Logical Fallacies: The Art of Argument
Logic is the science of valid inference. Inference simply means conclusion. In other words, is the conclusion logical? An argument is composed of both a premise, or premises (assumptions, data, numbers) and a conclusion.
Argument = Premises + Conclusion
In a good argument, the conclusion follows from the premises; in a bad argument, it does not. The premises may be irrelevant to the conclusion, the conclusion may be much stronger than the premises, or the inferences drawn violate basic rules of logic. When arguments go astray, someone has committed a fallacy. There are two types of logical fallacies.
Formal fallacy: an argument is false based on its structure
Informal fallacy: an argument is false based on the content of either the premise or conclusion
Take a look on social media these days and chances are someone has committed an informal fallacy. Here are a few of my favorites that I see re: the strength and conditioning industry.
Hypothetical argument: Squatting heavy increases sprint performance (or sports performance).
Ad hominem fallacy (attack of character): “Heavy squatting increases sprint performance, the only coach who disagrees with me doesn’t hold any weight in the industry because of his/her political views and is performs X training.”
Appeal to Authority (ad verecundium): “Yes, yes, of course heavy squatting decreases sprint times because (Insert Authority figure here) said so.”
Biased Sample: “I’ve seen it time and time again, heavy squatting increases sprint performance.” (The coach did not mention that the sample consisted of youth athletes with minimal training age).
Cherry Picking: “Here is the evidence (article 1, 2, 3 etc.) that heavy squatting increases sprint performance (while failing to mention those who didn’t see results in the study OR other studies with null results).”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “Since sprinting faster followed heavy squats, therefore, heavy squats increase sprint performance. (Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X)
Red Herring: (Derailing the argument by bringing considerations that are irrelevant or out of context). “I’ve seen one legged BOSU ball, balancing acts, but the only exercise that improves sprint performance is heavy squatting”.
Straw Man: (Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument). An opponent states: “There are plenty of alternatives that may increase sprint performance, such as technique, actually sprinting and single leg alternatives.” The individual responds: “So you don’t want to get fast? Isn’t speed paramount in team sport performance? Maybe your athletes don’t want to get fast?”
Sir Karl Popper was found of stating that superior theories (aka inferences/conclusions) are the result of superior explanations (difficult to falsify) and those that are better tested/criticized. Understanding informal logical fallacies enables individuals to better scrutinize explanations. The end goal may not be to engage in debate, but to improve the BS meter in unpacking arguments. The burden of “proof” should lie in those asserting the statement. However, this certainly most always is not the case. Personally, I live by Brandolini’s Law (the time it takes to refute bullshit, far exceeds the time it takes to produce it). However, spending time improving your critical thinking skills is a gift that keeps on giving! Better understanding informal logical fallacies is a great place to start!
