Crimes Against Logic

1. Recognize and reject the "right to your opinion" fallacy

You don't really have a right to your own opinions.

Opinions aren't sacred. The idea that everyone is entitled to their opinion is a popular but flawed concept. This notion often leads to the mistaken belief that all opinions are equally valid or immune to criticism. In reality, opinions should be based on evidence and sound reasoning.

• Entitlement to an opinion doesn't make it true or well-supported
• The political right to hold an opinion differs from the epistemic right (based on evidence)
• Claiming a "right to an opinion" often serves to shut down debate rather than engage in it

When someone asserts their right to an opinion, they're often avoiding the responsibility of defending that opinion with facts and logic. Instead of accepting this as a valid argument, challenge the basis of the opinion and encourage a more substantive discussion.

2. Beware of motive-based arguments that ignore factual merit

It is perfectly possible to have some interest in holding or expressing an opinion and for that opinion to be true.

Motives don't determine truth. Attacking someone's motives for holding a belief or making an argument is a common but fallacious tactic. This approach, known as the Motive Fallacy, diverts attention from the actual content of the argument to the alleged intentions behind it.

• A person's motives for making an argument don't affect its truthfulness
• Ad hominem attacks on character or motivation don't address the argument itself
• Focus on the evidence and reasoning, not on why someone might be making the argument

In political debates, for example, opponents often accuse each other of having ulterior motives rather than addressing the substance of policies. Remember that even if someone has a vested interest in a particular outcome, it doesn't automatically invalidate their position. Evaluate arguments based on their merits, not on assumptions about the arguer's motivations.

3. Question authority and expertise in arguments

The People is not merely an unreliable source that is often invoked as if it were expert.

Expertise matters, but verify. While expert opinion can be valuable, it's important to distinguish between genuine expertise and mere authority. The Appeal to Authority fallacy occurs when someone's opinion is given undue weight simply because of their status or position, rather than their actual knowledge or evidence.

• Distinguish between literal authority (power to decide) and expert authority (knowledge)
• Be skeptical of appeals to popular opinion or majority belief
• Consider the relevance of an expert's field to the specific claim being made

For example, a celebrity's opinion on a medical issue shouldn't carry the same weight as a doctor's. Similarly, the popularity of an idea doesn't make it true. When evaluating claims, look for evidence and reasoning rather than relying solely on the status of the person making the claim.

4. Identify and avoid prejudice disguised as wisdom

Mystery is a completely undiscriminating license for belief. It rules out only what is coherent and well-supported by evidence, which may be why the mysterious is so fashionable with new-agers, who take belief to be a matter for unfettered self-expression.

Mysticism isn't wisdom. People often disguise their prejudices or unsupported beliefs as profound insights by appealing to mystery, faith, or intuition. This tactic can make irrational ideas seem deep or wise, but it's essentially a way to avoid critical scrutiny.

• Be wary of claims that can't be questioned because they're "mysterious" or "beyond logic"
• Faith-based arguments don't provide evidence for factual claims
• Quantum physics and other complex scientific concepts are often misused to support unrelated ideas

When someone appeals to mystery or faith to support a claim, ask for concrete evidence or logical reasoning. Remember that genuine mysteries in science or philosophy are acknowledged as areas for further investigation, not used as catch-all explanations for unsupported beliefs.

5. Recognize tactics used to silence opposing views

Abuse and intimidation, not refutation.

Silencing isn't arguing. Various tactics are used to shut down debate without actually addressing the arguments at hand. These include attacking the speaker's right to speak, dismissing ideas as boring or unoriginal, and associating views with controversial figures or ideologies.

• "You're not allowed to speak" - Questioning someone's right or qualifications to hold an opinion
• "You're boring" - Dismissing ideas as uninteresting rather than addressing their validity
• "You sound like Hitler" - Associating ideas with unpopular figures to discredit them

Instead of engaging in these tactics, focus on the content of the arguments. If an idea seems unoriginal, consider whether it's still valid. If someone lacks formal qualifications in a field, evaluate their actual arguments rather than dismissing them outright. Avoid guilt by association and instead address the specific claims being made.

6. Be wary of empty words and jargon in arguments

Jargon in management consulting involves the substitution of bizarre, large, and opaque words for ordinary, small, and well-understood words.

Jargon often obscures. While specialized terminology can be useful in specific fields, it's often misused to make simple ideas seem more complex or impressive. This is particularly common in business, politics, and academia, where jargon can be used to hide a lack of substance.

