted, simply read any
political or religious discussion on Facebook for evidence.
Such argumentation is
nothing new to the modern world; there are similarities between these fallacies
and the “arguments” made for the crucifixion of Christ. Consider how, when Pilate questioned the Jews
concerning what Jesus had done that was deserving of death, the Jews answered, “If
He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you” (John
18:30). At the very best, this is a red
herring argument; what evidence was presented that Jesus was guilty of anything
worthy of death? The Jews intended to distract Pilate from uncovering the fact
that they were both rebellious and envious of Jesus. This red herring argument, however, was not
convincing to Pilate. Pilate knew that
the Jews had handed Jesus over to him because of envy (Matthew 27:18). Essentially, the credibility of the
participating Jews was shot with Pilate, but fearing a riot, he allowed the
crucifixion to continue.
As can be easily seen
in discussions today, particularly concerning sin, these logical fallacies are
used and abused. For instance, when a
specific sin is being discussed, the person who is likely participating in that
sin or is close to someone who is participating will throw out a red herring
argument rather than dealing with the truth that the sin is, in fact, a
sin. Predominantly, Matthew 7:1 is abused in this instance; rather
than looking at the sin and fixing it in their life, the impacted individual
will claim that Jesus said not to judge (an obvious misapplication of the
context of Matthew 7:1), and then they will attack the person(s) pointing out
the true nature of the sin in question (ad hominem attack). Is this appropriate?
Consider also how often
in religious discussions that the supposed “attitude” of the person discussing
a sin is called into question. For
example, an individual shows from Scripture that an activity is a sin, then an
affected person calls foul and claims that the original person was too harsh or
mean in what they said rather than looking at WHAT was said. This is the classic “it isn’t WHAT you said,
but HOW you said it” approach, which is a mixture of both ad hominem and red
herring argumentation. Does such an
attack alter the truth of God’s word?
It is easy to fall prey
to any, all, or a mixture of the above fallacies, and there are other fallacies
beyond the scope of this brief article.
When entering a discussion, we must ensure that we are seeking only the
truth, not simply to “win the argument” or prove our own preconceived
notions. No matter how personal the
attack, keep on point (no matter which side of the “argument” you are on) and
pursue only the truth.
[1] Ross,
Raymond, and Diana Leonard. Introduction to the Speechmaking Process.
E ed. Vol. 14. Redding: BVT, 2012, pg.
373-374.
[2] “ignorance.”
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 01 Dec. 2014.
[3] Beebe,
Steven and Susan Beebe. A Concise Public Speaking Handbook. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2012, pg. 236.
[4]
Ibid., 237.
[5]
Ibid., 237.
No comments:
Post a Comment