to make sense, but at the same time you felt like there was something wrong in this argument

that you could not point your finger at?

More often than not, this is due to the argument being riddled with what are known as "logical

fallacies."

These are misleading tactics in reasoning that may appear convincing but crumble under

careful analysis.

Such fallacies present a façade of logic, yet they do not withstand rigorous examination,

leading to conclusions that may seem sound but are, in fact, fundamentally flawed.

So today we are going to delve into 7 logical fallacies with PAA.

Hi, I am Shao Chieh Lo, welcome to what people also ask, where I answered some of the most

Googled questions with even more Googling.

Today we will talk about logical fallacies, specifically 7 Fallacies of Relevance, which

is a group of Fallacies that involve arguments where the premises are not logically relevant

to the conclusion.

These fallacies distract from the core issue, often appealing to emotions, authority, or

personal attacks rather than providing sound evidence.

So let's start with the first one

What is Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense)

The argument from incredulity, also known as appeal to common sense, is a logical fallacy

where one asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal

beliefs or intuition, or seems difficult to understand.

Instead of presenting evidence, the person relies on a lack of imagination or personal

incredulity as 'proof' that the argument is invalid.

Everyday Example: A person is presented with the concept of quantum entanglement, where

two particles can instantaneously affect each other's state, no matter how far apart they

are.

They respond, "That's impossible; I can't see how it would work.

Therefore, it cannot be true."

This person is dismissing well-documented scientific evidence based on their own inability

to comprehend the concept, rather than on any logical refutation or contradictory evidence.

Historical example:

The development of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century challenged the classical

physics of the time, which was largely deterministic.

Quantum mechanics introduced inherent probabilities into the fundamental nature of the physical

world, which was a significant departure from the previously understood mechanics.

Albert Einstein, one of the most respected physicists of his time, found the probabilistic

interpretations of quantum mechanics difficult to reconcile with his views on causality in

the universe

His statement "God does not play dice with the universe" has become emblematic of his

discomfort with the idea that events at the quantum level could occur without deterministic

laws.

Despite his contributions to quantum theory, including the photoelectric effect, which

earned him the Nobel Prize, Einstein spent much of his later life attempting to find

a unified field theory that would provide a deterministic explanation for the phenomena

described by quantum mechanics.

Another example is when Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912, he

was met with widespread skepticism from the geological community.

Many geologists were adamantly opposed to Wegener's theory, not because of sound scientific

counterarguments, but because it went against the then-accepted beliefs about stationary

continents.

This dismissal persisted despite Wegener's substantial evidence, and the theory was not

widely accepted until the concept of plate tectonics emerged in the 1960s.

What is Invincible ignorance (argument by pigheadedness) ?

Invincible ignorance, or argument by pigheadedness, refers to fallacious reasoning where an individual

insists on their viewpoint despite being confronted with actual, incontrovertible evidence to

the contrary.

This stubbornness is not due to the lack of understanding but rather a willful refusal

to accept any evidence that might contradict their preconceived beliefs or claims.

Everyday Example:

A sports fan is adamant that a famous athlete never lost a game in their entire career.

When presented with official game records and historical footage showing that the athlete

did indeed experience several defeats, the fan dismisses all this documentation as errors

or fabrications.

They maintain their belief solely based on personal admiration, irrespective of the irrefutable

historical evidence.

Historical example:

In 1994, executives from the seven biggest American tobacco companies, including R.J.

Reynolds, testified before Congress and infamously declared that they did not believe nicotine

was addictive.

This testimony occurred despite a substantial body of scientific evidence indicating the

health risks of smoking and the addictive nature of nicotine, some of which was known

internally within these companies.

This event is often cited as a clear example of the tobacco industry's attempts to mislead

the public and policymakers about the dangers of their products.

What is The argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) ?

The argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam,

is a fallacy that occurs when something is claimed to be true simply because it has not

been proven false, or vice versa.

This fallacy asserts that a lack of evidence against a position is evidence for it, or

that an argument is necessarily false because it has not been proven true.

Everyday Example:

An individual claims that there must be life on other planets because no one has been able

to prove definitively that there isn't.

In this instance, the person is basing their belief on the absence of evidence to the contrary

rather than on positive evidence supporting the existence of extraterrestrial life.

This argument assumes that the lack of disproof is equivalent to proof, which is a logical

fallacy.

Historical example:

The Roman Catholic Inquisition, which began in the 12th century and lasted into the early

modern period, was a significant effort by the Church to locate and punish heresy among

Christians.

During this time, the Inquisitional courts developed a system where the burden of proof

was often on the accused, a stark contrast to modern legal principles.

The process was secretive, and the identity of accusers could be withheld.

The argument from ignorance was a pervasive element of the Inquisition's method: if the

accused could not affirmatively disprove the charges of heresy, this lack of disproof was

taken as proof of guilt.

This presumption meant that simply being accused could be perilous.

Possession of prohibited texts, association with convicted heretics, or uttering statements

that could be interpreted as heretical were enough to incur suspicion and potential conviction.

The Inquisition did not always require concrete evidence that the accused had committed an

act of heresy; circumstantial evidence or even public rumor could be sufficient.

The practices of the Inquisition reflected broader medieval and early modern judicial

processes that often did not distinguish between an accusation and evidence of guilt.

The argument from ignorance was thus not only a logical fallacy but also a tool of institutional

power, with the Inquisition serving as a stark example of its potential consequences.

What is The argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio)?

The argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) is a logical fallacy where one infers a conclusion

based on the absence of statements or evidence rather than on presence.

It assumes that someone's silence on a matter is proof of ignorance or an implicit agreement

with some position, which is not a valid assumption since silence can be due to many other reasons.

Everyday Example:

A teacher asks the class whether anyone disagrees with the proposed solution to a math problem.

No one speaks up.

The teacher then concludes, "Since no one has said anything, everyone must understand

and agree with the solution."

In this case, the teacher's conclusion is based on the students' silence.

However, the silence may not indicate agreement or understanding; it could be due to other

factors such as intimidation, apathy, or even the students' desire to avoid a longer discussion.

Silence is not a reliable indicator of consent or concurrence, and assuming it is can be

fallacious.

Historical example:

The term "Dark Ages" historically refers to the Early Middle Ages in Europe, a time thought

to have had a paucity of cultural and scientific achievements, particularly when compared to

the periods before and after it.

The term came about partly due to the perceived lack of written records, documents, and literary

works from the time, which created significant gaps in the historical record.

The argument that the scarcity of written records implies a regression or stagnation

in culture and science is an example of the argument from silence.

This line of reasoning assumes that if something is not recorded, it did not happen, which

is a logical fallacy.

However, archaeological evidence and more recent historical analyses have challenged

this view, indicating that while written documentation might be lacking, there were indeed regions

and periods of progress and development during what has been termed the Dark Ages.

What is Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point)?

Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion or missing the point, is a logical

fallacy where an argument that is supposed to address a particular question or issue,

instead, presents an argument for or against a different question.

This diversion tactic leads to a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises or

arguments provided and is not relevant to the issue at hand.

Everyday Example:

A town hall meeting is discussing the introduction of a new public health measure.

When someone raises a concern about the measure's cost-effectiveness, the response from a panelist

is a detailed explanation of the importance of health itself, rather than addressing the

specific issue of the measure's economic impact.

The response, emphasizing the value of health, is not relevant to the initial concern about

cost.

Historical example:

During the early 1950s, in a period known as the Red Scare, McCarthy became infamous

for making unsubstantiated accusations of subversion or treason without providing proper

evidence.

The tactics he used came to be known as "McCarthyism."

One of the most famous examples of McCarthy's tactics was during the Army-McCarthy hearings

in 1954.

When the Army's lawyer, Joseph Welch, challenged McCarthy to provide a shred of evidence for

his claims, McCarthy responded by making a new accusation.

He attacked a young lawyer in Welch's law firm, Fred Fisher, claiming without proof

that Fisher had been a long-time member of an organization that was a legal arm of the

Communist Party.

This deflection was a typical McCarthy tactic: rather than substantiating his original claims,

he attempted to redirect the conversation by making additional accusations.

This tactic exemplifies ignoratio elenchi because McCarthy's response did not address

the challenge to substantiate his original claims but instead introduced an irrelevant

accusation, thus sidestepping the demand for evidence and diverting the discussion away

from the issue at hand.

What is Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum)?

The argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam or argumentum ad infinitum) is a logical

fallacy that occurs when someone repeatedly asserts a point, irrespective of contradiction

or lack of supporting evidence, in the belief that the repetition will make the argument

more persuasive or true.

This fallacy is based on the idea that a statement becomes true, or at least more believable,

the more it is repeated.

Everyday Example: A company claims that its juice cleanse is a "miracle detoxifier."

Despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting detox claims, the company's advertisements

repeat the assertion incessantly across various media platforms.

The repetition is used as a strategy to embed the idea in the consciousness of the public,

hoping that consumers will accept the claim as true simply because it has been stated

so frequently and confidently, not because any substantive evidence has been provided.

Historical example:

Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda for Nazi Germany, is often associated with

the concept of the "Big Lie," a propaganda technique predicated on the belief that a

boldfaced untruth, if repeated frequently and with conviction, can be accepted by the

masses as truth.

Although the exact phrase associated with him "if you tell a lie big enough and keep

repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" is not found in his documented

speeches or writings, it accurately reflects the propagandistic methods he championed.

Goebbels masterfully engineered a relentless stream of Nazi propaganda that painted Jews,

communists, and other targeted groups as existential threats to German society.

He leveraged media, film, and public events to embed these lies into the fabric of everyday

life, thus normalizing hatred and prejudice.

Through the constant barrage of Nazi ideology, many German citizens came to accept these

falsehoods, contributing to one of the most devastating periods of the 20th century.

What is Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem)?

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses

an argument or claim as absurd without providing evidence or reasoning to support the dismissal.

It avoids debate by simply rejecting the claim as unworthy of serious consideration.

Every day Example: Imagine a situation in a school where a student

proposes a new method for organizing the library books by color to make it more visually appealing

and possibly easier for young students to find books.

The librarian, without considering the potential benefits or logistics of the idea, dismissively

says, “That's the silliest thing I've ever heard,” and moves on.

While the librarian might be right to reject the idea and might have valid argument against

the idea, he did not actually present his argument, this is an appeal to the stone because

it rejects the proposal as absurd without explaining why he thinks it is absurd.

Historical example: The appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem)