It’s useful to recognize logical fallacies in our own thinking so we can make more accurate conclusions about the world around us. It simply means they haven’t provided adequate evidence supporting their argument, but that evidence may in fact exist. And just because someone uses a fallacy in their argument doesn’t automatically mean they’re wrong - (that’s the fallacy fallacy!). They are NOT a sign of stupidity or lack of intelligence: they have tripped up nearly everyone at some point. Logical fallacies are common and used by people arguing both for and against nearly every pandemic topic. However, this oversimplification often leaves out important details, leading to the wrong conclusions. They are appealing because they make something complex, like vaccine safety or the efficacy of masks, into something simple and easy to understand. At their root, many are oversimplifications–like a cognitive shortcut. Logical fallacies are common patterns of reasoning that seem true on the surface but have one or more critical flaws. This fails to recognize that it is standard for scientists to receive grant funding to do their research – this is not a sign of something nefarious, but rather is a sign that the scientist has a job. Finally, this accusation is often directed at scientists, with some claiming “corruption” if they discover the scientist is “funded” by an organization like the National Institutes of Health. If they truly are biased and that bias is influencing their interpretation of the data, then a logically valid rebuttal would point out why the data interpretation is wrong, not simply attack them with accusations of bias. While it is important to consider conflicts of interests and biases, accusing someone of bias is not a logically valid rebuttal to an argument about data. This type of ad hominem fallacy tries to dispute the claim not by providing any direct evidence the claim is wrong, but by arguing that a person’s circumstances are biasing their judgement, therefore their claims must be false. The Red herring fallacy is a type of error that is used as a way of diverting people’s attention from the original topic under discussion. “Who funds you?” also falls under a second type of ad hominem fallacy: the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. In the abusive form of this fallacy, the character of the person is attacked in attempt to try to discredit them. ‘how well do the COVID vaccines work?’) but instead attacks something about the person who made the statement. An ad hominem argument (which means “to the person”) is when someone doesn’t directly address the topic under discussion (i.e. Because “who funds you?” also carries a sting of accusation (”you’re dishonest and corrupt!”) it also falls into the category of the ad hominem abusive fallacy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |