Attacking Faulty Reasoning

1. Engage in Rational Discussion with a Code of Conduct

A “discussion” may involve two or more participants or it may simply be an internal discussion with oneself.

Follow intellectual principles. Effective rational discussion, whether internal or external, is guided by a code of intellectual conduct. This code provides both procedural rules for resolving disputes and an ethical standard for fair-minded engagement. Adhering to these principles increases the likelihood of finding truth and making reasonable decisions.

Core principles include:

• Fallibility: Acknowledge your own potential for error.
• Truth-Seeking: Earnestly search for the most defensible position.
• Clarity: Ensure all claims and arguments are free of linguistic confusion.
• Burden of Proof: The person making a claim is responsible for supporting it.
• Charity: Represent opposing arguments in their strongest, fairest form.

Foundation for progress. These principles are fundamental to intellectual progress, particularly in controversial areas like religion and politics. By committing to mutual fallibility and genuine truth-seeking, participants open themselves to new understandings and increase the chances of resolving disagreements based on the strength of arguments, not just winning.

2. Understand What Constitutes an Argument

An argument is a group of statements, one or more of which, the premises, support or provide evidence for another, the conclusion.

Argument vs. Opinion. An argument is not merely a heated dispute or a statement of opinion. It is a claim (the conclusion) supported by other claims (the premises). An opinion is an unsupported claim; an argument is a supported claim.

Identifying argument parts. To evaluate an argument, you must first identify its conclusion – the claim being defended – and its premises – the reasons offered as support. Look for statements that provide evidence for another statement. Sometimes indicator words like "therefore" or "because" help, but often you must interpret the structure from context.

Standard form helps. Reconstructing an argument into a standard form (Premise 1, Premise 2, ... Therefore, Conclusion) clarifies its structure. This process involves:

• Separating premises from the conclusion.
• Making implicit premises or conclusions explicit (often enclosed in brackets).
• Eliminating irrelevant material.
• Using clear, concise language.

3. Evaluate Arguments Using Five Core Criteria

A good argument must meet five criteria...

Criteria for quality. An argument is not automatically good just because it exists. A good argument must satisfy five essential criteria:

• Structural Soundness: It must be logically well-formed.
• Relevant Premises: The reasons must bear on the truth of the conclusion.
• Acceptable Premises: The reasons must be believable to a rational person.
• Sufficient Premises: The reasons must provide enough support for the conclusion.
• Effective Rebuttal: It must address anticipated criticisms.

Degrees of quality. Arguments exist on a spectrum of quality. Some are clearly bad, violating multiple criteria, while others are strong but could be improved. Evaluating an argument involves assessing how well it meets each of these five standards.

Foundation for judgment. These five criteria provide a systematic framework for assessing any argument. By applying them rigorously, you can move beyond simply liking or disliking a conclusion and make a reasoned judgment about whether the argument presented actually justifies accepting that conclusion.

4. Recognize Fallacies as Violations of Argument Criteria

A fallacy is a violation of one of the criteria of a good argument.

Mistakes in reasoning. Fallacies are errors in argumentation that undermine the quality of an argument. They are not just random mistakes but specific patterns of flawed reasoning that violate one or more of the five criteria of a good argument.

Categories of fallacies. Fallacies can be grouped based on which criterion they violate:

• Structural flaws (e.g., circular reasoning)
• Irrelevant premises or appeals (e.g., appealing to emotion)
• Unacceptable premises (e.g., using vague language)
• Insufficient evidence (e.g., hasty generalization)
• Failure to rebut effectively (e.g., attacking the person)

Deceptive appearance. Fallacious arguments often appear to be good arguments, which is why they can be so persuasive and misleading. Learning to identify these patterns helps you avoid being tricked and improves your own reasoning. While knowing the names of fallacies can be helpful, the key skill is recognizing how the reasoning fails to meet the standards of a good argument.

5. Identify Structural Flaws in Reasoning

One who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.

Argument must "work". A structurally sound argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises (necessarily for deductive, probably for inductive). Structural fallacies occur when the argument's form prevents this logical connection, regardless of the content.

Common structural fallacies:

• Begging the Question: The premises assume the truth of the conclusion (e.g., arguing in a circle, using question-begging language).
• Inconsistency: The premises contradict each other or the conclusion contradicts a premise.
• Deductive Inference Errors: Violating rules of formal logic (e.g., denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent, false conversion, undistributed middle term, illicit distribution).

