On Fallacies
Fortify yourself against those modern-day sophists saying the wrong things in the “right” ways
Rhetoric is more than the study of how to speak appropriately to others. It is also the study of how to discern what others are saying to you. In this sense, rhetoric is as much about defense as it is about offense. We would do well to make sure others aren’t using language in erroneous and dishonest ways. In fact, if we can identify fallacious tactics others use, voluntarily or involuntarily, we can move forward with the defensive confidence necessary to participate in difficult conversations. This is why rhetoric needs to emphasize the study of rhetorical fallacy.
When I say, “rhetorical fallacy,” I mean an error in reasoning. It is when a speaker seems to be following the rules of logic but only gives the semblance of a sound argument. A rhetorical fallacy can also be the replacement of reason with emotion in ways that make a statement feel correct. As scholars W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther may put it, fallacies are “counterfeit arguments”: they look authentic and can fool many, but the ones aware enough to look for fake logic can avoid being duped.
Fearnside and Holther’s Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument (In my opinion, the best book for understanding rhetorical fallacies) breaks rhetorical fallacies into three categories that we would do well to know: logical, psychological, and material. They explain the distinction with an analogy.
Suppose we compare argument to a manufacturing process which uses a machine, an operator, and raw materials. If the materials are up to standard, the operator efficient, and the machine running smoothly, the finished product will probably pass inspection. However, three kinds of things can go wrong. The materials can be below standard or poorly prepared. The operator can make a mistake -- get sleepy or be distracted and turn the wrong knob. And the machine itself can break down or misfunction. In any of these three cases, the product will probably not pass inspection. If the trouble lies with the material, we call it material; if with the operator, we call it psychological; if with the machine, then logical.
It’s worth addressing each kind of rhetorical fallacy separately.
Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are, perhaps, the most popular form. So popular, in fact, that people label fallacies as logical when they are really psychological or material. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Let us take the example, “All Democrats are Socialists.” Here is the line of “reasoning” implied in the statement:
Jim is a Democrat
Jim is also a Socialist
(Therefore) Democrats are Socialists.
We can discern the flaw here. One Democrat does not determine the characteristics of Democrats in general.
Another popular logical fallacy is the ad hominem statement in which a person’s character is attacked in lieu of that person’s argument. For example, dismissing someone’s ideas about social justice because, as a white man, he couldn’t possibly understand the most pressing issues. However, in reality this does not mean he cannot have a good point or an ideal strategy. His thoughts, even if disagreed with, can inform a discussion in positive ways. (If anything, it provides more information.) But many see the dismissal of a person based on his race as a legitimate act in this situation. Ironically, the ad hominem fallacy has been a remarkably effective fallacy in academia and activists circles.
Psychological Fallacies
Although Logical fallacies may be the most well-known, psychological fallacies are just as common , if not more. Psychological fallacies appeal to emotion or character: if something feels right, it is right; if something is said by a respected figure, it is taken as truth.
Regarding feeling, an all-too-common example is called “mind reading”: acting, with certainty, like one’s motivations for something are no good or flawed with no proof other than a feeling. A statement like “Steve is against affirmative action because he is racist,” either before or after hearing Steve’s reasons, is a mind reading fallacy. It feels true in certain environments because Steve is a white male, the symbol of Western oppression, disagreeing with a policy meant to help minorities. Regarding character, the same people who dismissed Steve at face value would always give the benefit of the doubt to a black female. That person’s character or identity takes precedence over the soundness of her statements.
Material Fallacies
The third category is the material fallacy. It occurs when there is a flaw in information that, by extension, creates a flaw in one’s conclusions. Based on the information given, one can make a seemingly logical statement. However, if the information, the material, is flawed from the beginning, one’s conclusion will be as well. Often, people with differing viewpoints on the same topic are simply acting on different information about that topic, altered by biased news outlets, motivation toward a particular ideology, and reports from only one facet of a multi-faceted issue. Reactions to the shootings of civilians by ICE agents are examples. People hear and see different things from different people, which inevitably results in different conclusions.
Knowing the nature of these fallacies can help people defend themselves against bad-faith actors who want a particular outcome irrespective of the truth. It can also defend us from good-faith actors with incorrect information or whose emotions overpower their logic. Those unaware of rhetorical fallacies are most vulnerable, so fortify yourself against those modern-day sophists saying the wrong things in the “right” ways. That said, remember that you, too, are imperfect and may commit inadvertent rhetorical fallacies yourself. Recognize these fallacies so that you can create stronger, logically, materially, and psychologically sound arguments of your own.