Critical Thinking Logic & Reasoning Smart Thinking

Logical Fallacies: On the Offensive

0

When we disagree with someone, often it’s easier to try and discredit the person or to manipulate their argument in order to make it weaker and easier to attack. Generally, this occurs by attacking the person themselves, rather than attacking the content of the argument.

The below are common approaches that this can take:

Ad Hominem

Ignoring the argument itself and attacking the person making the claim.

Example: “Anyone who wants to leave the EU is just a racist.”

Circumstance Ad Hominem

Saying that a claim has no credibility because of the person’s own interest in the claim.

Example: “This study on the cancer-beating properties of cannabis was funded by the pharmaceutical¬†companies and so can’t be trusted..”

Guilt By Association

Ignoring or discrediting a claim or an idea by associating it with an undesirable group.

Example: “So if you think that The Patriot Act is inhumane, does that mean you support terrorism?”

Genetic Fallacy

Attacking a claim’s cause or origin rather than it’s content.

Example: “Are you surprised that the rich don’t complain that tax havens are unfair?”

Straw Man

Exaggerating, distorting or overly simplifying a claim and then arguing against the manipulated claim.

Example: “You think that Syrians shouldn’t escape to the EU, so you’re saying that Syrians don’t deserve to live in the EU, that they’re lesser than you?”

Burden of Proof

Rather than trying to prove your claim, you expect the other person to prove your claim to be false.

Example: “God exists, if you can’t prove me wrong, then ¬†am right.”

You may also like
How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes
But, It’s Just a Theory!

Leave Your Comment

Your Comment*

Your Name*
Your Webpage