INDEX

A. Defense Against the Dark Arts --- ( Part I ) --- B. What is Reasonable? | C. Orthodox vs. Reasonable | D. A Healthy Mind Will ... --- ( Part II ) --- E. Logic Tools | 1. Ad hominem | 2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque | 3. Appeal to Authority | 4. Appeal to Belief | 5. Appeal to Common Practice | 6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief | 7. Appeal to Emotions | 8. Appeal to Fear | 9. Appeal to Flattery | 10. Appeal to Ignorance | 11. Appeal to Novelty | 12. Appeal to Omnicient Popular Media | 13. Appeal to Pity | 14. Appeal to Ridicule | 15. Appeal to Tradition | 16. Arbitrariness | 17. Bandwagon | 18. Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning) | 19. Biased Sample (Prejudice) | 20. Confusing Cause and Effect | 21. Division | 22. False Dichotomy (Black & White Thinking) | 23. Genetic Fallacy | 24. Guilt By Association | 25. Middle Ground | 26. Misleading Vividness | 27. Omission | 28. Opposite Evidence | 29. Opposite Naming | 30. Poisoning the Well | 31. Red herring | 321. Relativist Fallacy | 33. Slippery Slope | 34. Straw Man | 35. Two Wrongs Make a Right | --- | F. Next Article

Defense Against the Dark Arts

Harry Potter is just a kid's book, but as one written by a sane individual during a time of insanity, it contains useful lessons:

- Don't trust bureaucracies. - Rebel against control freaks. - Some people enjoy inflicting pain. - The media prints lies unflinchingly when they are from authoritative sources. - The truth is out there. - Read, think clearly and ask questions. - Evil does exist, sometimes right under our noses, even when most people would like to ignore it. - Disinformation is a tool of the dark side. - Trust your friends. - Know your own weaknesses. - And so on.

This article has two parts. Part I. First, defend yourself by learning healthy reasonable behaviors. Part II. Next, a take home test. Learn the countermeasures for thirty-three "evil spells" that will be used some day to attack you for being reasonable.

PART I

What is Reasonable?

One on line dictionary tells us reasonable persons possess the power of thinking in orderly rational ways. A reasonable person possesses sanity, defined as health of mind or soundness. A thing is sound when logically valid with true premises. A reasonable person, therefore, is of sound mind: free from error, logical fallacy, or misapprehension, well-grounded, relevant and meaningful.

Orthodox vs. Reasonable

Another definition of the word reasonable is: orthodox, that is "agreeing with accepted views." This will contradict the earlier definition "free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension" when accepted views are in error (examples below.) Therefore, for clarity this guide will use orthodox apart from reasonable, favoring "logically grounded and free from error" as the definition for reasonable. How does one cultivate a sound healthy mind and logical foundations as opposed to superstition and magical thinking?

A Healthy Mind Will ...

Many focus on mental disorders ( non adaptive and/or disorganized mental activity ), but it is our philosophy that mental health is not mediocrity, not merely a lack of sickness. Instead, health is an exciting lifelong process of growth, discovery and exploration of one's potentials. Read about disorders to learn what to avoid, but go further. Read things like the 18 ideas below adapted from healthymind.com. Are you sane? How are you doing? Don't worry. EVERYONE is a bit nuts! Keep improving. If you are reading this, you are already on the right path.

Adjust the above to suit your needs. Add or subtract at will.

 

Part II

Harry Potter fans and other reasonable persons, the following mental countermeasures can be used to defend yourself against practitioners of the Dark Arts!

Logic Tools, Deflecting Attacks

Awareness of faulty logic can make you immune to deception and manipulation. Faulty logic is often a result of ignorance or unclear thinking, but it may also be used by intelligent persons with bad motives as a "dark art." In such cases, it may also be combined with intimidation to create an environment of confusion and fear. Your best defense against the dark art of fallacy is to cultivate a healthy skepticism.

Keep in mind that we are talking about words here. These are defenses only against attacks of faulty logic and deception. If you find yourself in physical danger, don't waste time. Move to the next level of defense: run or fight. If you are having trouble with bullies, try this page.

Ad hominem argument

The person making the claim is criticized and the argument itself is ignored. Example:

A: I say 1 + 2 = 3. How about you?

B: You're an idiot, a moron and a wacko! You need professional help.

Amazingly, some people listening to this debate will immediately believe that A is wrong simply because B has attacked. The key is that those who use this trick may be wrong or right, but the reasonable person will recognize that ad hominem attacks are emotional roadblocks intended to prevent logical discovery of correct answers. The tactic is often used by those unable to back a position with facts.

____________________________________________________

Spell: Ad hominem argument

Defense: Respectfully address the lack of respect, but don't take bait. Persist for response to your question.

Examples:

A: I say one plus two is three. What do you say to that?

B: You are a complete moron. You must have cheese for brains.

A: I'd appreciate a respectful and direct answer to my question. When I add 1 and 2, I always get the same result: 3. What is your comment about that?

B: My comment is that you are a frigging Froot Loop! I don't need any #*$& facts because you are an un-respectable Loony Toon! Your idea is not even worthy of a response.

A: Your hostility is inappropriate. Please answer my question. Are you saying my addition is wrong when I add 1 and 2 to get 3?

B: What addition!? All I see is a crazy person who needs to get a life! Now take your 2 + 1 and #@&$ off you pathetic loser.

A: I'd like us to have a civilized exchange. You have yet to answer my question. Do you dispute my claim that 1 plus 2 equals 3? ( and so on..)

In this example, B may be arguing from a position of dogma or avoiding a factual discussion because s/he knows s/he is wrong. On radio talk this may also be done simply for shock value to increase ratings. In either case, progress is unlikely. Don't take it personally. Move on.

 

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

The person's current claim is denounced because it contradicts his previous claim.

A: I think 0 + 0 = 0.

B: You previously claimed 0 + 0 is undefined, so you must now be wrong.

A: If I said that in the past I was wrong, but let's discuss the present. I now think 0 + 0 = 0.

B: You keep changing your mind. You're inconsistent. You were wrong then, so why would you be right now?

A: You are attempting to side step the question. Please focus. If you believe I'm wrong about 0 and 0 adding to 0, I'd like to hear why.

 

Appeal to Authority

Arguing that a claim is true based on someone's expertise; dogma.

A: I think 0 + 0 = 0.

B: An expert with three Ph.D.'s in Mathematics from Harvard's Academe of Science says that 0 + 0 = 100, so you are wrong.

A: Experts can be wrong and different experts often disagree. Do you have any details on why the expert you cite is making this claim?

B: Do you think you know more than the experts? Do you think you're some kind of genius or something? I told you the experts agree and you are wrong.

A: You are repeating yourself and you haven't convinced me by citing an anonymous expert.

B: The expert is Dr. Thadius Smoporgious, winner of the Nobel Math Prize!

A: Even Einstein was wrong. He added a term called the Cosmological Constant to his equations of General Relativity because he believed the Universe was in a steady state (not expanding or contracting). We now know that the Universe is not only expanding, but that the expansion is accelerating. Do you have any evidence beyond your faith in this expert?

 

Appeal to Belief

Most people believe it, so it must be true.

A: I think 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Most people believe that 0 + 0 is -1. The majority could not be wrong about this, therefore, you are wrong.

A: The majority is sometimes wrong, I can name a dozen examples if you'd like. (1. alchemy, 2. geocentric universe, 3. slavery, 4. circular planetary orbits, 5. heavier objects fall faster, 6. time is a constant 7. germs spontaneously generate 8. continental drift 9. witchcraft 10. Nineteenth-century craniology 11. Mesmerism 12. Flat earth.) Why do most people today think 0 + 0 is -1?

B: You're just one person, everyone else says you are wrong.

A: Common belief is not proof. Adding a bag with no apples to another bag with no apples results in a total of no apples. Do you dispute this?

Appeal to Common Practice

Most people do it, so it must be safe / right / justified / moral, etc.

A: When I add 0 and 0, I get 0.

B: Most people add 0 and 0 while swimming with piranha and they get all kinds of other answers, like 92 or 21. Your method must be faulty.

A: I have reasons to believe that swimming with piranha introduces random errors. Addition of two constants should not be a variable.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true (or false) because it has good (or bad) consequences if true (or false.)

B: A nuclear war is not being planned to reduce the world's population. If I believed it was, I would not be able to get up in the morning. It's too depressing.

A: Unless your feelings lead you to action, they have no effect on the actions of others. Ignoring reality will not make it go away.

Appeal to Emotions

X is true because people feel good about it.

B: People feel good about milk, therefore, it could not contain anything dangerous.

A: Actually, dairy cows in the US are given the growth hormone rBST which can cause a fivefold rise in the levels of a protein called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). Studies suggest heightened levels of IGF-1 carry increased risk of prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women. IGF-1 may also prevent a cancerous cell from performing apoptosis--the cellular suicide that normally keeps colonies of cancerous cells from forming. The European Union Veterinary committee has also reported that use of rBST in dairy cows is likely linked with high resistance to antibiotics and induction of allergic reactions in humans.

B: Oh, I could never believe all of that about milk! Milk is so wholesome! It is like, mom and apple pie. I drink milk and I feel good about it.

A: Good feelings (from love, sex, laughter, exercise, etc.) strengthen your body's immune system. If you feel good about milk, you will actually help your body fight off the negative effects of IGF-1 ... but you should still consider the risks and buy organic milk.

Appeal to Fear

Y is frightening, therefore X is true. (Creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim.)

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: I've just murdered your neighbor, and by the way 0 + 0 = 15.

A: You are right, of course. Excuse me, I need to go make a phone call.

 

Appeal to Flattery

Person A is flattered by Person B, therefore Person B's argument is correct.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: I'm very impressed with your use of the "+" sign and I'll be sure to mention your skills on national TV, but first we need to clear up the fact that 0 + 0 = 984.

A: National TV!? How flattering! My Mistake. Is my appearance on the show contingent on my willingness to state the fact in your way?

 

Appeal to Novelty

Something is new, therefore it is better or correct.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: The latest work in this area, the breaking news is that 0 + 0 = 3.

A: New research may require careful checking before it is accepted.

Appeal to Ignorance

X has not been disproved, so it must be true.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: You cannot disprove that 0 + 0 = a kangaroo, so you must be wrong.

A: You cannot disprove that 0 + 0 = 0 either, so by your own logic, I'm right.

B: If my logic is wrong and it says you are right, then that means you are wrong!

A: Again your logic is flawed. If I say the word shoe starts with the letter 'S' and you say all words start with the letter 'S', your being wrong about the more general claim does not make my claim incorrect.

 

Appeal to Omnicient Popular Media

X is untrue because it hasn't been in the news.

B: If there was anything bad about milk, it would be all over the news.

A: Two award-winning investigative reporters at a Tampa FoxNews television station were fired for attempting to report the facts about milk, Bovine Growth Hormone and cancer.

B: Oh come on, if there was any truth to that story, it would be all over the place.

A: Not every story worth telling gets told on the big news stations. Special interests keep some stories from gaining popular attention. The BGH story is a well documented example of that fact.

 

Appeal to Pity

Feelings of pity or sympathy that are substituted for evidence.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: I have a deadly disease and only one week to live. My dying wish is that I agree that 0 + 0 = 6.

A: I'm sorry but out of respect for the dying, I must be honest.

Appeal to Ridicule

Mocking a claim to show that it is false.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: 0 + 0 = 0?! Nothing against you personally, but that's the most ridiculous absurd load of unsubstantiated bullpucky horsefeather poppycock that I have ever heard! Got that? 0 + 0 = 4.

A: What facts show that your own claim is not absurd?

 

Appeal to Tradition

Something is old or traditional, therefore it is better or correct.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: It has been known for many years, even before I was born that 0 + 0 = 5.

A: People were wrong for many years about the sun revolving around the earth.

Arbitrariness

Claim that a definition or rule is arbitrary.

A: I say that 0 + 0 = 0.

B. Addition is an arbitrary construction with no real meaning.

A: The addition of 0 and 0 with a result of 0 is not a random or unreasonable capricious act of will. It is a repeatable observable fixed law. The meaning of addition is demonstrably self evident.

 

Bandwagon

A threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: If you say so, but no other reasonable person will be seen talking with you if you continue with this assertion.

A: I'm certain that my relationship with the reasonable persons of the planet Earth can survive a healthy academic dispute. Now what about my idea? Can you challenge it with facts?

 

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

Something is true because it is assumed to be true.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Clearly, 0 + 0 = 8 because 8 is what you get when you add 0 and 0. As you can plainly see 8 is the result and 0 are the things added. What more proof do you want?

A: You've given no proof. Your reasoning is circular.

 

Biased Sample (Prejudice)

Some % of observed A's have trait X, therefore all A's do.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: 0 + 1 = 1, right? Also 0 + 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 0 + 0 = 1, right? Finally 1 + 0 = 1 SO 0 + 0 must also = 1! All the other examples = 1, right? It's so obvious.

A: Your thinking is flawed. The general rule you have applied does not fit the specific case.

Confusing Cause and Effect

Y and Z regularly occur together, so Y is the cause of Z.

B: Your dog is always barking when cars go by. Obviously, your dog's barking is bringing the cars.

A: Sure, my dog's bark activates the gate of my gated community, but you are still incorrect. The reason is, my dog hears the car before he sees it. He barks at the sound of the car. My gate is programmed to open when he barks, therefore you are confusing cause and effect.

 

Division

What is true of the whole must be true of the parts.

B: My watch can tell time 24 hours a day. If I cut it in half, I'll be able to tell time only 12 hours a day.

A: My own watch is made of bread. When I cut it in half, it tastes exactly the same.

 

False Dichotomy (Black & White Thinking)

You are presented with two alternatives, such as owls or jobs, the economy or the environment, when there are really more than two alternatives.

