If you’re new to this series, you can catch up on the first two posts here and here.
We took a break from our “How to Think Better” series for a couple of weeks, but we’re back. Today we’re going to look at two very common logical fallacies: ad hominem and straw man arguments.
You’ve probably heard these terms a lot in political discussions. We’re so familiar with these terms, we might assume we are immune to them.
And yet, the question remains: If these fallacies are so ineffective, why are they so ubiquitous?
Perhaps people keep using them because they do, in fact, convince people? And that’s where our work begins.
Ad Hominem
This Latin phrase meaning, “to the man,” is an attack on the person. Here’s how this logical fallacy works:
Person A said something. Person A is a horrible, no good, very bad person. So what they said isn’t true.
Here’s the problem with that thinking. Sometimes bad people can make good claims, and sometimes good people can make bad claims.
Simple enough, right?
But there’s another version of this that’s extremely common in news articles.
Journalists are supposed to be objective, so they can’t go spouting their opinions willy nilly. What they can do, however, is quote others. So it goes like this:
Person A said something. Reporter quotes Person B, who says, “Person A is a liar, racist, socialist, [insert group]phobic, womanizer, spawn of Satan, etc.”
Reporter gets to claim objectivity while inserting a negative perception of Person A into the report.
Another scenario:
Person A says something. Reporter says, “Person A, who is a close ally of Person B (a horrible, no good, very bad person), said blah blah blah.”
In this case, the “objective” reporter is linking Person A to a “bad person,” Person B, in order to discredit Person A’s statements.
Here’s the thing:
This logical fallacy isn’t exclusive to one news organization or political party. It’s used every day by people across the political spectrum. It’s used by people in workplace arguments. It’s used by people in religious discussions. It’s everywhere.
And we don’t have to fall for it.
Next time you see an Ad Hominem attack, filter it. Ignore it. Realize it’s faulty logic. If that person’s point is valid, there is a sound, logical pathway to their conclusion. And the Ad hominem attack isn’t it.
Straw Man
Have you ever walked away from a conversation feeling like you were speaking a different language from the other person?
It happens. Communication can be difficult.
Sometimes, though, it’s the result of a straw man fallacy. This happens when a person misrepresents an argument to make it easier to destroy.
This fallacy is employed more frequently when someone’s main goal is to win the argument. Sometimes this is intentional. Sometimes this is subconscious.
Okay, we’re gonna get into some controversial topics here. I’m not supporting or arguing against any opinions (in this post). The point is simply to recognize faulty arguments.
Examples:
Opinion #1: I choose to wear a mask to be cautious and protect others around me.
Response #1: The government shouldn’t be able to force people to wear masks.
Opinion #2: The data does not prove lockdowns work.
Response #2: You don’t care about others’ health and are willing to put them at risk by not staying at home.
Okay. These two opinions are very common. I’m not arguing for or against their validity.
These responses, however, are straw man fallacies.
How’s that?
Both responses mischaracterize the opinion and then attack the distorted version.
Let’s try these opinions again, this time with a better response:
Opinion#1: I choose to wear a mask to be cautious and protect others around me.
Response #1: I appreciate you wanting to protect others. I question the efficacy of mask-wearing. Here’s why…
Opinion #2: The data does not prove lockdowns work.
Response #2: Can you show me what data you’re using? I think lockdowns could potentially be beneficial. Here’s why…
Using a straw man fallacy is sort of like being an argument bully. Instead of debating the actual idea, a person can pick an easy target and beat up on it to make themselves look or feel better.
Let’s not score cheap points by debating a ghost. Thinking through ideas is not for the intellectually lazy. We have to put in the work.
We’ve looked at a few common logical fallacies, but there are numerous others. By being on guard, you can spot these fallacies more easily.
And then you can respond with better thinking.