In our latest series of logical fallacies, we’ll be discussing three more types to look out for.
As always, the aim is not primarily to catch others in committing these fallacies, but mainly to catch ourselves doing that first. Starting with your own mistakes, is the best place to begin forming yourself and working on your personality and character.
Ad Hominem
A common and quite frankly, low level of fallacy.
You can’t do this one by accident. Instead of replying to an argument or claim by the other person, you attack them, personally. This is as always in these cases, another way to discredit them entirely and simply end the rational ongoing debate.
It’s uncivilized, indecent and quite frankly, immoral. Don’t let yourself slip in using this one, if caught, you will be in a compromised situation having clearly meant to harm to other person’s reputation instead of logically debating them.
Example: Ahmed told Shady that his report wasn’t accurate and needed amendments. Shady replied saying, “You’re ignorant and you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Ambiguity
This is commonly used when we’re in trouble.
You’ll often find politicians using this fallacy quite commonly. It’s quite silly when you look at it, it’s basically playing dumb. When faced with a problem of your doing, if you find a way to get out of it by twisting the meaning of the words, then you’re home free, at least that’s what some people think.
This is a en example we found online that explains this well enough.
Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn’t paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn’t have to pay them because the sign said, ‘Fine for parking here’ and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.
Anecdotal
It’s simple to ignore data and research presented properly in an argument when someone simply states the opposite because of his personal experience, that shouldn’t be the case.
We sometimes resort to believing someone’s personal anecdote about a subject instead of relying on science and rational thinking to properly understand an issue at hand.
It’s dangerous because it sets precedents for overvaluing someone’s story over credible scientific sources, that can lead to dangerous results.
Example: Driving at high speeds on the highway isn’t dangerous, I’ve driven back and forth all my life on the roads and never been in an accident.
As always, be careful of what you say and look out for those fallacies, it will take time, but it might actually be fun hunting for them.
Keep an out for them.
