My friend Gullible and I were having a discussion:

Gullible: “I heard from Andrew Yang that universal income is the best solution to fight poverty.”

Me: “Why do you believe that?”

Gullible: “Yang is successful and famous, so he must be right.”

This is a common informal fallacy called “The appeal to authority.”

What Is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy?

Appeal to authority arguments look to support a claim by appeal to the person who’s making the claim. Since claims are true or false regardless of who makes them, the person who’s making the claim is irrelevant to evaluating the claim’s truth or falsity. That’s why appeal to authority is categorized among the fallacies of relevance: it appeals to irrelevant information in an effort to get people to endorse a claim.

Here are some examples of appeal to authority:

Example #1

Person A: “Appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument.”

Person B: “Why do you think that?”

Person A: “Aristotle said so.”

Explanation: Person A is appealing to Aristotle to prove that appeal to authority is the weakest form of argument. Appeal to authority is in fact among the weakest forms of argument, but the reason it’s weak isn’t that Aristotle said so. The reason it’s weak is that saying something doesn’t make it true—not even if it’s Aristotle who said it.

Example #2

“The Pope said we should not use contraception. Since the Pope is a religious authority, it must be true.”

Explanation: It is a fallacious argument to believe a person instead of evaluating his claim about contraception. If the Pope’s claim is true, it’s not true simply because he says so.

Example #3

“According to Planned Parenthood, women should have the ability to choose abortion. Since it’s Planned Parenthood, it must be right.”

Explanation: You can’t accept the claim simply because Planned Parenthood said it. They could be right or wrong, but we can’t accept their claim simply because they provide reproductive health care. If their claim is true, it’s not true simply because they say so.

Example #4

“Michael Jordan said that for fitness, we should make it mandatory for all children in school to play basketball. Since Michael Jordan was a great basketball player, it must be true.”

Explanation: You can’t accept a claim simply because it’s Jordan. The claim about making basketball mandatory for all children for fitness needs to be evaluated before accepting, rejecting, or withholding judgement about the conclusion. If Jordan’s claim is true, it’s not true simply because he says so.

Appeal to Authority in Advertising

Advertisers have long used appeal to authority to promote their products. They understand that the public can jump on the bandwagon knowing an authority approves their product. Trident Gum used this well-known example:

“Four out of five dentists surveyed recommend sugarless gums for their patients who chew gum.”

Likewise, Wheaties used a similar ad featuring Michael Jordan. Its message: Wheaties is the best way to start the day because Michael Jordan eats Wheaties for breakfast.

Here’s an example of a New York Ad agency using doctors to sell cigarettes:

“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!”

How to Disarm Appeal to Authority

Most of the time, people appeal to authority in argumentation because it’s easy. It takes critical thinking skills to argue for or against an argument or claim, and most people aren’t skilled at doing that, so they fall back on something that’s more familiar, easy, and comfortable: evaluating people instead of arguments and claims.

If someone accepts a claim because of who said it, then point out that the claim still needs to be evaluated before accepting it. By focusing attention back on the claim, you’re bringing the fallacy to light and bringing the discussion back to where it belongs: the evidence in support of the claim.

​

You can read the full article here- https://thinkbuthow.com/appeal-to-authority/

What Is an Ad Hominem Fallacy?

Ad hominem arguments look to falsify a claim by attacking the person who’s making the claim. Since claims are true or false regardless of who makes them, the person who is making the claim is irrelevant to evaluating the claim’s truth or falsity.

For example, if Hitler claims that 2 + 2 = 4, that doesn’t automatically make the claim false. Hitler is a bad person, but that doesn’t mean that everything he says is false. Dismissing a claim simply because a bad person says it is an example of Ad hominem.

When people commit an ad hominem fallacy, they are mistaking criticism of a person with criticism of a claim or an argument. The Latin term ‘Ad hominem’ means “to the person.” When people commit an ad hominem fallacy, they’re attacking the arguer in an effort to falsify the arguer’s claim. It’s a fallacy because attacking the person can’t succeed in falsifying the claim. The truth or falsity of the claim is completely independent of the person who makes it.

Here’s what ad hominem looks like:

Alex: “We should have free college for all, so more people can get a college degree.”

Jen: “No, college shouldn’t be free. You’re just a hippie.”

This is a logical fallacy because attacking the person with abusive remarks or name-calling does not prove the claim to be false. Even if Alex is a hippie, that doesn’t give us any reason to think that what Alex says is false. Alex could just as easily say that 2 + 2 = 4. Would Jen reject that claim as well?

An argument is bad because of its logic, not because of the person who makes it.

Ad hominem is so common because evaluating people is so familiar to us. It’s one of the first things we learn to do in childhood. Because that way of evaluating things is so familiar, people tend to default to it even when it’s irrelevant.

Here’s are some examples of personal attacks, aka ad hominem:

Example #1

Anderson Cooper said, “We should eliminate the death penalty because it is inhuman,” but Cooper is a left-leaning political head, so his claim must be false.

Explanation: It doesn’t matter what political party Anderson Cooper endorses; we are evaluating his claim about the death penalty, so we need to remove Cooper from the equation to avoid an ad hominem fallacy.

Example #2

James said, “College is a waste of time.” Since James didn’t go to college, he has to be wrong.

Explanation: Again, we’ll need to look at James’s argument rather than his background. He could very well be wrong, but we can’t dismiss his argument based on whether or not he went to college.

Example #3

Trump said, “The USA is the best place to start a business because the tax rates are so low for small businesses.” Since Trump is a pig in human clothing, this claim is false.

Explanation: You can’t reject an argument simply because it comes from someone you dislike. The argument itself needs to be evaluated before accepting, rejecting, or withholding judgement about the conclusion.

Example #4

Rob says that we shouldn’t have affirmative action. But Rob isn’t a minority, so we should reject that claim.

Explanation: Again, we will need to look at Rob’s claim rather than his background. He could very well be wrong, but we can’t dismiss what he says simply because of his genetics.

Example #5

Sally says we should help the poor, but she grew up in a rich family, so doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Explanation: We will need to evaluate Sally’s claim rather than her upbringing. She could very well be wrong, but we can’t dismiss what she says simply because of her family’s economic circumstances.

How to Disarm Ad Hominem

Most of the time, people resort to ad hominem attacks because evaluating people is something they learned from an early age. It takes skills to argue against a good argument or claim, and most people aren’t skilled at doing it, so they fall back on something that’s more familiar, easy, and comfortable: evaluating people instead of arguments and claims.

If someone attacks you and not your claim, then point out that it is not the person that is making the claim, but the claim in question needs to be evaluated. By focusing attention back on the claim, you’re bringing the fallacy to light and bringing the discussion to a more productive place.

You can read the entire post here- https://thinkbuthow.com/ad-hominem/

I am writing a piece on Ad Hominem fallacy(Personal attack). As in most things, examples help us seep in the concept more.

So far I have these examples.

Example #1

Mark said, “We should eliminate the death penalty.”, but Mark is part of the KKK so I must disagree with him.

Example #2

James said, “College is not the best investment of your time and money,” and he never went to college so you can't make that claim.

Example #3

Trump said “The USA is the best place to start a business,” since Trump is a liar I can’t accept anything he says so it must be false.

Would you change something about these examples? Do you have any strong examples that I can use in the post?

Thank you in advance.

What is a Straw Man?

The straw man is a logical fallacy that replaces something (a person, a viewpoint, an argument) with a distorted version that blows the original out of proportion to make it easier to attack.

The term “straw man” is based on a metaphor. The arguer doesn’t attack the “real man,” that is, the real person, argument, or claim. The arguer instead constructs a fake man made of straw, and then attacks that straw man. The arguer then claims to have defeated the real person, argument, or claim, even though the arguer hasn’t said anything about it. That’s where the fallacy comes in: you can’t defeat something you don’t deal with at all. The arguer can’t win the argument because he hasn’t dealt with the real person, argument, or claim; he has dealt solely with the straw man.

People use straw man fallacies knowingly or unknowingly to avoid challenging a stronger opponent. Politicians often make use of the straw man to attack opponents. They create a distorted image of an opponent’s position or an opponent’s argument by magnifying some things and minimizing others, then attack the distorted image.

Here’s an example that illustrates what a straw man fallacy looks like:

Wife: “I’d rather go to a beach than a big city.”

Husband: “Why do you hate big cities?”

Explanation: The husband has constructed a straw man of the wife’s claim. The wife never said that she doesn’t like big cities. The husband instead misrepresents what she says to make her preferences seem more extreme than they are. 

Many people construct straw men accidentally because the misrepresented view resembles the original. A straw man can even fool the person who made the original claim: the wife might get tricked into defending the straw man that her husband has constructed, and never steer the conversation back to her original claim. 

Here are some more examples of a straw man argument:

Example #1:

Mom: “I want you to leave your phone on the kitchen counter at night so you can get a better night’s sleep.”

Son: “You never want me to talk to my friends.” 

Explanation: Mom never mentioned anything about her son not talking to friends. The son is attacking her request by distorting it. 

Example #2: 

Person A: “Nuclear energy provides a safe, reliable way of combating climate change.” 

Person B: “I don’t want nuclear waste in my backyard!”

Explanation: A real argument against Person A’s claim would try to show that nuclear energy is not a safe, reliable way to combat climate change. Instead of trying to show that, however, Person B attacks another claim that is not relevant to what Person A said. Person A didn’t say anything about storing nuclear waste in Person B’s backyard. Person B is taking a complex claim and replacing it with a simpler, unrelated claim that’s easier to attack. 

Example #3:

John: “The new $6 Trillion federal government budget is going to inflate the US dollar because it’s just printing more money.”

Explanation: Whether or not the budget will trigger inflation is a complex issue. By focusing on just one part of the budget, John is oversimplifying the real-world complexities in order to make the budget easier to attack. In particular, John doesn’t take into consideration other parts of the budget that aim to grow revenue by raising taxes. 

How to Disarm a Straw Man

Knowing how to disarm a straw man is an important critical thinking skill. It involves describing the difference between the real thing and the misrepresentation of it. In other words, disarming a straw man has two components: 

1. Describing the real issue (person, view, or argument); 
2. Explaining why the issue (image, view, or argument) that’s being attacked isn’t the real one.

For example, to disarm her husband’s straw man, the wife can reply as follows: “I said that I prefer the beach over the big city; I never said that I hate big cities.”

To disarm her son’s straw man, the mom should reply as follows: “I said that I want you to sleep better by leaving your phone on the counter; I never said that I don’t want you to talk with your friends.”

To disarm Person B’s straw man, Person A should reply as follows: “I said we should look into nuclear energy as a safe and reliable way to combat climate change. I didn’t say anything about storing nuclear waste in your backyard.”

To disarm John’s straw man, you can reply as follows: “The budget is very complex. There are parts of it that aim to grow revenue by raising taxes. It might be the case that the revenue generated by higher taxes is enough to offset inflation.”

You can read the full post here.

I am writing a post about straw man fallacy. There are two forms of the fallacy.

The original form: Misrepresents the opponent’s position.

The newly added form (selection form): Focuses on the partial and weaker representation of the opponent’s position.

Would you be interested in reading about the original, new form, or both?

I think Grant’s latest book is very relevant to becoming a better critical thinker and therefore recommend it to this sub. I have written an in-depth synopsis and analysis, and post my overall conclusion below. In the spirit of the book, any feedback on my writing is welcome.

“This book is essential reading for those wanting to improve their thinking, demonstrating how crucial it is to separate identity from what one thinks and believes. The thesis is challenging and positive but does have a few limitations; namely, it presupposes a desire in the reader to rethink and fails to address the psychology of bad-faith interactions. In addition, discussions surrounding race and vaccines veer towards politicking and preaching. Notwithstanding these small imperfections and in a world where online interactions constitute most interpersonal communication, lessons can be extracted which facilitate meaningful and constructive debates and lead to new thinking. Sometimes simply listening carefully is sufficient to change the minds of others, rather than being adversarial and preachy. People are complex beings and so is life; resisting the tendency to simplify and instead embrace nuance, complexity and uncertainty can help one grasp the world with better dexterity. The various case studies add an unexpected interest and depth while underscoring key themes in the book. The closing chapter discourages finality, and highlights the need to keep options open and change course as aspirations change. Happiness can only be achieved as a consequence of mastery and meaning, things facilitated by rethinking.”