• Distinguish between necessary technical terms and unnecessary jargon
• Be skeptical of buzzwords and vague phrases that don't add meaning
• Look for clear, concise explanations of complex ideas

When encountering jargon-heavy language, try to translate it into simpler terms. If the idea can't be explained clearly, it may not be well understood or may be intentionally obscure. Don't be intimidated by complex language; instead, ask for clarification and seek out the core ideas being expressed.

7. Spot inconsistencies in reasoning and beliefs

Contradict yourself and you are sure to be wrong.

Consistency is crucial. Holding inconsistent beliefs or making inconsistent arguments undermines one's credibility and logical coherence. Many people unknowingly hold contradictory views, often due to failing to fully consider the implications of their beliefs.

• Identify implicit generalizations that may lead to inconsistencies
• Be aware of weird ideas that contradict established knowledge
• Recognize real contradictions versus apparent ones

To avoid inconsistency, regularly examine your beliefs and arguments for potential contradictions. When you encounter new information or ideas, consider how they fit with your existing beliefs. Be willing to revise your views if you find genuine inconsistencies, rather than trying to maintain contradictory positions.

8. Avoid equivocation and slippery definitions

Words like exploitation and alienation, in ordinary use, have strong negative connotations, but please, set all that aside.

Definitions matter. Equivocation occurs when the meaning of a word is shifted during an argument, often leading to false conclusions. This can happen accidentally due to ambiguity in language, or intentionally as a rhetorical tactic.

• Be aware of words with multiple meanings or connotations
• Watch for subtle shifts in how terms are used within an argument
• Define important terms clearly to avoid misunderstandings

For example, the word "free" can mean both "without cost" and "without restrictions." An argument that equivocates between these meanings might lead to false conclusions. When engaging in or evaluating arguments, ensure that key terms are consistently defined and used throughout the discussion.

9. Identify circular reasoning and question-begging

Begging the question occurs when people fail to get to the root of their disagreement.

Avoid assuming what you're trying to prove. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning where the conclusion is assumed in the premises of an argument. This often happens when people don't examine their fundamental assumptions or when they mistake explanation for justification.

• Look for arguments that assume what they're trying to prove
• Be aware of hidden assumptions in seemingly straightforward arguments
• Distinguish between explaining why something is true and proving that it is true

For instance, arguing that a holy book is true because it says so within its pages is begging the question. To avoid this fallacy, examine the underlying assumptions in arguments and ensure that conclusions are supported by independent evidence or reasoning.

10. Understand the role of coincidence in apparent patterns

Even given the existence of God, it is entirely a matter of luck that we should exist, because it is entirely a matter of luck that He should prefer this kind of universe.

Coincidences happen. People often attribute significance to coincidences or improbable events, failing to recognize that such occurrences are statistically inevitable given enough opportunities. This can lead to false beliefs in supernatural phenomena, conspiracy theories, or misunderstanding of causation.

• Recognize that improbable events will occur by chance given enough opportunities
• Be aware of the difference between correlation and causation
• Consider alternative explanations for seemingly unlikely occurrences

For example, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe for life is often used as an argument for intelligent design. However, this fails to consider the vast number of possible universes and the inevitability that some would be suitable for life. When evaluating seemingly meaningful coincidences, consider the role of chance and look for more rigorous evidence of causation or design.

11. Critically evaluate statistics and their interpretations

Even when the numbers are right, they often don't show what they are alleged to.

Numbers can mislead. Statistics are powerful tools for understanding the world, but they can also be misused or misinterpreted. It's crucial to critically evaluate statistical claims and understand the methodology behind them.

• Check for sample bias in surveys and studies
• Be aware of how measures and definitions affect statistical outcomes
• Consider the context and scale of statistical claims

For instance, a claim that "35% of British children live in poverty" depends heavily on how poverty is defined. Similarly, self-selected survey respondents may not represent the general population. When encountering statistics, ask questions about how the data was collected, what exactly is being measured, and whether the conclusions drawn are justified by the numbers.

12. Separate moral judgments from factual claims

Tolerance is irrelevant in the abortion debate. If abortion isn't murder, toleration isn't required; if it is murder, tolerating it would be a vice.

Facts and values are distinct. People often conflate moral judgments with factual claims, leading to confusion in debates and decision-making. It's important to distinguish between what is true and what is right or good.

• Recognize when moral assumptions are being smuggled into factual debates
• Be aware of the naturalistic fallacy (deriving "ought" from "is")
• Separate discussions of what is from discussions of what should be

In debates about controversial issues like abortion or drug legalization, factual claims (e.g., about fetal development or health effects) are often mixed with moral judgments. To have productive discussions, it's crucial to separate these elements and address them individually. Recognize that factual accuracy doesn't determine moral rightness, and moral convictions don't determine factual truth.

Last updated: December 1, 2024