Critical thinking is the process of reaching a decision or judgment by analyzing, evaluating, and reasoning with facts and data presented. However, nobody is thinking critically 100% of the time. Logical reasoning can be prone to fallacies.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning. When there is a fallacy in the reasoning, conclusions are less credible and can be deemed invalid.
How can critical thinking fallacies be avoided? The first step is to be aware of the possible fallacies that can be committed. This article will highlight the most common logical fallacies.
Common fallacies fall under two categories:
- Fallacies of Relevance
- Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises
For fallacies of relevance, reasons are presented why a certain conclusion is reached, but these reasons may not be entirely true nor significant to the argument.
Under Fallacies of Relevance are:
- Ad Hominem
“Ad Hominem” is Latin for “to the person”. It’s a fallacy that uses attacks on the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
This is commonly seen in informal arguments where a person’s looks or characteristics are often attacked instead of the argument they’re making.
- Red Herring
This is a fallacy of distraction. It sidetracks the main argument by offering a different issue and then claims that this new issue is relevant to the current one. People who do this aim to divert the audience or another person from their arguments.
- Tu Quoque Fallacy
“Tu Quoque” means “you also” in Latin. This fallacy discredits a person’s argument based on the fact that the person does not practice what he or she preaches.
- Strawman Fallacy
Where a person refutes another person’s argument by presenting a weakened version of the original argument.
- Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Authority fallacy claims that an argument is true because someone who has the “authority” on the subject believes that it’s true. For example, a policeman believes that guns should not have permits. This argument should be accepted as the truth because policemen know what they are talking about. Policemen know how to use guns properly, therefore can be called “experts” to the subject matter.
- Appeal to Popularity or Ad Populum
Much like the previous fallacy, Appeal to Popularity claims that something is true because a lot of people or the majority believe that it’s true. We should steer clear of this fallacy because having 100,000 believers doesn’t make a wrong argument true.
This is commonly used in advertising products. If a good number of people are using the product, why shouldn’t you?
- Appeal to Tradition
This is very similar to appeal to popularity. The only difference is that this fallacy claims that something is true because it has been believed to be true for a long time. It doesn’t depend on how many believe on it, but rather on how long people have believed it.
- Appeal to Ignorance or Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
This fallacy claims that arguments are true because they have never been proven false or are false because they have never been proven to be true. It suggests that the best solution is to remain ignorant about the situation.
- Appeal to Emotion
As the name suggests, one of the critical thinking fallacies appeal to the emotions of the audience. It aims to evoke feelings like sympathy and affection – both of which can be irrelevant to the original arguments.
- Fallacy of Composition and Division
The fallacy of composition claims that because some parts of the whole are true, that means the whole must be true. The fallacy of division claims that because the whole is true, all parts of the whole must be true.
An example for composition is that just because with Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant are in Golden State and they are good, they will win championships for sure.
An example for division is: “On average, men tend to have longer legs than women. So, this means that Maria has shorter legs than Jerry.” This is false because for all we know, Maria might have longer legs than Jerry.
- Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation uses key words in an ambiguous way. The key words will mean different when used in one claim and then when used in another claim.
For example, Poppy claims that she has the right to watch whatever she wants to watch. Therefore, it’s just right that she watches television all day.
Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises on the other hand, introduces premises that are somehow relevant, but doesn’t completely support the conclusions for the argument.
Under Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises are:
- False Dichotomy
This fallacy says that there are only two available options and only one of them are correct. In short, it creates a black or white choice. Both cannot be correct, and they are the only possible options.
- Begging the Question
This critical thinking fallacy assumes that the premise under examination is true. It uses this assumed true premise to support other statements.
- Slippery Slope
Slippery Slope claims that when one step is taken, it will snowball into something bigger very quickly. For example, Joe argues that if Maria will stop using straws, the economy will fall very fast.
- Hasty Generalizations
This fallacy creates generalizations from hurried samples. The generalizations might have been made based on a small sample only or a sample that doesn’t entirely represent something properly.
Knowing and studying fallacies is important because this will help people avoid committing them. The presence of critical thinking fallacies weakens and invalidates arguments, so it’s best to steer clear from them.
When someone knows how to identify these fallacies, it will be easier to point out invalid arguments by other people as well. We live in a world where fallacies are often used in arguments – in fact, up to 13 fallacies were already listed and studied in Ancient Greece thousands of years ago.
This is just a testament that these fallacies have existed before and continue to exist now, so we must be aware of them.
