One of the highlights of my 2021 was being able to spend time with family in the US. While
there, I couldn't avoid some of the 24-hour cable news channels which often provide the background soundtrack in diners, shops, and living rooms. In order to fill 24 hours of air time, these channels broadcast hours of "opinion journalism". Hosts and guests opine about the news of the day. These exchanges are frustrating to watch as they are often lack any evidence or follow-up, and for any viewer with a minimal amount of training in logic (or common sense) - they are downright infuriating, often relying on some of the most egregious forms of logical fallacies. These segments made me reflect on the ways students and lawyers can also fall prey to these reasoning pitfalls.
Bad arguments are not unique to American cable news, nor are they confined to the comments section. They also find their way into briefs and law exams, either unintentionally due to shortcomings in the logic of the arguer, or more egregiously, on purpose to manipulate a judge, client, or the public at large into being persuaded by an otherwise unconvincing position. Logical fallacies are errors or holes reasoning that result in bad arguments. Such faulty logic is apparent to a trained eye and will strip any subsequent legitimate arguments of credibility. Learning to spot, correct, and refute these logical fallacies is an important skill that will ultimately lead to strengthened logic and improved arguments.
Logical fallacies come in many varieties and are too numerous to list here. Some common examples include:
the straw man (oversimplifying the weakest version of an opposing argument and attacking it)
the false dilemma (creating an oversimplified "either or" version of an argument)
post hoc ergo propter hoc (implying causation simply because one event preceded another one)
ad hominem (attacking the person making an argument rather than addressing the points they make)
The rise of social media and the 24-hour news cycles have ushered in an era of omnipresent arguments. Unfortunately, the quality of the arguments put out into the world appears to be inversely proportional to their quality. A misguided doctrine has developed that every issue has two valid and diametrically opposed sides. It is misguided because not all positions can be debated – particularly, when they are a matter of fact. Climate is changing. Any pundit commenting otherwise relies on tortured logic. There is room for debate among reasonable people about the best ways to ameliorate the dangerous effects of a rapidly warming globe, but to entertain an argument that climate change is a hoax is wrong.
Logical fallacies can become dangerous when they are used to bolster a meritless position to achieve a nefarious end (e.g., spreading misinformation, staying in power after being voted out, or swindling someone out of money). Of course these harmful ends can be achieved through straight-up lying, however, twisting the truth and making an argument with one of these logical fallacies is even more pernicious, as the framing as a serious argument lends a patina of credibility to an otherwise baseless position. If delivered to mimic a good faith well-reasoned argument, one may be easily be dazzled and fail to dig a bit deeper. Watching this type of sophistry take root has been particularly heartbreaking in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic.
This is not to say that positions one doesn’t agree with are “bad arguments”. Whether an argument is "bad" does not depend on the position taken, but rather on whether it follows the rules of logic, is based on evidence, and is rooted in reality. The American Bar Association provides a good primer on "logic for lawyers". And for for those who are visual learners, Ali Almossawi has written an excellent illustrated primer on bad arguments, available on the web.
Opinions and interpretations may always differ, one may look at the same facts and draw a different conclusion. This is a wonderful thing – it creates the diversity of perspectives that leads to progress. However, while conclusions may differ – the underlying facts and realities are simply not up for debate. By holding ourselves and others to a higher standard when engaging in a good faith debate over any topic, whether personal or professional, we have the chance to elevate the discussion, learn from one another, and actually create positive outcomes from engagement, rather than cycles of frustration and anger.
Comments