Fatal flaws. These flaws are fundamental. An argument with contradictory premises, for instance, cannot logically lead to any conclusion. Recognizing these structural issues is a critical first step in evaluating an argument, as a structurally unsound argument cannot be a good one.

6. Spot Irrelevant Premises and Appeals

One who presents an argument for or against a position should set forth only reasons whose truth provides some evidence for the truth of the conclusion.

Reasons must matter. Premises in a good argument must be relevant to the conclusion. They must provide some evidence or bear on the truth or merit of the claim being made. Irrelevant premises or appeals fail this test, offering reasons that have no logical connection to the conclusion.

Types of irrelevant premises:

• Genetic Fallacy: Evaluating something based solely on its origin, ignoring present changes.
• Rationalization: Giving fake, plausible-sounding reasons instead of the real, less respectable ones.
• Drawing the Wrong Conclusion: Presenting evidence that supports a different conclusion than the one stated.
• Using the Wrong Reasons: Attempting to support a conclusion with evidence that is inappropriate or irrelevant to that specific claim.

Types of irrelevant appeals:

• Appeal to Irrelevant Authority: Citing an unqualified, unidentified, or biased source.
• Appeal to Common Opinion: Claiming something is true because many people believe it.
• Appeal to Force or Threat: Using intimidation instead of evidence.
• Appeal to Tradition: Justifying something solely because it's customary.
• Appeal to Self-Interest: Appealing only to personal benefit when broader issues are at stake.
• Manipulation of Emotions: Exploiting feelings (pity, flattery, shame, group loyalty, guilt by association) to bypass rational assessment.

Distraction, not support. These fallacies distract from the real issue or attempt to coerce acceptance through non-rational means. Identifying them requires asking whether the reasons given actually provide logical support for the conclusion, or merely attempt to persuade through other means.

7. Detect Unacceptable or Confusing Claims

One who presents an argument for or against a position should provide reasons that are likely to be accepted by a mature, rational person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

Premises must be believable. A premise is acceptable if a rational person, considering all available evidence, would likely accept it. This is distinct from absolute truth, which is often difficult to ascertain. Premises can be unacceptable due to linguistic confusion or unwarranted assumptions.

Fallacies of linguistic confusion:

• Equivocation: Using a word with two different meanings in the same argument.
• Ambiguity: Using a word, phrase, or sentence that can be interpreted in multiple ways without clarifying which is intended.
• Misleading Accent: Placing improper emphasis on words or taking statements out of context to distort meaning.
• Illicit Contrast: A listener improperly inferring a contrasting claim from a speaker's statement.
• Argument by Innuendo: Suggesting a conclusion subtly without explicitly stating or supporting it.
• Misuse of a Vague Expression: Using imprecise language to support a precise claim or drawing a precise conclusion from vague language.
• Distinction Without a Difference: Claiming two things are different when they are substantively the same, often to avoid criticism.

Unwarranted assumption fallacies:

• Fallacy of the Continuum: Assuming small differences don't matter or that distinctions on a spectrum are impossible/arbitrary.
• Fallacy of Composition: Assuming what's true of parts is true of the whole.
• Fallacy of Division: Assuming what's true of the whole is true of the parts.
• False Alternatives: Limiting options too severely and assuming one must be correct.
• Is-Ought Fallacy: Assuming what is the case ought to be the case, or vice versa.
• Wishful Thinking: Assuming something is true because you want it to be true.
• Misuse of a Principle: Applying a rule without considering exceptions or refuting a rule with an exception.
• Fallacy of the Mean: Assuming the middle position is best simply because it's moderate.
• Faulty Analogy: Assuming things alike in some ways are alike in others, ignoring key dissimilarities.

Clarity and reason required. Premises must be clear enough to be understood and based on reasonable grounds. Fallacies in this category introduce confusion or rely on questionable underlying beliefs, making the premises unreliable support for any conclusion.

8. Assess Arguments for Sufficient Evidence

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide relevant and acceptable reasons of the right kind, that together are sufficient in number and weight to justify the acceptance of the conclusion.

Enough is enough? Even with relevant and acceptable premises, an argument can fail if the evidence isn't sufficient to warrant the conclusion. Determining sufficiency is often context-dependent and involves assessing the number, kind, and weight of the premises.

Fallacies of missing evidence:

• Insufficient Sample: Drawing a conclusion from too few cases (hasty generalization).
• Unrepresentative Data: Basing a conclusion on a biased or non-representative sample.
• Arguing from Ignorance: Claiming something is true because it hasn't been disproven, or false because it hasn't been proven.
• Contrary-to-Fact Hypothesis: Making unsupported claims about what would have happened or will happen under different conditions.
• Fallacy of Popular Wisdom: Using clichés, aphorisms, or "common sense" as evidence without justification.
• Special Pleading: Applying rules to others but claiming an unjustified exception for oneself.
• Omission of Key Evidence: Failing to include crucial information necessary to support the conclusion.

Causal fallacies:

• Confusion of Necessary with Sufficient Condition: Assuming a condition required for an event is enough to cause it.
• Causal Oversimplification: Attributing an effect to too few causes or overemphasizing one factor.
• Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming event B was caused by event A simply because B followed A.
• Confusion of Cause and Effect: Mistaking the effect for the cause.
• Neglect of a Common Cause: Failing to see that two events are effects of a third, underlying cause.
• Domino Fallacy: Assuming one event will inevitably lead to a series of other events without evidence for each step.
• Gambler's Fallacy: Believing past chance outcomes affect future probabilities in independent events.

Evidence must compel. Sufficient evidence means the premises, taken together, make the conclusion highly probable or logically necessary. Fallacies in this category fail to provide this compelling level of support, often relying on coincidence, speculation, or incomplete information.

9. Challenge Arguments Lacking Effective Rebuttal

One who presents an argument for or against a position should include in the argument an effective rebuttal to all anticipated serious criticisms of the argument that may be brought against it or against the position it supports.

Address counterarguments. A truly strong argument anticipates and effectively responds to the most serious criticisms against its conclusion or supporting premises. Ignoring or mishandling counterevidence weakens the argument significantly.

Fallacies of counterevidence:

• Denying the Counterevidence: Refusing to seriously consider or unfairly minimizing evidence against one's claim.
• Ignoring the Counterevidence: Omitting or overlooking important unfavorable evidence, giving a false impression of unchallenged support.

Ad Hominem fallacies: Attacking the person making the criticism instead of the criticism itself.

• Abusive Ad Hominem: Attacking the opponent's character or personal traits.
• Poisoning the Well: Discrediting the source of criticism beforehand due to perceived bias or circumstances.
• Two-Wrongs Fallacy (Tu Quoque): Rejecting criticism by pointing out the critic or others act similarly ("You do it too!").

Fallacies of diversion: Attempting to distract from the main issue or criticism.

• Attacking a Straw Man: Misrepresenting the opponent's argument to make it easier to attack.
• Trivial Objections: Focusing on minor, insignificant points to avoid addressing the core argument.
• Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant side issue to divert attention.
• Resort to Humor or Ridicule: Using jokes or mockery to dismiss a criticism without addressing it.

Meet challenges head-on. These fallacies are tactics to avoid the hard work of engaging with opposing viewpoints. A good arguer welcomes challenges as opportunities to test and strengthen their position, not as something to be evaded or dismissed unfairly.

10. Attack Faulty Reasoning Constructively

If you wish to maintain friendly relationships with your verbal opponents, and if you hope ultimately to win your point with the least amount of embarrassment and bitterness, I suggest you use the following guidelines.

Focus on the reasoning. When encountering faulty reasoning, the goal is not just to win or embarrass the opponent, but to improve the quality of the discussion and move closer to truth. Focus your critique on the argument's flaws, not the arguer's character.

Effective attack strategies:

• Self-Destructive Method: Reconstruct the argument in standard form to clearly expose its structural or logical flaw. Often, seeing the argument laid bare reveals its weakness.
• Absurd Counterexample Method: Create a new argument with the same flawed pattern as the opponent's but with obviously true premises leading to an absurd or false conclusion. This demonstrates the pattern's unreliability without technical jargon.

Rules of engagement:

• Avoid being a "fallacy monger" – don't nitpick every minor error.
• Confront fallacies only when they lead to unwarranted conclusions or prevent resolution.
• If caught committing a fallacy, admit it and adjust your thinking.
• Avoid using the word "fallacy" itself; describe the flaw clearly in plain language.

Improve, don't just critique. The ultimate aim is to help turn faulty reasoning into good reasoning. By understanding how arguments go wrong, you are better equipped to construct stronger arguments yourself and guide discussions toward more rational outcomes.

Last updated: May 17, 2025