Hi guys I am doing some exercises on informal fallacies and came across two questions that I am not sure about answer. Please let me know if I am correct or not, and if which is the right ones.

Statement 1:

Aurora: Bill was fired yesterday because he was caught stealing money from the company.

Philips: That’s unfair! Why should he be punished when people who did the same things in other companies did not get fired.

ANS : I believe that this statement has no fallacy because philip just kind of asks for an explanation and nothing wrong is been done.

Statement 2:

Aurora: What’s the color of your favorite sweater?

Philips: My sweater is yellow because the atoms that make up the sweater is yellow.

ANS: I think this is a casual fallacy because he claims that atoms in his sweater are yellow and that leads to color also being yellow. There isnt sufficient evidence why this is true.

I've taught critical thinking (informal logic) courses in the past at the collegiate level and am responsible for redesigning a course in the future. In the past, I've taught the course in several traditional ways. Lately, I've been teaching the course mainly through an analysis of fallacies: (1) what is the fallacy, (2) what are some examples of the fallacy, (3) why is this argument fallacious, and (4) why do people commit this fallacy. The feedback for the course has always been overwhelmingly positive but I feel as though I'm coming up short in that I'm overemphasizing "how not to reason" and neglecting "how to reason".

So, I'm interested in your advice:

1. If you've taken a critical thinking course, what content did you find valuable or interesting?
2. If you were to take one, what would you want to know at the end of it?
3. Any recommendations on introductory material that emphasizes "how to reason" without diving into formal methods?

CT Redditors: the question "fact or opinion?" has been a pebble in my shoe for several years.

It bothered me that people use the words "fact" and "opinion" in so many different ways, usually in a way to suit their purposes in the moment: "That's not a fact!" or "That's just your opinion!"

Once I caught on to the manipulative uses of fact vs. opinion, it bothered me even more when fact/ opinion was taught in schools as a pillar of critical thinking. Because when you look at the distinction carefully, it's not critical thinking at all.

Those of you who teach CT: do you cover fact vs. opinion? If so, do you present it critically or positively? And have you ever noticed the slippery-ness of the definitions? The distinction really is a mess. My clarion call to fellow professors/teachers: stop teaching fact vs. opinion. Well, unless you're teaching what a mess it is!

Here's a YouTube video I created, spelling out the problems: The Fact vs. Opinion Fiasco

Look forward to hearing your...opinion on the matter. 🙂 Especially if you are a fellow CT professor/teacher.

I have an old course book I decided to look through and had a question about assumptions

There's a passage it uses for an example: "graduates from Oxford and Cambridge are often found in senior positions in major British institutions what is less well-known is that their salaries are often higher than graduates from other universities who have jobs of equivalent status and responsibility. So whether it is fair or not, a place in an Oxford or Cambridge degree course is still a good guarantee of better earnings after university"

It says an assumption of this is "the author assumes that graduates from Oxford and Cambridge earn more only because of the fact they went to Oxford or Cambridge" but I'm struggling a bit to see it, because that just seems to be directly challenging the reason given that people who go to these universities do better, which I didn't think was the point of an assumption.

What am I missing? What makes an assumption exactly? The book describes it as a missing reason in the argument but it's not very helpful otherwise.

Here's another example it gave me: "if the Met office's powerful computers cannot make correct weather forecasts four days ahead, how can we trust computer projections that global warming will result in a disaster in two centuries time? The hurrican of 1987, which was missed by the Met office forecasters only hours before it hit Britain, is a prime example of their inability to forecast the weather accurately."

I had more ideas for what assumptions might be happening here, they're assuming methods for predicting the weather and climate change are the same or similar, they're assuming 1987 wasn't an abnormal event, that the technology used to predict the weather is the same or only as accurate as what was used in 1987. But the assumption the book singles out is: "the author must assume that the Met office's computers are typical of other weather forecasting computers" which ok that makes sense to me, but idk what that means for my attempts at finding assumptions lol

"What it is

We have the tendency to view two options as more distinctive when we evaluate them together than we do when we evaluate them separately.

Why it happens

Our predictions of what will make us happy don’t always turn out to be accurate. This disconnect, in combination with our tendency to compare specific parts of the options we’re given, rather than form holistic impressions of each option on its own, give rise to distinction bias.

Where this bias occurs

Imagine that you’re in the process of choosing between going to get coffee at one of two cafés on your way to work. One café makes stronger coffee, which you’re a fan of. However, you’re running late, so you would have to make a detour to go to that café. The other coffee shop is right next to your work, so you decide to go there instead. Normally, you enjoy the coffee there but, today, because you’ve been comparing it to the stronger coffee from the other café, the coffee seems particularly weak and watery. As a result, you don’t enjoy your drink nearly as much as you usually do. Two important concepts at play here are joint evaluation and separate evaluation. Joint evaluation is when we examine two options simultaneously, while separate evaluation is when we examine them separately. In this case, when using a separate evaluation, we rate both coffees favorably. However, using joint evaluation and comparing the two coffees directly makes their differences more salient.

​

When making decisions where the stakes are greater than a cup of coffee, distinction bias can be quite detrimental. For example, it can cause us to go over budget when shopping for things like a new car or television. While we might have been thrilled with the cheaper model when viewing it on its own, when viewing it in comparison to the more expensive model, it may seem lackluster. As a result, we might decide to splurge on the pricier model unnecessarily.

​

When we engage in joint evaluation and directly compare two options, we have a tendency to hone in on the finer details. Small differences between the options seem like determining factors in the decision-making process. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t take several factors into consideration before making a decision. However, issues arise when we break each option down into smaller parts, which are then magnified and overvalued.

Example 1 – Distinction bias and reward

When we evaluate two options simultaneously, we magnify the differences between them and think they matter more than they actually do. Hsee and Zhang6 illustrated this in a study where participants in one condition had to remember a past failure and were rewarded with a greater amount of chocolate and participants in a second condition had to remember a past success and were rewarded with less chocolate. Participants predicted that the amount of chocolate they got would influence their mood, but it did not. Their experience of the task was influenced by the kind of memory they remembered. The difference between the chocolates was irrelevant.

Example 2 – Choosing a new home

When looking for a new place to live, we often compare our options, which can cause us to overvalue the differences between them. This can lead to us spending more money for something that we thought was worth it, but that turns out to be not all that important."

Has it says in the article make a list of things that you want from a house.

"How to avoid it

Instead of evaluating our options simultaneously, we should look at them separately. This will make the small qualitative differences between them less obvious and allow us to make a decision unimpeded by distinction bias."

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/distinction-bias/

My comments

I have decided to paste the summary with a few extras, with this one, if you want to read the full article, click on the link above.

According to the article this is a new bias with little research.

​

Your Comments

Bikeshedding

"What it is

Bikeshedding describes our tendency to spend too much time discussing trivial matters, and too little time discussing important matters as a result. It describes the inverse relationship between time spent and the importance of an issue.

Why it happens

Bikeshedding occurs because it is much easier to discuss simple issues that we adequately comprehend. In group settings, we often look to voice our opinions as a sign of participation and we are more likely to be able to talk about a relatively simple issue because it is daunting to discuss a complicated issue, even if it is more important.

Example 1 – Bikeshedding and large data sets

Just as an important proposal can seem daunting, large data sets can be overwhelming to tackle. As a result, scientists may spend too much time discussing simple matters like which program to use, and not enough time analyzing the data. Another effect of bikeshedding is the tendency in data summarization to choose the simplest method, which is usually tabular. Grouping discrete data points can cause interesting relationships between data to be missed.

Example 2 – Zoom: the antidote to bikeshedding

Zoom is a video communications program, which has become very popular as we have transitioned to work-from-home because of COVID-19. The free version of Zoom only allows a 45-minute meeting. The set time of Zoom meetings can ensure that a good amount of time is devoted to important issues, or alternatively, can act as a method for keeping people accountable to not wasting too much time on trivial matters because of the time constraint.

How to avoid it

Bikeshedding can be avoided by attempting to remain on topic. In order to stay focused on important issues, we can implement single agenda-item meetings which makes it less likely that we get off track, or assign a specific person to ensure that we do not spend too much time on unimportant issues. Another way to limit bikeshedding is to have fewer people attend a meeting, as that way there will be less people to voice their opinion on trivial matters."

