Logical Fallacies: the Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Authority

Logical Fallacies: the Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Authority

Hello dear viewer! Today we will talk about a very interesting and important subject! Every intelligent and educated person needs to know about it!

The first time I learned about it was in my first year at the university. And this topic was so useful, important and interesting to me that now, after a few years, I decided to share it with you!

This subject is logical fallacies.

And it is so important, because these logical fallacies or logical errors are found everywhere, from everyday arguments, disputes and dialogues, to television, the news, political debates, and so on. And on the news and in politics, these logical errors are often used deliberately, turning them into intentional strategies to manipulate our mind and attention in someone’s favour, and indeed, ordinary life this is what often happens as well.

This is why it is important for every person to know about and keep in mind these logical fallacies!

For the first time these logical fallacies were classified in ancient Greece and Rome.

This is why their names are often originally Latin.

So the first logical error or strategy (in case it is used intentionally) is called

The Straw Man Argument.

And this is when

Instead of refuting and objecting to your original statement, the opponent refutes a grotesque, exaggerated version of it, which is much easier to do.

Here is an example:

Person A says: "Sunny days are good."

Person B replies: "If all days were sunny, and there was no rain, then there would be drought and starvation."

In this case, speaker B substitutes the original statement of speaker A for the statement that only sunny days are good, and then refutes this new statement. In fact, speaker A simply says that sunny days are good, not mentioning anything about rainy days, and not saying that there should only exist sunny days and nothing else.

Straw man , was a straw mannequin which was used by soldiers  for bayonet practice; such mannequin can not stand up for itself and return your attack. Just as it is impossible to defend the exaggerated and grotesque statement that only sunny days and complete lack of rain are a good thing.

Of course, in this example everything is more or less obvious, but in real disputes, dialogues and debates, this strategy often goes unnoticed (especially if a person does not know about its existence!) And such person is easily distracted away from his original statement, and led to prove or disprove a completely different, absurd statement made up by his opponent, which he himself never made!

I'm sure that my viewers won’t fall victim of this strategy from now on, because now they know of its existence and will pay attention!

Here are some subtler examples:

Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.

2. Caroline says that she thinks her friends should not be so rude to the new girl. Jenna says that she cannot believe that Caroline is choosing to be better friends with the new girl than the girls who have always known her.

Another example:

Ellen: What is your view on the Christian God?

Mike: I don’t believe in any gods, including the Christian one.

Ellen: So you think that we are here by accident, and all this design in nature is pure chance, and the universe just created itself?

And one more example

Speaker A says: "Every day after school, children should be given ice cream."

Speaker B replies : "But this will be bad for their health!".

Speaker A replies : “So you want our children to starve?"

In this case, party A argues (completely unreasonably) that if children are not given ice cream, they will starve. He substitutes the original, logical statement of speaker B that children should be healthy, and to be healthy they can not eat ice cream every day, for the assertion that children should starve. He does this so that speaker B will need to defend this statement, which is completely devoid of reason instead of his own original, quite logical statement  that ice cream every day is harmful for one’s health.

The second type of logical fallacy is called 

2. Ad Hominem

Which in English would mean "to the person” or “to man”.

Ad hominem is an attack on the identity of the opponent, and not not on his or her point of view. It's not just calling an opponent an idiot, but using the opponent’s personal qualities to discredit his statement:

Some relevant examples of Ad Hominem would be:

The so-called Use of the “racial card” trying to justify one’s unacceptable behaviour. For instance: – “People like you don’t understand what it’s like to be of my race so you have no right to make an argument about this situation.”

—Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument – “You didn’t even finish high school - how could you possibly know about this?

—Relying on socioeconomic status as a means to undermine an opposing individual’s opinion – “You wouldn’t understand since you have never had to struggle.

—A politician degrading another politician during a political campaign when asked about a specific policy – “Well, I think we need to look at the other candidate’s failures regarding this topic.”

—Stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of her religious beliefs – “Perhaps if you weren’t part of that particular religious group, you would see this quite differently.

And, in general, 

Responding in any debate with an attack on one’s personal beliefs

To be specific, there are three main types of Ad Hominem

• ad personam (“personal attack") - which is direct criticism of the person, insult of the opponent;

• ad hominem circumstantiae - (chirkumstantiai) (or circumstantial ad hominem) is an explanation of the opponent's point of view with his own personal circumstances or pointing out that an opponent has some invested interest in claiming something.

• ad hominem tu quoque ("and you too”, “you also”) (tou kwokwe) - and consists of pointing out that the opponent himself acts contrary to his own argument.

Ad Hominem Personam

The first type of Ad hominem - ad hominem personam, is also called “personal attack" and often contains an insult, or shaming or belittling of the opponent. Generally, it consists of pointing out unfavourable facts that characterize the opponent himself, but that are not relevant to his/her argument. Its main goal is to create a general negative image of the opponent and thus create a negative impression and distrust for all his argumentation as coming from a source unworthy of trust.

This strategy leads to erroneous logic, replacing the criticism of the opponent’s actual argument with criticism of his persona, that from the logical standpoint has nothing to do with the argument presented by this person. However, such strategy is often quite effective!

This fallacy has the following form:

1 Person A makes statement X.

2 Some negative, defamatory information is known about person A, or he is just a moron.

3 Therefore, statement X, whatever it is, made by person A is false, or has no right to exist. 

Example

After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

Women are often attacked in this way: 

You’re crazy. It must be your time of the month.

Classic and unbelievably common.

Or, instead of responding to your argument one might say: 

Take a xanax, a nap, and come up for air.

A few other examples:

—-How can I trust anything this dietician says if she clearly has some extra weight herself!

1 There's no reason to take seriously Nietzsche's ideas about the Superman. Weak and sickly all his short life, of course he found this concept captivating. In psychology, we call this compensation.

2 I was assigned a personal trainer at the Rec, and he gave me a new workout program. But I don't have any confidence in his expertise, since he has obvious trouble controlling his own appetite.

3 No, I will not reply. I see no need to defend my views against the objections of ignoramuses.

Ad Hominem personam is probably the most common logical fallacy of online arguments and disputes! 

The next type of ad hominem is 

Ad Hominal Circumstantiae (Circumstantial ad hominem)

Let’s recall that Circumstantial ad hominem points out that someone’s circumstances are predisposing him or her to take a particular position. It constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false.

Ad hominem tu quoque, therefore, has the following form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 has a vested interest in Y being true.

Therefore, Y is false. 

Here is one example:

Salesman: This car gets better than average gas mileage and is one of the most reliable cars according to Consumer Reports.

Will: I doubt it—you obviously just want to sell me that car.

The fact that the salesman has a vested interest in selling Will the car does not mean that he is lying.  He may be, but this is not something you can conclude solely on his interests. 

Example #2:

Of course, your minister says he believes in God.  He would be unemployed otherwise.

Explanation: The fact that atheist ministers are clearly not in high demand, does not mean that ministers believe in God just because they need a job.

Of course, sometimes one’s hidden personal interest does influence what a given person will or will not say. But it is a fallacy to assume that the fact that there is invested interest proves that the statement is necessarily false. One’s conflict of interests or invested interest cannot prove or disprove the trustworthiness of the claim.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque 

Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also”, “you too”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with his own argument.

This is false because one’s actions cannot make the argument true or false; if the actions of source A of the argument are inconsistent with their own argument, than Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.

For example, a father may tell his son not to start smoking as he will regret it when he is older, and the son may point out that his father is or was himself a smoker. This does not alter the fact that his son may regret smoking when he is older.

ad hominem tu quoque has the form:

1 Person A makes statement X.

2 Person B points out that past actions of person A are inconsistent with statement X that person A is making.

3 Therefore, statement X, whatever it is, is false or has no right to exist.

Logical incorrectness of this argument is obvious: the fact that the person who put forward the argument, does or does not perform certain actions, does not in any way influence the truth or falsity of an argument.

Guilt by association.

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the opponent attacks the speaker because of perceived similarity between the views of the speaker and the ideas of some unfavourable individual or group. 

Guilt by association has the form of.

1 Source D makes claim C.

2 Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.

