My favorite topic when I studied philosophy in college was learning about logical fallacies. As I was learning them, I started seeing them everywhere. I felt like my eyes had been opened to a whole new world that had been previously hidden to me. I saw fallacies seemingly in every politician’s speech, in online debates, and especially in my own thought habits.
Consider this argument:
Premise 1: No cat has eight tails.
Premise 2: A cat has one more tail than no cat.
Conclusion: A cat has nine tails.
Premise 2: A cat has one more tail than no cat.
Conclusion: A cat has nine tails.
Seems logical, right? The argument seems valid. And the premises are actually true. So the argument must be sound.
Right?
• Formal vs. Informal
An informal fallacy have much more to do with the content of what is being said more than the form or structure of the argument. Oftentimes, the form isn’t what makes the argument fallacious. The ideas and premises might be arranged right, but something is still wrong with the argument, as evidenced by our “cat of nine tails” argument above.
A search on Google will lead you to several sites explaining all the different types of logical fallacies. I want to show you some of the most common informal fallacies. Understanding these mistakes in reasoning is an invaluable asset for the critical thinker. Today we will focus on the ad hominem fallacy because that is arguably the one most often used.
Argumentum Ad Hominem: From the Latin, “argument to the person,” the Ad Hominem fallacy occurs when someone attempts to refute an argument by attacking the person making the claim rather than engaging in a factual refutation of the claim. This fallacy is a subset of the Genetic Fallacy insofar as it focuses on the source of the argument rather than the argument itself.
A tu quoque argument (Latin: “you too”) — also known as an “appeal to hypocrisy” — is a form of ad hominem which attempts to discredit an argument by asserting that the arguer has failed to act consistently in accordance with the conclusion of their argument.
Example:
Bill argues that people should never break the speed limit when driving.
Ray retorts by accusing Bill of speeding when he’s running late for work.
Whataboutery: “Whataboutism” or “whataboutery” is a form of tu quoque which attempts to discredit someone’s position by accusing them of hypocrisy. This accusation occurs in response to someone’s accusations against them.
Example:
Bill: “Khabib Nurmagomedov shouldn’t have attacked Dillon Danis after his fight with Conor McGregor.”
Ray: “Well what about how Conor attacked that bus that all those fighters were on?”
Whataboutery is ubiquitous in politics. Such an argument never addresses any personal responsibility, nor does it ever address the other side’s position. An argument can be valid or sound, invalid or unsound, regardless of the character of the person delivering the argument.
Dead-Logic 