Logical fallacies are mistakes in arguments. For example, if someone says that something is better solely because it is more “natural,” this is the appeal to nature fallacy. If someone presents two options as mutually exclusive when they are not, this is a false dilemma. If someone misrepresents someone else’s argument to make it easier to rebut, it’s called a straw man fallacy. Learning to recognize logical fallacies can be useful because it can protect us from manipulation and help us keep conversations on track.
But gaining only a superficial knowledge of logical fallacies can backfire, and it may undermine our ability to communicate clearly and evaluate claims.
Risk 1: Over-Identifying Fallacies
When we first learn about logical fallacies, we might start seeing them everywhere. This is not surprising since fallacies can be found all over the place! However, not everything that sounds like a fallacy is a fallacy. This inclination to look for fallacies can be problematic if we start identifying every “fallacy-shaped” statement as a fallacy.
Most logical fallacies are informal fallacies. This means that whether or not they are fallacies depends on the context. For example, it’s a fallacy called ad hominem when someone attacks the person who made a claim instead of addressing their claim. But that doesn’t mean every criticism of a person is a fallacy. If someone claims that they’re trustworthy, bringing up past examples of their dishonesty is relevant and not a fallacy in this context. When people have an incomplete understanding of the ad hominem fallacy, they may start thinking every personal attack is a fallacy.
When we learn about informal fallacies, we should also try to come up with examples of arguments that look like the fallacies but aren’t. For example, when learning about the slippery slope fallacy, we can also consider examples of valid slippery slope arguments: “You shouldn’t smoke casually because nicotine is addictive, and occasional smoking can turn into regular smoking.”
Risk 2: Less Productive Conversations
If you spend any time in social media comment sections, you’ve probably noticed that more and more people are calling out logical fallacies. Too often, people respond to a fallacy by naming it and acting as if that settles things. But if the person to whom you are speaking has never heard of the fallacy before, this will not improve their understanding or move the conversation forward.
Learning about logical fallacies should be combined with learning productive conversation skills like active listening. We need to learn how to explain flaws in reasoning, not just how to label them, as well as how to discern when it is helpful to bring them up.
Risk 3: Committing the Fallacy Fallacy
When someone uses a fallacy in an argument, that does not necessarily mean that their conclusion is wrong. It is possible to come to a true conclusion through flawed reasoning. For example: “Nothing that has been changed from its natural state is safe to consume. Therefore, antifreeze is not safe to consume.” You may have identified the first statement as the appeal to nature fallacy. It’s perfectly safe to eat things that have been changed from their natural state; even cooking food is changing it. However, the conclusion—that you should not consume antifreeze—happens to be true.
Assuming that a flawed argument entails a flawed conclusion is itself a fallacy. It’s called the fallacy fallacy. When learning about logical fallacies, we should keep in mind that a flawed argument does not entail a false conclusion. It only means the conclusion is not supported by that particular argument.
Conclusion
Our world urgently needs people to learn to communicate with each other more effectively. Learning about logical fallacies can help. But we must do so scrupulously, remembering that the goals are to improve reasoning and have more constructive conversations, not to give the impression of winning arguments.