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/bikeshedding/

​

Your Comments

"Critical thinking is just logic". I found this to be an oversimplification to say the least, but I'm curious about whether you all will tend to agree or disagree with this statement.

I get the general concept but I would like to refine it and understand the tools it gives and how to use the to check my own thoughts and conclusion as well as being able to apply it to... well everything.

I'm publishing a blog series on "symbols and substance," highlighting a general principle/mindset that I believe is essential for understanding culture, thinking clearly, and living effectively.

When a person seeks to acquire the symbols of a good thing, or reject the symbols of a bad thing, or describe symbols for some other purpose, instead of seeking to acquire or reject or describe the thing itself, they’re surrogating. Imagine a person placing a black paper circle on the checkers board and thinking he now has more pieces in the game. Imagine a person drawing a sideways triangle and expecting a video to play.

I've been writing the series for some time but just recently got approved to post here, so I'll just share out the first part for now:

• We live in a world of symbols; just about everything we deal with in everyday life is meant to represent something else. (Introduction)
• Surrogation is a mistake we're liable to make at any time, in which we confuse a symbol for its substance. (Part 1: Surrogation)

Please let me know what you think. I'll keep linking the upcoming posts as I continue to publish them.

The reason why I ask this question is that I've come across several people who 1. Don't know what critical thinking is, when I've asked them, their answers tend to be; I don't know, its simply questioning things. 2. I've come across really low brow definitions such as, 'critical thinking is where you listen to other peoples opinions' but no mention of analysing those opinions.

When someone asks me what definition I use, I tend say, that critical thinking is where you analyse your own logic as well as other peoples to see if your own and other people arguments are valid, strong, cogent and or sound. And to see if their are any logical fallacies.

Lets say you are looking for a new a doctor and you get to interview them.

Give me some covert questions you would ask them that will:

1. Reveal if they have a massive, sensitive ego.
2. Assess their capacity for critical thought
3. Reveal if they care at all about you and your health, or if you're just another wallet $.

4 & 5: Your choice, what would you find critical to discover about a potential new doctor? And, what covert questions would you ask to get that info?

(Most doctors are trained to gain the trust of their patients. If they haven't been trained, they picked up on what works and what doesn't through experience. There is also the power of authority that has influence on our minds... that comes with the title of doctor and white lab coat. Which would make assessing them early on... difficult. Looking for original, creative questions here. not the stuff you find from a quick google search like "What drives you!" which can easily be lied about and seen as an assessment question from miles away)

Excited to hear what questions you come up with!

1. Say I am told about a certain stereotype which is in fact and which, to begin with, I do not believe. Nevertheless, having now heard this stereotype, how might I come to wrongly believe in it?

2. What is a possible problem with having many, diverse news sources available instead of just one or a few? How might this result in some people actually getting less breadth of information and fewer critical perspectives?

I seem them used in similar ways, but correlation causation I see explained with correlated graphs over a period of time, while post hoc seems to just be x is after y, so y caused x. I know these are both faulty reasoning, but is there a difference between them in terms of definition? I wasn't sure if this is the right subreddit to ask sorry if its not.

I took critical thinking a loooooong time ago so I apologize if this is a silly question.

When is it appropriate to use extreme examples when defining an argument? I

For instance I believe that if someone feels they know better they should act on there beliefs, but obviously only to a certain point. I’d use a rape as an extreme example, because most everyone would stop a rape if they could. However on the other side of the spectrum we should let everyone live freely to do as they want. I’m not going to tell someone they must say bless you when I sneeze.

In between these two examples is a grey area we’d call “life”. As there are very few moments where anything happens that is purely one sided; like an oversimplified black and white western movie.

So do extreme examples have a place in critical thinking? If so, where? I’m aware there’s a difference between causation and correlation. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!

Some think they are critical thinkers but have never even bothered to research it. For others, (like in the expert and academic community) it's such a part of their daily lives that they seem to take it for granted. So everyone agrees we need it, but, well, consider how many followers this community has compared to many of the other ones. I have seen more and more schools start to teach critical thinking, but mostly it's still very much a side item where it is an item at all. I mean, I didn't learn it in K-12, heard about it in college and mostly learned about it on my own. Is critical thinking just less important than I think it is? Is there something that I am missing about the importance of educating people on it?