B: The Dempublicans are wrong when they say 0 + 0 = 8, so the Republicrats are therefore right when they say that 0 + 0 = 7.

A: My own party, the Shadow Party says 0 + 0 equals 0 and we have a mountain of 0's hidden underground to prove it.

 

Genetic Fallacy

The origin of a claim makes it true. I was brought up to believe X therefore it is true.

A: I say that 0 + 0 = 0.

B: I was raised to know right from wrong and that I was ALWAYS taught that 0 + 0 = 87.

A: Respectable origins do not make claims into facts. Can you demonstrate why your claim is true?

 

Guilt By Association

A claim is rejected because it is accepted by people disliked by others.

A: I say that 0 + 0 = 0.

B: I reject this because evildoers all over the world make this same exact claim.

A: All the saints and all the criminals who ever lived had beating hearts. Shared realities don't translate to shared guilt.

Omission

Failure to consider alternative explanations.

B. There are three possibilities 0 + 0 = 1, 0 + 0 = 9 or 0 + 0 = 13.

A: You are omitting one a possibility: the correct one.

Opposite Evidence

Claiming evidence that disproves one's position is evidence in support.

B. Saddam Hussein no longer has control of catastropic weapons, so the US invasion of Iraq was obviously justified.

A. Your statement is not logically valid. This is like me knocking you to the floor with a baseball bat, then saying, "There, you are longer a threat with your hidden knife." You say, "I never did have a hidden knife!" I say, "You no longer have a knife, so my attack was justified."

B. That example is wrong because Saddam really did have weapons at one time.

A. Are you saying you've never held a knife in your life?

B. A knife is completely different, we're talking about weapons of mass distrcution!

A. Yes, a known threat from such weapons was the justification for invasion. No such weapons were found. The invasion was therefore not justified for the reason stated. There may be another good reason, but your first statement is not valid.

 

Opposite Naming

A group, document, policy, etc. is given a title that is the opposite of its true result or intent.

The Department of Defense - Formerly known as the Department of War, the DoD today is responsible for offensive actions such as "preemptive war." Offense is the opposite of defense.

Bush's "Clear Skies" Initiative - Undermines air quality.

Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative - Invites logging companies to cut healthy trees in national forests while reducing public oversight.

Bush's "Patriot Act" - Was found by the US Supreme Court to be, in part, unconstitutional.

Always consider that something may do the opposite of what it claims.

Middle Ground

A moderate opinion may be correct, but when used as a weapon, this fallacy says the middle of any two extremes must be true.

A: I say that 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Well, Bob says that 0 + 0 = 100, therefore, I must be right that 0 + 0 = 50. The moderate opinion is the most reasonable.

 

Misleading Vividness

A dramatic or vivid event which makes a strong impression on the human mind but is not in accord with the majority of the statistical evidence occurs, and will therefore happen again.

A: Earthquakes are rare.

B: I remember one vividly, and it was horrible! I say they are very common. We need to spend huge amounts of money and lots of time worrying about them.

Poisoning the Well

A personal attack before evidence is presented.

B: Hey everyone, A is about to tell some math lies.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Just like I said. I predicted it! A must be wrong.

 

Red herring

Information irrelevant to the discussion; changing the subject of a debate.

A: I say that 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Numbers are derived from symbols written in clay. The important thing here is the clay!

 

Relativist Fallacy

A person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: That's true for you, but for me 0 + 0 = 6. It's not that I just have a different belief. For me, 0 + 0 = 6 is my reality. The rules of what is true and right are different for each person or group.

A: This is a relativist fallacy. External reality is the same for different individuals, even when one or more of them is unaware of or disbelieves the reality.

 

Slippery Slope

Assertion without proof that one event must inevitably follow from another.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Look, 1 + 0 = 1 and 2 + 0 = 2 and 3 + 0 = 3 and if we do one more addition, say 0 + 0 we'd find that 0 + 0 = 4.

Straw Man

Ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 0.

B: Everyone, A claims that everything adds to 0! A is a zero freak!! Obviously I'm correct that 0 + 0 = 16 because A's thinking is so distorted on the issue of zero.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

Justifying an action by asserting another would do the same thing to you.

A: I say 0 + 0 = 4.

B: You are wrong! Therefore, I am right when I say that 0 + 0 = 4.

 

Next Article

There are many more logical fallacies. (See these sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.) You'll start noticing them everywhere. Luckily, you don't need to know the name of each fallacy to detect and reject faulty logic. Work on eliminating logical fallacies from your own communication. Now that you have some new tools, let's take a look at another mystery. In the next Chapter, we'll examine the strange claim that the Apollo Moon Landings were faked. ( With all articles, you can return to the index by clicking up to the top with this arrow and then by clicking on the Xenobiblia cabinet. )