The Plague of Misidentification

Biases, Fallacies, & Heuristics Part 2

Picking Up Where We Left Off

In the prior installment, we covered an introduction to biases. If any of that material is fuzzy, go back and look at it, and I am sure it will clear up immediately. If not, as we move forward, many of your questions are likely to be addressed. Now, we are on to an introduction to fallacies.

Fallacies

Fallacies are thinking errors. They come in many forms, such as fallacies of reason, arguments, or obfuscative inducement (laying traps that induce the victim to use fallacious reasoning). 

Reasoning

Reason is the process by which one thinks about, deduces, or otherwise attempts to ascertain the facts of an environment, situation, or event series such that they can understand and, therefore, make correct decisions as the result of having reasoned well.

Arguments

Arguments, in the sense used within this series, will mean logical arguments. Logical arguments have a form and a specific way of functioning. Understanding logical arguments is immensely helpful in discerning thinking errors. A logical argument is composed of one or more premises and is followed by one or more conclusions. The form of major premise, minor premise, and conclusion is known as a syllogism. 

Discerning Between Is & Does

Note what something is and what it does are two different subjects. Now, take a moment and think about the definitions I have given up to this point over the series. When defining many of the terms, the definitions have been descriptions of what the thing does. Am I violating the logic by defining it in these ways? Yes and no. It is a matter of sense. Yes, if I am unaware and doing it from ignorance. No, if I am aware and am choosing this sense intelligently. Why? Functionality. I ask you to remember both things here (functions & essences) and keep them in your mind. Learn to know when a thing is being defined only by its function(s). Next, always be concerned about the essence or true definition of what the thing is as well. One serves immediate needs within a text or conversation, etc., and the other serves depth of knowledge needs and is essential to grasp if you want to achieve the goal of this writing. 

I see the depth of knowledge needs as being non-time bound concerning localized environments. Meaning that while definitions of functionality are immediate for x or y situations, the depth of knowledge needs set is continual and is always needed whether the knowledge of the need is present or not. This, in part, deals with known unknowns and unknown unknowns and the impact that these actualities or states of being bring forth. This bringing forth (outcropping) and the prior states of being (existences of known unknowns and unknown knowns and our proximal relationship to them, whether in thought space or physical space) are, whether we like it or not, part of reality. There will be much more to come regarding all of this material as the essays unfold. Contemplate this material intensely. Now, back to our introduction to logical fallacies and the components of a syllogism.

A premise is a statement that should support the conclusion. A conclusion is a statement that may or may not follow, entail, or guarantee from the premises. An argument is valid if the truth of the premises entails (i.e., follows or guarantees) the truth of the conclusion. Note that validity and truth are not the same things. Validity means that if your premises are true, then your conclusion cannot be false. That is completely different from your premises, proving that your conclusion is correct. A conclusion may happen to be true but the argument can be invalid. We can end up with poor arguments if the premises don’t guarantee the truth of our conclusions. Let’s take a look at a classic example.

• Premise 1: All humans are mortal.

• Premise 2: Socrates is a human.

• Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Put succinctly: a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that has the aforementioned form and that reasons from the general to the specific. We can see that the two premises entail (i.e., follow or guarantee) and that they represent a state that can be tested and proven logical. This proves the soundness of the argument. Soundness is when you have validity and all true premises. The above argument has true premises, is valid, has a true conclusion, and is therefore sound. All humans are mortal, is true. Socrates is a human is also true. Socrates is mortal is valid and true, thus making the argument sound. Now, you can have a perfectly valid argument and still have a false conclusion as well. This happens if any of the premises are false.

Let’s look at a case where the argument has true premises that do not entail (follow or guarantee) the conclusion and are thus invalid.

• Premise 1: X likes Italy.

• Premise 2: X likes all things Italian.

• Conclusion: If X likes all things Italian, X must drive a Ferrari.

In the above, it does not follow that X must drive a Ferrari. Just because Ferrari is an Italian car maker does not necessitate that X must own a Ferrari. The premises here do not follow because they do not guarantee the conclusion. Such an argument is invalid. 

It is a fact that if more people in this world argued logically, we would have much less disagreement, dissent, disruption, cognitive dissonance, and the like. In short, things would not be taken as attacks of one form or another since they would be understood for what they are in reality, which is a logical position held to better understand the world and the reality in which it exists. This, of course, gives the benefit of the doubt to the presenter, and certainly, that should not always be the case. Unfortunately, and all too often, logic is used to obfuscate truth and to induce one into a fallacious position through cleverness. One thing is for sure here: if more of the world understood how to reason well, present logical arguments, and dissect other’s illogical arguments, some things would change in this reality. 

---

If you want a superpower, learn to see reality; that is a superpower.

---

We have just dipped our toes into logic in the most rudimentary of ways. Over time, we will deal with quite a lot of logical arguments, their forms, and their mathematical substructures. I hope to introduce you to all of this in ways that show you just how very essential it is to learn these things. In other words, I want to introduce you to the why behind logic, our need for it, and its capacity to save lives when used for good. We will get that, and a little at a time, with some dedication to this topic, you will have gained an immense tool in the tool kit of reality discernment. 

For now, I want you to take away from this little treatment on logic something beyond logic as a discipline. Logic is powerful, and like the proper tool at the proper time, it works with great efficiency. Not only will it help you in thinking better overall, but if you learn it well, it will fortify you in protecting yourself from bad intentions, misleading narratives, and lies of all types as much as possible. In short, from those who wish to fool you so they can have their own way. If we applied logic well, we could better solve the world's problems. More importantly, if we could use logic well, we could better correctly identify the world's problems and strip away the frequent misidentification of the issues that plague this world so intensely. Then, we would organically arrive at the collective ability to logically conclude together on the issues, their causes, and their resolutions. Even a 5% increase in actualized higher logical intelligence across the world would significantly improve our reality. The proper use of logic within our tool kit is worth its weight in Californium 252. 

Logic is not the be-all-end-all; it is, as stated, a tool. Think of it like this: if you decided to fix your car with a golf club, you would soon have no car, golf club, inner calm, or bank account. Future essays will explain why logic is not the only answer to our problem of seeing reality clearly. 

Twenty Significant Logical Fallacies

1. Appeal to Emotion Fallacy

2. Appeal to Authority Fallacy

3. False Dilemma Fallacy

4. Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy

5. Middle Ground Fallacy

6. Ad Hominem Fallacy

7. Hasty Generalization Fallacy

8. Ad Metum or Appeal to Fear Fallacy 

9. Ad Nauseam or Repetition Fallacy

10. Ecological Fallacy

11. Exception Fallacy

12. Straw Man Fallacy 

13. Hypostatisation or Reification Fallacy

14. Illicit Major Fallacy

15. Misleading Vividness Fallacy

16. Non-Sequitur Fallacy

17. Red Herring Fallacy

18. Reducto ad Absurdum Fallacy

19. Undistributed Middle Fallacy

20. Style Over Substance Fallacy

Appeal to Emotion Fallacy

Appeal to emotion is a fallacy that is ubiquitous. It occurs when one looks to their emotions in general or an emotion specifically as proof of validity or invalidity of x argument. If x feels good, then it must be good. If x feels bad, then it must be bad. The class of fallacies known as appeal fallacies all follow this type of structure, and they are very dangerous because of what that intimates about causation. I have not had a day in 30-plus years that I have not seen the appeal to emotion fallacy committed either in print, podcast, radio, newscast, television, or any of the other mediums that were popular over those years. In fact, I bet you can turn on the nightly news, and within ten minutes, if not ten seconds, you will witness it in all of its glory. I frequently see this among my students as well, at least in their first year or two in their private studies, and much more concerning is when it is still present after that time period. As long as you are committing this fallacy, you will not be able to see reality clearly. This is one of the greatest inhibitors. 

Appeal to Authority Fallacy

Appeal to authority is a fallacy that is also ubiquitous. It occurs when one depends upon an expert rather than the reasons for the position and, therefore, the why of the position. It follows the form. Expert A says B is true; therefore, B is true. Dr. X says Y is safe and effective, and we say, "Great, sign me up." This fallacy has exploded in use over the last few years (2022, currently). I can't stress enough how absolutely dangerous this thinking error can be if one does not identify it and proceed intelligently. This is one of the easier ones to pull the wool over the eyes of a populace with as it transforms with little effort into a fallacy of obfuscational inducement. If this happens, then a dangerous advantage is given into the hands of those who want their way without being able to back that way with the truth. 

False Dilemma Fallacy

The false dilemma fallacy occurs when one is placed in the thought space of either A or B being true. It then continues along this path, then if A is true, B must therefore be false. Next, C is not an option. By creating the false dilemma, one controls the narrative by bringing the conclusion into the exact space they wish. The exclusion of C from the thought space is essential as C is what was to be avoided from the start. 

In early Nazi Germany, problems were added to the textbooks that engendered the students to think in terms of directed solutions, e.g., how many mentally deficient patients would it take to overtax the structure of X facility at Y cost per mentally deficient patient with an operational budget of Z? This was used to bring about the need for the eradication of the mentally deficient and their burdens brought upon society. This argument, though a little more complex than the structure of the fallacy above, is committing that fallacy as C here is that caring for challenged individuals is the option that Hitler and his machine did not want the students to grasp. The A here is to eradicate them, doing them and the country a favor financially speaking, as they are miserable, financially burdensome, and they are suffering. The B is to pay for their care and lose our society due to the burden. Since this is intimated as being false, the setup for C is in place. Therefore, since B is false, C is not even on the table. The C of caring for them and finding solutions to those ends was completely left out of those problems; thus, we have directed outcomes, praise for obtaining those outcomes - (X got an A in arithmetic,) and training in not observing for that type of thinking, which is a meta-obfuscation of the grand C within the context of that society at that time. Take a look and see if you can find any false dilemma fallacies operating in your life. I bet it will take seconds before you locate several. Waking up to each and every one of these fallacies will help you wake up to reality, and that is a good thing. 

Anecdotal Evidence Fallacy

The anecdotal evidence fallacy occurs when one takes a story and infuses it errantly with the power of an adequate sample size. 

It has this form: x says that his Uncle Y has smoked for 80 years, and he is still healthy at 98 years of age. Therefore, smoking is not bad for you, or therefore, smoking is good for you because he lived to such an advanced age and is still healthy. The conclusion here is unprovable. The fallacy is within the premise of giving the story of Uncle Y any statistical merit within the broader context. 

Another example of this would be X ethnic group invaded Y country in the year 1275 AD, and they killed all of the z's when they took over. Therefore, when you see Xs coming into your country, they are going to invade and kill all of the Zs of your country. The historical invasion may have been a fact, as well as the subsequent events of the invasion. However, that is not an adequate sample size given the history of humanity to conclude that the Xs will a) invade, b) invade, and start a genocide, c) migrate for the same reasons, and d) have the same ideology as their ancestors. This could go on and on, but the point is that even known history can be used to create an anecdotal fallacy. In summary, one ethnic group's behavior over the time span (of tribal formations until now) and populace total (the total amount of individuals that have lived within societies over that span of time) is not sufficient enough of a sample size to conclude that this ethnic group will definitely repeat the same action. (Note: there is more to this example, but for space, I am truncating the explanation - later essays will cover it in detail.) This would be a ludicrous conclusion, and yet, we see this type of fallacy being used all around the world with great regularity. 

Middle Ground Fallacy

The middle ground fallacy occurs when one errantly assumes that a compromise between two conflicting ideologies or points of view is always true. It has this form: A thinks no drinking of alcohol is the way to live; B thinks drinking alcohol whenever you want is the way to live; therefore, C drinking alcohol only on special occasions and some weekends is the way to live. People may agree to this in a relationship, but that does not mean it is not errant. Sure, you can "go along to get along," but this says nothing of the validity of the argument, which is not resolved in any way here, as finding the way to live has not been ascertained logically. 

Lets do one more for the sake of clarity. X wants to change twelve things about how the company does business. Y does not want to change anything about how the company does business. They then decide to change only six things about the way the company does business. The company folds as a result of this errant reasoning because the other six things were essential to acclimating to a new business environment. As a result, the company could not keep up with its competition.

Coming Next & an Important Question

We will cover the rest of the fallacy list in the next essays. I want to leave you with a question that is very important. It regards pain and how people perceive it, deny it, fear it, or confront it with bravery and intention. Go back and look at these fallacies and the examples I have given for them, and ask yourself: how might the usage of these fallacies help one to perceive, deny, or confront pain? This could seem to be a slightly unorthodox question, and you may feel the urge to restructure it into the question you would ask or want to answer. I ask you to resist this urge and answer the question exactly as it was asked. If you do this successfully, it will enhance your capacity to see reality more clearly. 

Of course, there are many valid questions that could be asked about the above list, and I am in favor of them, so your questions should be answered as well. Think about this question deeply and try to stay exactly on track regarding its logical answer. 

We will continue

B.S.R.

Resources

https://iep.utm.edu/e/

https://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/fallacies_alpha.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

https://www.teachthought.com/critical-thinking/logical-fallacies-list/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/#RusTheDes

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/