3 Therefore, source D is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits the negative bias against this group. 

An exaggerated example of this would be: 

"My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?

However, guilt by association is not always so blatant and detectable. Here are some subtler real-life examples of it:

—Having a lot of friends who cheat on their spouses and thus having your spouse fear that you will also be a cheater just like your friends. 

—Spending a large portion of your day at work with slackers who do not do what the boss asks them to do and then being disliked by your boss because you are friends with the slackers even though you do your work.

—  Being a part of an unpopular religion that advocates violence and thus being viewed as violent yourself even though you personally do not have any violent tendencies or desires. 

A curious form of guilt by association is called Reductio ad Hitlerum, or Argumentum ad Hitlerum or Reduction to Hitler

which is essentially “playing the Nazi card”, in an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. An obvious example would be: "Hitler was against tobacco smoking, X is against tobacco smoking, therefore X is a Nazi”.

Also, A common example is when the argument against a given policy is that it leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and thus "proving" that the original policy is undesirable.

People love applying this fallacy to Donald Trump nowadays. His measures to protect his country are often unreasonably likened by his opponents to Hitler’s ideology.

Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else (thought that or did this)…?” with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying that Hitler held such idea or performed such action.

Take for example severely premature babies, born sometimes as early as at 4-5 months, who require complex and costly continuous medical support and procedures, all these measures with success rate of 1% and even if successful leaving the baby to live with severe disabilities and low quality of life for the rest of their life. Still, almost any argument in favour of discontinuing and withholding these costly, complex and mostly futile medical interventions will likely meet the counter-argument: Well, Hitler also thought the weak and the sick should be exterminated! This counter-argument would actually be two fallacies in one: the Straw Man, and Reduction to Hitler! Do you see why? 

In fact, a clever response to the Reduction to Hitler fallacy would be the following.

“And what if Hitler said that two plus two equals four, should I then, in order to avoid being classified as his supporter, clim that two plus two equals five?”.    

The last logical fallacy that we will look at in this video is 

Appeal to Authority

It is the use of a reference to an authoritative source as soul evidence for an argument.

In reality, the argument can only be true if it is confirmed by facts, no matter how respected and well-deserved the author is. Confirming or refuting the argument, one must look at the research methodology, the quality of data and its limitations, and not at the number of the honourable titles that the author holds! 

Example: Some experts say drinking 4 to 5 cups of coffee can be good for your health!

Well, some experts say that, but other experts will disagree. The real proof is only in looking at the real scientific study,  and its elements like its method, representativeness and limitations. The author, no matter how impressive his or her title, can never serve as substitute for and replace all that! 

Another example:

The Pope told me that priests could turn bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood.  The Pope is not a liar.  Therefore, priests really can do this.

Explanation: The Pope may believe what he says, and perhaps the Pope is not a liar, but the Pope is not an authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed into Jesus’ body and blood. 

Another example would be this:

“Jim has a doctorate in theology, and he says it’s okay to believe both in evolution and in the Bible.”

Again, we could certainly find many qualified theologians who would state the exact opposite. 

Perhaps you, dear viewers, were reminded by these examples of  television news and shows! On the news, this method is often used, when viewers are provided with sensational and / or scandalous news and speculations, and all that is known about their truth or falsity is that they were stated by some expert (although as was already mentioned experts from one area often strongly disagree with each other), or a source close to the President of the United States, or even an anonymous source from a certain ministry or committee, or even just a famous person who does not have any credentials in the field in question.

In fact, Fallacious arguments from authority frequently involve citing a non-authority as an authority. An example of appealing to an authority in an unrelated field would be citing Albert Einstein as an authority in religious or political questions when his primary expertise was in physics.

Some body of attributed authorities might not even welcome such citation, such as in the following ad campaign of "More Doctors Smoke Camels"

Inversely, It is also a fallacious ad hominem to argue that a person presenting certain statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered.

As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

I hope, dear viewers, that you have found this subject of logical fallacies interesting and useful. We will continue learning about curious logical fallacies including some less intuitive ones in the next video!

Thank you for watching! Please, support my channel by your subscription and likes, it always means a lot to me!

Video: