Dear TRS,
I’ve recently saw this very interesting video series by PBS Idea Channel and I would like to share it with your readers. The videos are about 5 of the most common fallacies made in a conversation and argument. It is important to know all these fallacies so that we can both avoid them to make our arguments stronger and recognize when our opponents use a fallacy so we can recognize a weak argument.
1) The Straw Man Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0
Like a Straw Man which is a simpler and less realistic version of an actual man, the Straw Man Fallacy is an attempt to misrepresent an original argument by simplifying it, either by ignoring complexity or through sheer ignorance.
Example:
Person A – I believe the Government of Singapore should allow people the freedom to gather and voice out their opinion in public without the fear of persecution.
Person B – You crazy is it!!? You want Singapore to be like Ferguson where rioting and looting happen? Singapore is a safe country so we must keep protest illegal!
Person A is arguing for the rights of Singaporean to gather and voice out their opinion in public aka protest while Person B distorted Person A’s argument by portraying that all protests lead to riots and/or riots will ruin Singapore.
Person B has completely ignore several fact in Person A’s argument including, human right’s freedom of association and expression, the fact that a protest can be peaceful without turning into a riot, context of the protest if it causes inconvenience or not, fact that making protest illegal give too much power to the government over the people, are protests healthy in creating a democratic society in Singapore, etc, and instead simply replace the original argument with Protests will lead to riot. Person B exploited Singaporean’s wanting for safety and shuts down Person A’s plight for more freedom of expression in Singapore.
2) The Ad Hominem Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFK8sVdJNg
Ad Hominem is latin for “to the man” and is, in my opinion, the most toxic form of argument there is. The Ad Hominem fallacy is a form of argument where the opposing party attacks a person’s character rather than the argument. It forces the presenter to defend his character rather than the argument which he is presenting.Example:
Person A: Looking at the History and current Science of Cannabis, I believe we must re-look into our drug policies. There are reports that Cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and even have medicinal value that could solve a lot of our medical issues in Singapore. We must have a scientific enquiry to look into Cannabis and not base our facts on old opinions.
There is also the argument about personal rights. Should the government have the power to decide on what a person can and cannot put into his own body?
Person B: Why you asking all this? This guy must be a drug addict the say he tries to argue for drugs.
I do not need to explain the complexity of the global Cannabis opinion. There are numerous reports on beneficial medical value of the Cannabis plant, several conflicting reports on the safety of the Cannabis plant and several countries recognizing that Cannabis should not be illegal.
Person A has presented that there are legitimate argument to re-look into our cannabis laws based in old and new evidence regarding the plant. However, Person B chose to ignore all this fact to turn the argument about Person A’s character. Is Person A really taking drugs? Do you think his words can be trusted? Etc
3) The Black and White Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqz53d-fYL8
The Black and White Fallacy, also known as the False Dilemma or False Dichotomy, is a fallacy referring to a false sense of choice. Simply, it is to create an argument where only a limited number of choices exist when multiple choices actually exist.
Example:
Person A - Exam season coming soon and MINDEF decided it is the perfect time for me to do reservist. Stupid sia. There must be a better way than current system.
Person B - Diam lah. You lucky you live in Singapore where you have the privilege to do NS. If no NS, who is going to defend us?
In this argument, Person A is suggesting that there must be a better way to improve the current NS system but Person B decided to reduce the argument to either do NS or leave Singapore vulnerable.
This argument ignores the several other possible outcomes that are available to take. NS can be extended in include women so that we can have enough manpower to reduce reservist time. We can reduce reservist time in general and just leave NS as a mandatory 2 years. We can make reservist booking more flexible. Or we can even scrap NS all together and instead build a professional army with help of allied countries to bolster our ranks.
4) The Authority Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqM6xeZHNM
The Authority Fallacy is simply to present an argument by using a perceived or false authority figure as evidence.
Example:
Person A - Singapore did not turn of a Third world fishing village to a First world country in a single generation because of the PAP. Singapore was a rich colonial city and a busy trade port moving goods in and out of Asia long before WWII ever arrived. There are many pictures and evidence to support this.
Person B - Well, my friend is a PAP MP candidate and he said PAP turned Singapore from a fishing village to a first world country.
Person B is insisting an argument on the sole basis that his friend says so, using his friend as a PAP MP candidate as a figure of authority. This is a bad argument simply because it is not sufficient evidence to say a fact is true just because someone say the fact is true. That someone must be qualified to make that statement, in this case, a historian with sufficient evidence would have been qualified, not a political candidate.
5) The No True Scotsman Fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I
Finally, the No True Scotsman Fallacy is a form of false argument designed to stop an assertion. Also used to exclude bad actors, questions regarding an individual person and/or group is suddenly halted by saying Person X is not truly part of group X.
Example:
Person B – Real Singaporeans adhere to our conservative Asian values and will not let western influence like Democracy affect our culture.
Person A – Well, I’m a Singaporean and I believe we need Democracy to ensure a bright political future for Singapore.
Person B – Like I said, only true real Singaporean adhere to our conservative Asian values. No True Singaporean would want democracy.
In this argument, Person B has discredited Person A as a “true Singaporean” as such his argument for a democratic Singapore is suddenly halted. It derails Person A’s argument that there are Singaporeans that would want more democracy, alienating those who are for democracy as “no true Singaporean.”
I hope you find the explanation to these few fallacies to be useful and I hope to see a more productive and lively comment section in TRS.
Mike
TRS Contributor