![]() The Slippery Slope fallacy is often used in politics, and consists of taking an argument to the very extreme in order to make something fairly banal sound really, really bad. The Slippery Slope Fallacy Can be Misidentified, As It Concerns Minor Consequences When done less obviously, it might not even be intentional at all, as the person may not realize that what they are saying is not really relevant to the subject at hand. But, like we said, there are levels to the red herring. See, the thing about a red herring in an argument is that it entails saying something that isn’t actually relevant in order to sort of save yourself from a troublesome part of the argument and get yourself on less shaky ground. This can be done more subtly (or more obviously), and may not even be done intentionally. The red herring is also used as a rhetorical device in an argument in order to distract from the main point. This is the literary form of the red herring, used to distract people from the real bad guy so they don’t figure it out early. ![]() He seems rough around the edges, like the type of kid who would do bad stuff, but despite being gruff and a little on the meaner side, it’s never actually him. If you ever watched the cartoon A Pup Named Scooby Doo, you would be familiar with a character named Red Herring, who is constantly blamed early on for the crime by the gang, but never turns out to be the bad guy. The red herring is a classic logical fallacy that basically concerns misleading people by distraction. Red Herring’s Are Not Always Intentional, And Are More Than Just Rhetoric If something is at least a logical association, it cannot be dismissed on its own - it just can’t be the only piece of evidence you present. But it could be part of a larger argument. For example, it would be fallacious to simply argue that serial killers have turned to being mass killers instead, because the graphs correlate a drop off in serial killers with a rise in mass killers. ![]() However, it is important to keep in mind that it is only a post hoc fallacy when it is the sole basis for your argument, or when the association is pretty much completely off the wall and doesn’t really logically have anything to do with whatever you’re applying it to. A rather absurd example to get the point across would be to do a dance to try to make it rain, see it happen sometime roughly in the future after the dance, and assume that the dance caused the rain to occur. One of the most well known fallacies is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, which translates from Latin to “after this, therefore because of this.” Post hoc fallacies refer to when someone argues that something is caused by something else, simply because it happened after. Correlation Does Not Equal Causation, But It Can Be A Connection In today’s article, we will go over 10 examples of this phenomenon… 10. While many of us are familiar with some of the same famous fallacies, there are other lesser known ones that it’s important to not fall prey too, and many more well known ones that are often wrongly applied, or just not properly understood. ![]() ![]() Logical fallacies are something we all learned about in high school at least a little bit, and we have all heard teenagers throw them around (often wrongly) in internet arguments in a vain attempt to “win” something - they of course haven’t yet learned the crucial lesson that no one ever wins an argument on the internet. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |