At Issue: In a world filled with disinformation stemming from the breakdown of traditional media—once led by dedicated, educated professionals committed to holding power to account—we now face a so-called “New Media” era dominated by a ragtag group of online influencers who have thrown out the rulebook. These influencers pose a significant threat to democratic institutions. The good news is that you don’t have to accept everything they say. Media literacy must take a new direction, empowering individuals to hold these charlatans accountable.
I understand that most people don’t have the time to stay on top of every news story or issue. But what you can make time for is refusing to accept everything you read or hear at face value. The key lies in listening critically to how arguments are framed and evaluating the credibility of their claims.
To build a well-informed citizenry, we must ensure that students develop critical thinking skills. Philosophy, often overlooked, should be as central to education as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). What use is there in advancing society through technology and science if we neglect the critical thinking skills needed to question and guide its application? Consider the development of nuclear weapons: a profound and catastrophic shift that forever altered humanity. Without critical thinking, society risks falling prey to unchecked technological advances with consequences we can’t fully comprehend.
Below, I outline some key philosophical fallacies that every citizen should recognize. These tools will help you identify flawed premises and, let’s be clear, recognize when someone is presenting a bullshit argument. I’ll also include “tells”—signs that the argument being made is on shaky ground.
1. Ad Hominem – “The Name-Calling Fallacy”
Occurs when the person making the argument is attacked instead of the argument itself.
- Example Argument:
“We should encourage bike ridership to reduce pollution.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“Of course you’d say that—you’re a cyclist!” - Flaw:
The argument about pollution stands regardless of the speaker’s personal habits. - Tell:
Look for comments that criticize the individual instead of addressing the actual point.
2. Straw Man – “The Boogeyman Fallacy”
Occurs when someone distorts an argument to make it easier to attack.
- Example Argument:
“More bike lanes could help with growing ridership.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“Bike lanes are a bad idea because cyclists ignore stop signs and endanger pedestrians.” - Flaw:
The original argument doesn’t mention cyclist behavior. The counter-argument creates a new, exaggerated issue. - Tell:
Notice if the rebuttal misrepresents the original statement to attack a fabricated version of it.
3. Appeal to Authority – “The I-Have-a-Friend Fallacy”
Occurs when an argument leans on an unverified authority for validation.
- Example Argument:
“I’m not aware of studies showing bike lanes increase recklessness.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“My friend is a criminologist and says cyclists are lawless.” - Flaw:
The authority’s qualifications and relevance are unclear, and no data supports the claim. - Tell:
Watch for vague references to experts without evidence or credentials.
4. Slippery Slope – “The Domino Effect Fallacy”
Occurs when a small action is said to lead to an extreme outcome.
- Example Argument:
“Let’s add more bike lanes.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“What’s next, bike lanes on highways?” - Flaw:
No evidence connects the initial proposal to the extreme conclusion. - Tell:
Look for leaps from reasonable premises to outrageous outcomes.
5. Bandwagon – “The Popularity Fallacy”
Occurs when something is claimed true simply because it’s widely believed.
- Example Argument:
“Dedicated bike lanes are beneficial.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“A poll shows most people oppose them.” - Flaw:
Popular opinion doesn’t prove truth or validity, and underlying reasons for the poll results may vary. - Tell:
Notice reliance on popularity without addressing the argument’s substance.
6. Appeal to Ignorance – “You-Can’t-Prove-It Fallacy”
Occurs when a lack of evidence is taken as proof of a claim.
- Example Argument:
“Bike lanes might reduce accidents.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“You can’t prove they won’t cause more accidents.” - Flaw:
Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. - Tell:
Listen for arguments hinging on what isn’t known rather than what is.
7. False Dilemma – “The Limited Options Fallacy”
Occurs when only two choices are presented, ignoring alternatives.
- Example Argument:
“Bike lanes can improve urban planning.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“Either bike lanes cause recklessness, or they lead to injuries.” - Flaw:
More options exist beyond these two extremes. - Tell:
Watch for arguments forcing unnecessary “either/or” choices.
8. Hasty Generalization – “The Sweeping Statement Fallacy”
Occurs when a broad conclusion is drawn from limited data.
- Example Argument:
“Bike lanes reduce traffic congestion.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“My neighbors think bike lanes are useless.” - Flaw:
A few opinions don’t reflect the broader reality or statistical evidence. - Tell:
Look for conclusions based on small or anecdotal samples.
9. Red Herring – “The Look-Over-Here Fallacy”
Occurs when someone diverts the discussion to an irrelevant topic.
- Example Argument:
“Bike lanes can reduce commuting emissions.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“But crime might increase near bike paths.” - Flaw:
The diversion doesn’t address the original argument about emissions. - Tell:
Identify shifts to unrelated topics mid-discussion.
10. Appeal to Tradition – “The We’ve-Always-Done-It Fallacy”
Occurs when something is deemed correct because it’s long-standing.
- Example Argument:
“Bike lanes reflect modern urban needs.” - Counter-Argument (Fallacy):
“We’ve managed without bike lanes for centuries.” - Flaw:
Longevity doesn’t automatically validate practices or dismiss change. - Tell:
Listen for appeals to “the way things have always been” as justification.
Leave a Reply