Significantly Improve the Way You Reason and Make Decisions
This course is sponsored by and heaviliy discounted thanks to
The Book, "Logically Fallacious," by Bo Bennett, PhD.
Self-paced, Online, Lessons
Videos and/or Narrated Presentations
Approximate Hours of Course Media
This is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are. The focus of this course is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.
Learn the Fine Points of Common Fallacies
Fallacies have been around since the ancient Greek philosophers, and perhaps since the dawn of communication. Since the advent of social media, they seem to be around a lot more. Through mastering logical fallacies, you can not only correct others when they display a lapse in reasoning, but you can prevent yourself from making similar reasoning faux pas. You will be doing your part in making the world a more reasonable place.
Unlike other mentions of logical fallacies, the instructor goes into depth discussing many of the cognitive aspects of why we commit these fallacies and why we fall for them, offering academic insight in the world of logical fallacies.
While this course is written for the layperson, some concepts which may be new to you but play an important role in reasoning are introduced, in section1 we will cover the basics of reasoning, arguments, beliefs, fallacies, rationality, and being a smart-ass. In sections 2–18 we will go over in detail the most common logical fallacies, the variations of those fallacies, psychological reasons behind them, examples, and exceptions.
By the end of this course, you should be more confident in your ability to engage in rational arguments as well as present your own arguments.
* Thanks in part to the sponsorship of The Book, "Logically Fallacious," by Bo Bennett, PhD, this course is made available to you for free. Sponsors have a subtle mention under the course title and links in the course resources - there are no intrusive image-based ads or audio ads in the course.
While this course is written for the layperson, I do need to introduce some concepts which may be new to you but play an important role in reasoning, as well as issue a few warnings and explain how this course is organized. In this section, we will cover the basics of reasoning, arguments, beliefs, fallacies, rationality, and being a smart-ass. By the end of this section, you should:
Note that this is designed as an interactive course with discussion questions and exercises. You can choose to participate or not. It is your course!
Reason and rationality are not the same, and it is important to know the differences.
An "argument" is often seen as a negative experience, but this is not the type of argument we are talking about in this course.
Not all beliefs are formed the same, and not all people are biologically influenced by information in the same way.
There are formal and informal fallacies. The informal fallacies are arguments in themselves where there is a degree of subjectivity.
Sometimes calling out fallacies is the best course of action. Sometimes it's not. Know the difference.
Sometimes an argument is fallacious. Sometimes it is the person who is making the argument who is fallacious. And sometimes it is the person interpreting the argument who is fallacious.
In this section we will cover the Ad Hominem fallacy in detail, including five common forms: Ad Hominem (Abusive), Ad Hominem (Circumstantial), Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association), Ad Hominem (Tu quoque), and Poisoning the Well.
By the end of this section you should be familiar with these fallacies and be able to recognize when they are committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying the fallacies in real world contexts. And you will create your own examples choosing from these fallacies.
Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased, or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.
When the source is viewed negatively because of its association with another person or group who is already viewed negatively.
Claiming the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.
To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable, or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.
In this section we will cover the Appeal to Common Belief fallacy in detail, also known as: appeal to accepted belief, groupthink, appeal to widespread belief, appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad numerum, appeal to the number, argumentum consensus gentium, appeal to the mob, appeal to the gallery, mob appeal, social conformance, value of community.
By the end of this section you should be familiar with this fallacy and be able to recognize when it's committed, even if not by name. You will practice identifying this fallacy in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of this fallacy.
When the claim that most or many people in general or of a particular group accept a belief as true is presented as evidence for the claim. Accepting another person’s belief, or many people’s beliefs, without demanding evidence as to why that person accepts the belief, is lazy thinking and a dangerous way to accept information.
A large group's aggregated answers to questions involving quantity estimation, general world knowledge, and spatial reasoning has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group.
In this section, we cover four fallacies that are directly related to religion: Appeal to Faith, Appeal to Heaven, Magical Thinking, and Spiritual Fallacy. It will be made clear that it is not faith, the belief in magic, Heaven, or a spiritual world that is fallacious—it is the reliance on these beliefs in place of reason in rational discourse that is fallacious.
By the end of this section, students will
This is an abandonment of reason in an argument and a call to faith, usually when reason clearly leads to disproving the conclusion of an argument. It is the assertion that one must have (the right kind of) faith in order to understand the argument.
Asserting the conclusion must be accepted because it is the “will of God” or “the will of the gods”. In the mind of those committing the fallacy, and those allowing to pass as a valid reason, the will of God is not only knowable, but the person making the argument knows it, and no other reason is necessary.
Making causal connections or correlations between two events not based on logic or evidence, but primarily based on superstition. Magical thinking often causes one to experience irrational fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because they assume a correlation with their acts and threatening calamities.
Insisting that something meant to be literal is actually “spiritual” in as an explanation or justification for something that otherwise would not fit in an explanation.
In this section we will cover the Ambiguity Fallacy, Equivocation, and the Use-Mention Error in detail. These fallacies involve playing with language and not being clear.
By the end of this section you should be familiar with these fallacies and be able to recognize when they are committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying these fallacies in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of one of these fallacies.
English is complicated and people can take advantage of that fact to confuse others.
A few examples of equivocation are presented that can be seen used today.
Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
Accepting a claim of a celebrity based on his or her celebrity status, not on the strength of the argument.
Asserting that a proposition is true solely on the authority making the claim while extreme cases also ignore any counter evidence no matter how strong. The authority could be parents, a coach, a boss, a military leader, or a divine authority.
Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority in the matter. This is usually indicated by the phrases, “just trust me”, “because I said so”, “you’ll see”, or “just because”. The just because fallacy is not conducive to the goal of argumentation -- that is coming to a mutually agreeable solution. Nor is it helpful in helping the other person understand why you are firm on your position. “Just because” is not a reason that speaks to the question itself; it is simply a deflection to authority (legitimate or not).
In this section, we cover five fallacies that are directly related to emotion: Appeal to Ridicule, Appeal to Pity, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Desperation, and Appeal to Anger. We are both creatures of emotion and logic, and despite what some may want to believe, emotion is a very important part of our humanity. Reason alone cannot guide our actions, but emotions often get in the way. In this lesson we will discuss this important distinction.
By the end of this section, students will learn
This is the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument. It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.
Arguing that your conclusion, solution, or proposition is right based on the fact that something must be done, and your solution is "something."
When fear, not based on evidence or reason, is being used as the primary motivator to get others to accept an idea, proposition, or conclusion.
When the emotions of anger, hatred, or rage are substituted for evidence in an argument.
The attempt to distract from the truth of the conclusion by the use of pity.
In this section we will cover the Argument From Ignorance fallacy in detail, also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity.
By the end of this section you should be familiar with this fallacy and be able to recognize when it is committed, even if not by name. You will have practice identifying this fallacy in real world contexts. And you will create your own example of this fallacy.
We will also answer the big question, is absence of evidence, evidence of absence?
The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.
Plausibility is essentially believably, and people believe things for all sorts of reasons, many of which are not rational.
Not all people are equal in terms of dispositions to fallacies, and this one is no exception.
In this section, we cover three fallacies that are related: Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, and Complex Question Fallacy. Circularity is common, sometimes humorous, and some would argue it is also necessary. But it doesn't have to be fallacious.
By the end of this section, students will learn
A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared. This fallacy is often quite humorous.
Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question, and accepts it as a fact.
In inductive arguments, there is always a chance that the conclusion might be false, despite the truth of the premises. This is often referred to as “confidence level”. In any given study or poll, there is a confidence level of less than 100%. If a confidence level is 95%, then one out of 20 similar studies will have a false conclusion. If you make multiple comparisons, say 20 or more where there is a 95% confidence level, you are likely to get a false comparison. This becomes a fallacy when that false comparison is seen as significant rather than a statistical probability.
Numbers don't lie, but them people who use them do.
Assuming flawless statistical models apply to situations where they actually don’t. This can result in the over-confidence in probability theory or simply not knowing exactly where it applies as opposed to chaotic situations or situations with external influences too subtle or numerous to predict.
Drawing a conclusion based on a small sample size, rather than looking at statistics that are much more in line with the typical or average situation.
Using implausibly precise statistics to give the appearance of truth and certainty, or using negligible difference in data to draw incorrect inferences.
Drawing a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased, or chosen in order to make it appear the population on average is different than it actually is.
Ignoring statistical information in favor of using irrelevant information, that one incorrectly believes to be relevant, to make a judgment. This usually stems from the irrational belief that statistics don’t apply in a situation, for one reason or another when, in fact, they do.
In this section, we cover the fallacy known as Black and White Thinking, or by its other common name, the False Dilemma. We discuss when and when this is not a fallacy, and cover many of the reasons why people make this fallacy. We also look at the anti false dilemma: Denying the Correlative.
When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.
Sometimes limiting to just two choices in not a fallacy.
This style of thinking is often associated with personality disorders, but most of us can do something about it.
In this section, we cover fallacies associated with creating impossible standards. These include Moving the Goalposts, Nirvana Fallacy, Unfalsifiability, Proving Non-Existence, Definist Fallacy, Appeal to Possibility, and Appeal to the Moon.
Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.
Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard. Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.
Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.
Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.
Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
There are things we can do to discourage others from using red herrings on us.
In this section, we focus on the Slippery Slope argument or fallacy, also known as: absurd extrapolation, thin edge of the wedge, camel's nose, and domino fallacy.
When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required—usually connected by “the next thing you know...”
We will look when this is a legitimate argument, and when it is fallacious. More important, we will explore why.
When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted, but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required -- usually connected by “the next thing you know...”
Science that attempts to establish causality is basically a legitimate slippery slope.
Evidence is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.
The number of events in the causal chain is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.
The confidence level and probability of each event in the causal chain is one of the factors that needs to be considered when deciding if a slippery slope is fallacious or not.
In this section we will look at Special Pleading. Special Pleading is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special Pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason.
Strong personal beliefs are more problematic than just emotions since they are more persistent and less malleable.
Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.
In this section we will look at fallacies related to the analogy, including Weak Analogy, Non Sequitur, Extended Analogy, and Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Analogies can be an incredibly useful tool in rhetoric, or seriously fallacious. And often both. In this section, we explore when and why.
When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.
When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.
Suggesting that because two things are alike in some way and one of those things is like something else, then both things must be like that "something else".
The attempt to make an argument analogous with Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler is probably the most universally despised figure in history, so any connection to Hitler, or his beliefs, can (erroneously) cause others to view the argument in a similar light. However, this fallacy is becoming more well known as is the fact that it is most often a desperate attempt to render the truth claim of the argument invalid out of lack of a good counter argument.
In this section we explore fallacies related to the concepts of nature and the natural, including Naturalistic Fallacy, Moralistic Fallacy, and Appeal to Nature.
The Naturalistic Fallacy and Appeal to Nature are perhaps the two most confused fallacies. The names are not what is really important, but the meanings are. By the end of this lesson, you will know the difference—and remember it.
When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that “natural” is always better than “unnatural”. Many people adopt this as a default belief.
The world "natural" is puzzling and quite arbitrary. Once we understand the problems with the natural/unnatural dichotomy, we will better understand the appeal to nature fallacy.
We have a tendency just focus on our own health concerns and ignore all the other important factors when evaluating the unnatural.
We cannot know for certain that something will be 100% safe in the future. This does not make it a serious risk.
When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on actually what is more natural. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.
The assumption that what ought to be is what is -- that the undesirable opposes nature.
In this final section, we briefly cover many different fallacies that are worthy of mention based on the frequency of their usage, and clear up some common confusion with these fallacies. We will cover Appeal to Tradition, Appeal to Normality, Reductio ad Absurdum, Fallacy of Composition, Fallacy of Division, Cherry Picking, Sunk-Cost Fallacy, Self-Sealing Argument, and Shoehorning.
Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct. Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.
Using social norms to determine what is good or bad. It is the idea that normality is the standard of goodness. This is fallacious because social norms are not the same as norms found in nature or norms that are synonymous with the ideal function of a created system. The conclusion, "therefore, it is good" is often unspoken, but clearly implied.
A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments which use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
Fallacy of Division: Inferring that something is true of one or more of the parts from the fact that it is true of the whole.
Fallacy of Composition: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.
Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking into consideration the overall losses involved in the further investment.
An argument or position is self-sealing if and only if no evidence can be brought against it no matter what.
The process of force-fitting some current affair into one's personal, political, or religious agenda. Many people aren't aware of how easy it is to make something look like confirmation of a claim after the fact, especially if the source of the confirmation is something in which they already believe, like Biblical prophecies, psychic predictions, astrological horoscopes, fortune cookies, and more.
Just a congratulatory message from me to you.
Bo Bennett's personal motto is "Expose an irrational belief, keep a person rational for a day. Expose irrational thinking, keep a person rational for a lifetime." Much of his work is in the area of education—not teaching people what to think, but how to think. His projects include his books, The Concept: A Critical and Honest Look at God and Religion, Logically Fallacious, the most comprehensive collection of logical fallacies, and Year To Success, a full year course in success. Bo has a podcast/blog called "The Dr. Bo Show" at http://www.TheDrBoShow.com where he takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining.
Bo holds a PhD in social psychology, with a master's degree in general psychology and bachelor's degree in marketing. His complete bio along with current projects can be found at http://www.BoBennett.com.
