Logical Fallacies Part 3 (old stuff #7)

As I started this series of posts on thinking well, I set out to describe a good argument, and then discuss pitfalls that can mislead us. I have covered as many logical fallacies as I could while trying not to bore the reader. In this last post on logical fallacies, I will discuss begging the question, hasty generalizations, and the straw man.

When begging the question, a person will make an assumption and go through the process of circular reasoning where the original assumption is inserted into the argument. The conclusion is put into the premise, and the premise would not be true if the conclusion were not already assumed to be true. This is often referred to as being a circular argument. An example is, "The rights of the minority are every bit as sacred as the rights of the majority, for the majority's rights have no greater value than those of  the minority.” The assumption stated in both the premise and the conclusion is that minority rights are equal to majority rights. The problem with the statement that "begs the question" is that no evidence was offered proving this assertion. The statement is presented as fact, but the conclusion is just another way of saying the premise. One way to avoid this logical fallacy is to write out your premise and conclusion, and see if you have any gaps in your statement. If you find that your conclusion basically says the same thing as your premise (in different words), then you are probably begging the question.

The hasty generalization is when we make a gross generalization based on one instance. A conclusion drawn from an inadequate sample size is a hasty generalization. An example would be "My car needed a new transmission due to a flaw, and your car needed a new transmission due to a flaw. We drive the same car, so all cars of this type must have a transmission flaw." A sample size of only two cars of a certain brand is far to small to say that they all have a transmission flaw. Another example is "All Christians are judgmental, or at least the one that hurt me was." While being hurt by someone from specific worldview will affect how we see that worldview, an inadequate sample size is still a hasty generalization.

The straw man is when someone presents a case as much weaker than it actually is. In the straw man, the arguer sets up a weaker version of the opposing argument and knocks it down in order to "score points" in the mind of his audience. The problem is that just as knocking down a straw man is not very impressive, neither is knocking down a watered down version of an opposing argument. A classic straw man example is "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." The fact that the senator in this argument does not want to fund an attack submarine program is not the same as leaving the country defenseless. A way to avoid this logical fallacy is to be charitable to the opposing argument. State their argument fairly and as accurately as possible. If you do not, then knocking down the opposing argument only makes your own argument look weak.

​In conclusion to the logical fallacy discussion, I would like to emphasize how important it is to listen. We must listen to our own argument, and scrutinize it as much if not more than the opposing argument. We must listen to the opposing argument, because it is only when we have heard the opposing argument and understand it that we can say we disagree with it. I confess that I have a long way to go when it comes to listening, but it is something I am constantly working on.